If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   MSM offers tech advice on how to protect your photos on Instagram. Advice: Don't use Instagram   (money.cnn.com) divider line 22
    More: Obvious, MSM  
•       •       •

716 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Dec 2012 at 10:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-19 10:24:04 AM
Not that I have an account with Insta gram.  I wonder if you would have a case if the photo they use is already copy righted by you.  The copy right would give you the right to put the photo up on their website since you own it. Would this take away tthe companys  right to instatly use your photo for what ever they wish?
 
2012-12-19 10:51:11 AM
Outlets who never read the original terms of service are now SHOCKED! and OUTRAGED! over the revised terms of service?
 
/yawn
 
2012-12-19 11:04:22 AM

Nhojwolfe: Not that I have an account with Insta gram.  I wonder if you would have a case if the photo they use is already copy righted by you.  The copy right would give you the right to put the photo up on their website since you own it. Would this take away tthe companys  right to instatly use your photo for what ever they wish?


And what if someone puts your photo up? You have no rights to say how it is used?

/Just deleted my never-used account.
 
2012-12-19 11:14:51 AM
What happens if you upload a bunch of photos of someone else?
 
2012-12-19 11:15:21 AM
I still say you guys overusing this filter effect kit will look back in 10-15 years and wonder what the f you were thinking.  Instagrammed pics are this generations big hair and day-glo spandex.
 
2012-12-19 11:18:16 AM
<i>If you're bothered by the idea of someone making money off your creative work on Instagram, that a different issue. You're using a free service, and as Instagram said Tuesday in its blog post: "From the start, Instagram was created to become a business." </i>

I'm kind of bothered by lack of editing in MSM articles too, but nobody asked me about that one either.
 
2012-12-19 11:19:38 AM
And most of all, I'm bothered by dysfunctional fark changes to stuff thats worked fine for years.  I used HTML buttons, added <i> with the i key like always, and you see the result.
 
I'm sure I'll get over it, but wouldn't testing changes be a fun idea sometimes prior to releasing them?
 
2012-12-19 11:22:17 AM

Generation_D: I still say you guys overusing this filter effect kit will look back in 10-15 years and wonder what the f you were thinking.  Instagrammed pics are this generations big hair and day-glo spandex.


That my thoughts. I recounted an anecdote in another thread about a friend of mine that has a 1 year old son. Every picture he has of him is taken in Instagram sepia piss-tone. I'm wondering at what point he'll regret not having a regular photograph of his infant son.
 
2012-12-19 11:27:59 AM

MightyPez: Generation_D: I still say you guys overusing this filter effect kit will look back in 10-15 years and wonder what the f you were thinking.  Instagrammed pics are this generations big hair and day-glo spandex.

That my thoughts. I recounted an anecdote in another thread about a friend of mine that has a 1 year old son. Every picture he has of him is taken in Instagram sepia piss-tone. I'm wondering at what point he'll regret not having a regular photograph of his infant son.


Precisely. I assume with this insta-thingy that the originals aren't kept in a pristine state?
 
2012-12-19 11:31:27 AM
Watched a news segment yesterday where an underage girl's photobucket/imageshack/etc account was hacked, and the pictures eventually made it to her school, were circulated amongst her classmates, caused her grief and made her eventually switch schools.

The dad was talking to the host (the family was in studio) and the host asked "So, what have you learned is the best way to protect yourself from these types of attacks?"

I couldn't believe that he dad, with a straight face and his daughter sitting next to him as able to manage: "Well, we just don't know. You see those hackers are malicious and once they've targeted you there's not much you can do to protect or defend yourself."

Or, you know, you could teach your daughter not to act like a whore on the internet, and not take said pictures in the first place. 

Maybe he thinks that would constrain his child's freedoms or something. Parental denial is a strong, strong thing.
 
2012-12-19 11:41:24 AM

fustanella: MightyPez: Generation_D: I still say you guys overusing this filter effect kit will look back in 10-15 years and wonder what the f you were thinking.  Instagrammed pics are this generations big hair and day-glo spandex.

That my thoughts. I recounted an anecdote in another thread about a friend of mine that has a 1 year old son. Every picture he has of him is taken in Instagram sepia piss-tone. I'm wondering at what point he'll regret not having a regular photograph of his infant son.

Precisely. I assume with this insta-thingy that the originals aren't kept in a pristine state?


Hmm, I would have thought the originals were kept and the various filters added on afterwards, otherwise if you wanted to change the filter/effect used they would be additive and eventually all images on their site would just be an odd brown blur.
 
2012-12-19 11:45:13 AM

grinding_journalist: Watched a news segment yesterday where an underage girl's photobucket/imageshack/etc account was hacked, and the pictures eventually made it to her school, were circulated amongst her classmates, caused her grief and made her eventually switch schools.

The dad was talking to the host (the family was in studio) and the host asked "So, what have you learned is the best way to protect yourself from these types of attacks?"

I couldn't believe that he dad, with a straight face and his daughter sitting next to him as able to manage: "Well, we just don't know. You see those hackers are malicious and once they've targeted you there's not much you can do to protect or defend yourself."

Or, you know, you could teach your daughter not to act like a whore on the internet, and not take said pictures in the first place. 

Maybe he thinks that would constrain his child's freedoms or something. Parental denial is a strong, strong thing.


So what you are saying is that the current younger generations should behave better than all previous generations because it is easier for their mess ups to be broadcast and persist than previous generations equivalent indiscretions? I don't think you have a very good handle on human behavior if you think that will ever happen.
 
2012-12-19 11:52:56 AM
Furthermore, just don't use Instagram.
 
2012-12-19 12:10:49 PM
If I don't use Instagram, how will I show off pictures of food?
 
2012-12-19 12:21:08 PM
Since Google bought snapseed it is now free and can post to either facebook or g+. It is a lot like instagram but has a lot of additional features to make photos look good even when you don't want them to look retro.
 
2012-12-19 01:11:50 PM
I never got instagram, why would i want to make the already mediocre photos taken with my phone camera look like shiat? 
 
2012-12-19 01:21:44 PM

xria: So what you are saying is that the current younger generations should behave better than all previous generations because it is easier for their mess ups to be broadcast and persist than previous generations equivalent indiscretions? I don't think you have a very good handle on human behavior if you think that will ever happen.


I'm absolutely not saying that. I'm saying that if you want to engage in that type of behavior, you need to accept the consequences should they occur. You can engage in titillating behavior and not have the world find out, fairly easily. I have no sympathy for those that cry when reality slaps them in the face.

If you don't want naked photos of yourself found, don't have them lying around. Hey, that even rhymes!
 
2012-12-19 04:20:21 PM
It's time for the Great Instagram Goatse Project.

Simply upload crap to instagram, and let them sell it.
 
2012-12-19 05:34:13 PM

Nhojwolfe: Not that I have an account with Insta gram.  I wonder if you would have a case if the photo they use is already copy righted by you.  The copy right would give you the right to put the photo up on their website since you own it. Would this take away tthe companys  right to instatly use your photo for what ever they wish?


As I understand it, the Federal Copyright Act of 1976 states that the photographer owns the copyright of any photograph taken from the moment of creation. So, every photo, outside of some limited circumstances, from a professional studio shot to a duck lips mirror shot on facebook is copyrighted.

So, no case would be my guess. Instagram's terms would've had some legalese wriggling out of copyright restrictions and probably figure it's been signed over to them upon uploading the image.

Good rule of thumb: never ever, ever touch anything remotely related to Zuckerberg or anyone else like him.
 
2012-12-19 06:02:30 PM
I just signed up for an account so I could cancel it in a huff of righteous indignation.
 
2012-12-19 06:17:53 PM
Yes, let's mock those suckers for agreeing to terms that allow someone else to use their user-generated content...

However, by submitting the Submissions to Fark.com, you hereby grant Fark.com a non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Submissions in connection with Fark.com and Fark.com's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of Fark.com (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels/outlets.

Nhojwolfe: Not that I have an account with Insta gram.  I wonder if you would have a case if the photo they use is already copy righted by you.  The copy right would give you the right to put the photo up on their website since you own it. Would this take away tthe companys  right to instatly use your photo for what ever they wish?


No one is claiming copyright. Their text is a lot like the one above. You post the photo, that grants them a license to, you know, display it on the Internet and store it on their servers etc. The whole "commercial" panic in Instagram's new ToS is coming from:

To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

Which is their way of saying, "you know that douchey stuff Facebook does where it sticks you friend's face next to an ad for crap you don't want and uses them as an endorsement? We plan on doing that here too, but with a sepia-toned image of a fallen tree instead of their headshot." Keep in mind it doesn't say they can sell it, they say that others can pay them to display the content you've already given them a license to in a way you've already given them a license to. (Not marking the ads as sponsored ads, might be illegal though. I know there was some mention of that being tossed around too).

You don't need a GED in law to understand this from a quick skimming. Yet every time anyone reads "non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable..." they run to social media and make a big deal out of it. Same words... Fark, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, any site with user-generated content. Instagram's old ToS was the odd one out.
 
2012-12-22 05:28:55 PM

ProfessorOhki: Yes, let's mock those suckers for agreeing to terms that allow someone else to use their user-generated content...

However, by submitting the Submissions to Fark.com, you hereby grant Fark.com a non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Submissions in connection with Fark.com and Fark.com's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of Fark.com (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels/outlets.

Nhojwolfe: Not that I have an account with Insta gram.  I wonder if you would have a case if the photo they use is already copy righted by you.  The copy right would give you the right to put the photo up on their website since you own it. Would this take away tthe companys  right to instatly use your photo for what ever they wish?

No one is claiming copyright. Their text is a lot like the one above. You post the photo, that grants them a license to, you know, display it on the Internet and store it on their servers etc. The whole "commercial" panic in Instagram's new ToS is coming from:

To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

Which is their way of saying, "you know that douchey stuff Facebook does where it sticks you friend's face next to an ad for crap you don't want and uses them as an endorsement? We plan on doing that here too, but with a sepia-toned image of a fallen tree instead of their headshot." Keep in mind it doesn't say they can sell it, they say that others can pay them to display the content you've already given them a license to in a way you've already given them a license to. (No ...


You'd think these guys would get smart though.... why not cut people in on the action?   I guarantee you then you'd hardly see anything pitching a fit if they'd actually made this a full announcement, and said "YOU can make money with your photos!", and they wouldn't even have to cut them in 50/50 (I'd guess 10-15% of what they got for using the photo would be fine for most people.... hey, it's "Free Money"!).

When a photo got used you would have to assert that you (or your immediate family) were the only people in the photos.   They could have even had something where if not, you could tag the other people, and they'd contact them on FB and if they all agreed, everyone split up the "consumer" piece of the ad action.

But, no, companies are rich, greedy Farks now.  Too rich and greedy for their own good.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report