Instagram

<p>I am just curious if any of you currently have any mentions of Instagram in your contracts at all? Personally, I like the app itself for one reason - it is a photo based social networking site, and as someone who loves photographs, it is interesting to me to be able to see my friend's photographs in one place.<br>

<br /> On the other hand, as a photographer who puts a ton of time and effort into editing photographs before handing them over to my clients, it really does bother me when one of my clients poorly crops one of my photographs into a square and throws a crappy Instagram filter over top of it in a matter of seconds. My contract specifically states that the images are not to be altered in any way, but ever since Instagram - it's happened.<br /> <br /> And now <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/"><strong>this</strong></a> happens - Instagram announced today that as of January 16th, they will have the perpetual right to sell any and all of their users' photographs without payment to the user, a request for permission, or even a notification - even for advertising purposes. I feel like this is one of those things I should have seen coming and I will probably delete my account sometime in the near future, but moving forward, what's to stop my client's from sharing my images on Instagram? What's to stop Instagram from selling that image to another company, pocketing the cash themselves, and granting that company permission to use my images however they please? Who knows - maybe I'll wake up one day to find one of my photographs on a magazine cover in a poorly cropped square with a crappy Instagram filter over top.<br>

<br /> What are your thoughts on this change? How will you let it affect your business moving forward?</p>

<p>This strikes me as simply the latest development in a trend that has been developing for a long time: digital images are increasingly viewed by ordinary folks as in the public domain, whether they are or aren't. And then there's the very, very old trend: the big companies have more money to spend on lawyers than us little guys.</p>

<p>Recently I discovered that I can't use iTunes on my Macbook Air. Apparently I need to deauthorize all my computers (still trying to figure this out) and then reauthorize the ones that I still own. I mention this just to point out that Apple is protecting the rights of the musical copyright owners. I can listen for "free" via Pandora or Spotify but I gather they, too, are dealing with musicians in a way that respects copyrights. Stuff appears on YouTube all the time in violation of one copyright or another; but YouTube is also constantly pulling stuff down, presumably after receiving complaints from the copyright owner. What I don't know is whether your letter to YouTube needs to be written on the letterhead of a Manhattan law firm.</p>

<p>We need but don't have something similar for photos. Flickr has a pretty good system, allowing image owners to provide a Creative Commons license if they wish or to prevent downloads and protect all their own rights if they prefer to do that. But of course the problem for working photographers is that our clients don't need to download anything: we've <em>given</em> them the images on a disc.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how it's all going to end up. But right now, it doesn't look good for photographers whose products are solely digital. Get paid as much as you can up front, because after you've delivered the images, they're gone gone gone.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>Addendum: Last time I checked, Google+ <em>still</em> doesn't allow account holders to prohibit right-click downloading of photos. I understand that anybody can take a screen shot, but that limits them to a low-res (or at least lower res) copy of the image.</p>

<p>I actually also work in the music industry, so I completely understand how all of the iTunes, Pandora, and Spotify content works in regards to copyrights. Their system is much more complex then you'd think, and even though you might be listening for "free" on Spotify or Pandora, these companies are actually responsible for paying ALL of the artists each time one of their tracks is listened to. Streaming plays only yield about $0.001 per play (yes, a fraction of a cent) but at least in that respect, the musicians are still making <em>something.</em> Their music also wouldn't be available on these sites if they hadn't signed an agreement granting these companies permission to share their music.<br>

<br /> We desperately need a similar feature for Photographs. People don't even think twice about stealing other people's work and passing it off as their own anymore.. and it's sad that big corporations are now granting themselves permission to steal your photographs and do whatever they please with them - without even asking.<br>

<br /> I guess all I can really do is hope that this causes a huge uproar and that they change their minds to help Photographers and artists like us, who are slowly losing control over our own content.</p>

<p>Wouldn't Instagram/Facebook be responsible for the model release if they sold one of your photos that had people in it?</p>

 

By using Instagram, you agree to their terms which will be updated on January 16th to read:

<ol>

<li>Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. <strong>Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service</strong>, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service's Privacy Policy, available here: <a href="http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/">http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/</a>.</li>

<li><strong>Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. 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.</strong> If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.</li>

<li><strong>You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such.</strong></li>

</ol>

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't Instagram/Facebook be responsible for the model release if they sold one of your photos that had people in it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br />No. It's the end user (publisher) who would need to show an agreement for use if a dispute arose. However, not many end users would be interested in buying usage rights if no model release was available.</p>

<p>So, the Instagram cat-photo market is apparently very, very large??</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean">No, Instagram can't sell your photos: what the new terms of service really mean</a><br /><br /><br>

Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<p>Henry, that post doesn't address:</p>

<p>"<strong>Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable"</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>sub-licensable </strong><strong> </strong>... hmmm. Facebook has the same wording. What's to stop them from sub-licensing one of your images for a fee?</p>

 

<p>there is no law no constitution<br>

no individual rights, get used to it.<br>

does this come as a surprise .<br>

the power belongs to those with the self-given authority of some and the denial or legal rights to others.<br>

a few small possibly unrelated examples<br>

when chrysler was bailed out . BONDS were held for Indiana teachers and policement.<br>

one member of the supreme court referring to fat cats denied the holder of these bonds from payment<br>

My son stored photos on a web site after the company went bust he was locked out and was offered his photos back for a large .<br>

My GE cordless phone was struck by lightning ( the whole house)<br>

GE does not repair anything <br />"in this country" I no longer buy anything GE. I had previous problems with a GE refigerator and a dishwasher.<br>

after working for panasonic and seeing how they treated custo,mers.<br>

I will not buy their products. After seeing how SEARS treats customers " sell you house so you can pay us $3,000.<br>

I originally owed $700.00 they added fees on fees. I no longer deal with them.<br>

there is no law honesty or sense of responsibility.<br>

"" as the scorpion said to the frog-= you knew I was a scorpion "<br>

as they both drowned.<br>

My friend fought 7 years to get his pension bask after GE astro denied him.<br>

they are all crooks do not be surprised.<br>

as said wedding photographers may be able to sue.<br>

this photo hosting company</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Henry, that post doesn't address:<br>

"<strong>Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable"</strong><br /><br /><strong>sub-licensable </strong>... hmmm. Facebook has the same wording. What's to stop them from sub-licensing one of your images for a fee?<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly nothing but I doubt that they want to. Instead the wording is just to cover them for your images appearing in multiple locations when shared.</p>

<p>I doubt that Facebook are interested in selling images for the puny amounts they would receive compared with what they currently receive from advertising.</p>

<p>Here is Instagram's response to this. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/instagram-ads_n_2325477.html?ref=topbar">Link</a></p>

<p>BTW, to all the people who are too lazy to read the full terms, stop worrying about deleting your photos, it doesn't apply to ones already posted.</p>

<p>In the words of Instagram's co-fouder Kevin Systrom: " From the start, Instagram was created to become a business." Their privacy policy is a fascinating reading. You can find that: "If we sell or otherwise transfer part or the whole of Instagram or our assets to another organization (e.g., in the course of a transaction like a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, dissolution, liquidation), your information such as name and email address, User Content and any other information collected through the Service may be among the items sold or transferred." - in a nutshell: any information that Instagram collects about it's users can be aquired by another entity in the future.</p>

Dang, thanks for the info.

<p>Most are missing the point:<br>

Facebook and Instagram get revenue from packaging up members data and selling it to data integrators and large direct marketing companies. They basically don't give a rat's about who owns what, but they are using your details, history, conversations, photo's, buying habits etc to profile you or to do a data extraction for EDM campaigns. <br>

Facebook bought Instagram to gain their member base data. As a Facebook, Twitter or Instagram member you have a decision to make. Let them use your data and pics free of change, or cancel your account. That's the choice.<br>

Facebook brag to us in direct marketing that they have a 1 billion member base. That's a lot of rubbish. Its more like 400 million active accounts, of which a quarter are churning every month. Of the 300 million left, about half are in non English speaking countries or where the data is not so valuable. So now we are at 150 million and that starts to make sense and is manageable for accurate profiling.<br>

For me, with 30 years in public affairs and marketing, I cancelled by account. I still have a need to protect my private information.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I attempt to combat copying and downloading by only posting edited images copied from my on-line proofing site. Not only are they lower res in the first place, they all have the Copyright watermark across the middle.<br>

That is, unless someone has figured out how to lift the watermark in an editing process. I'm sure there's a way for the lawless. Law breakers always find ways around the law.<br>

I'm inclined to become a "law abiding citizen." Spork anyone?</p>

<p>Photo.net Terms and Conditions of Use</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>You also grant us a perpetual non-exclusive worldwide royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display your User Content on the Site and to promote the Site</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I attempt to combat copying and downloading by only posting edited images copied from my on-line proofing site.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That only works for people who don't sell their images. Nobody pays me to see my watermark, they get posted on the web. I have one photo that has shown up on over 100 web sites even though there are only half a dozen licensed users. Most copies were downloaded from the initial use. If you don't sell your images, it probably doesn't matter that much.</p>

<p>The only way to fight it is to watermark your pictures on social sites and to register your pictures with the copyright office before you ever let them be seen. We collectively don't have something like ASCAP or giant publishers to help us, so we will probably loose any fight. We don't even have someone famous and cute to make PSAs on tv telling people they are stealing from us.</p>