Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Instagram to sell photos commercially without compensation.

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Consulo
Consulo  10768 forum posts Scotland10 Constructive Critique Points
18 Dec 2012 - 1:28 PM

This may be already being discussed on the site (can't find an existing thread - apologies if it does exist), but I'd thought I'd draw attention to this story for instagram users that may be on this site.

Come January 16th next year, Instagram will be able to sell your images for commercial purposes with no remuneration for the image taker. They will also be able to use the likeness of the photographer as well, which is very worrying indeed (if people have uploaded avatars of themselves).

Read about it here.

I guess this has come about due to the takeover by the evil Facebook Corporation. Whilst I in no way assume that my images would be used in a such a way (though, who knows?), there are plenty of images that will be snapped up, I'm sure. I wholeheartedly object to this move and I've just deleted my account in protest.

Last Modified By Consulo at 18 Dec 2012 - 1:31 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
18 Dec 2012 - 1:28 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed
18 Dec 2012 - 1:56 PM

And cue outcry by ePzers who don't use services like Facebook and Instagram who will now cite this as another reason they don't use em Smile

Consulo
Consulo  10768 forum posts Scotland10 Constructive Critique Points
18 Dec 2012 - 2:09 PM

For me, the real shame about this move is how it just further erodes the market for people who are trying to make a living out of photography. Stock work will just be another revenue stream for the vast majority of pros, but moves like this don't help.

I'm no ludditte when it comes to facebook and the like and I do use them, but it seems their own revenue stream is what matters most and to hell with everyone/thing else (though I suppose, it's ever been thus).

JackAllTog
JackAllTog e2 Member 53646 forum postsJackAllTog vcard United Kingdom58 Constructive Critique Points
18 Dec 2012 - 2:17 PM

Its a bit of an assumption isn't it - If it was your car parked in a private car park and they decided that they could sell it to whoever they wanted after the 16th Jan then it would be obvious theft.

Free picture storage has to come at a cost to someone.

User_Removed
18 Dec 2012 - 2:17 PM

I think we need to look at this objectively.

Facebook and Instagram are "free" services which many people get a lot of "free" pleasure from.

It is, therefore, not unreasonable that they seek to generate income streams from methods other than charging fees.

No-one is forced to use those free services. If they don't like the T&Cs, then they can simply avoid (or stop) using them.

I think there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, punters accepting a service provider's T&Cs which might include allowing their images to be sold or otherwise exploited by the service provider to help pay for the service and, on the other hand, someone pirating a photograph from a professional photographer's business website and using it without authorisation.

oldblokeh
oldblokeh  3824 forum posts United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 - 2:26 PM

The one area that I would have concern about is the use to which such images might be put. Imagine if it were an image you took of a close relative, for example, being sold on and used in advertising for abortion clinics/anti-abortion organisations/[insert your pet hate here] ?

Consulo
Consulo  10768 forum posts Scotland10 Constructive Critique Points
18 Dec 2012 - 2:29 PM

Fair points, though it is facebook who have monetized instagram. Maybe someone who is more interested can do a search that says otherwise, but as far as I'm aware there were no plans to monetize it in the immediate future.

paulcookphotography


Quote: I think we need to look at this objectively.

Facebook and Instagram are "free" services which many people get a lot of "free" pleasure from.

It is, therefore, not unreasonable that they seek to generate income streams from methods other than charging fees.

No-one is forced to use those free services. If they don't like the T&Cs, then they can simply avoid (or stop) using them.

I think there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, punters accepting a service provider's T&Cs which might include allowing their images to be sold or otherwise exploited by the service provider to help pay for the service and, on the other hand, someone pirating a photograph from a professional photographer's business website and using it without authorisation.

Totally agree.

I have used IG for a while either for promoting some of my artwork or just sharing the dodgy night out with some mates, and until now its been great.

If they offered a option to continue being free and following the route they are taking, or setting up a subscription/paid for service where your work was 'safe' then i would probably choose to take the paid for service than deleting my account.

They have to make money in some way, and this it their choice of action. For the vast majority of users, its not ever going to effect them, but for those who have to control image usage, then its time to make some changes

cathal
cathal  10492 forum posts Ireland4 Constructive Critique Points
18 Dec 2012 - 3:12 PM

On an ethical and moral standpoint, I have issues with somebody profiting from another persons work without the profits being shared with all the parties concerned. Instagram costs money to run, and they must recover their costs somehow. However, from what I've read on the BBC News website, they could sell a lot more than just your photo.

Once you put your photo on their site, you have no control over its use. For a lot of people, they simply won't care (showing just how little people actually value photography these days!) and they photos would probably be garbage anyhow. Every second, sixty photographs are uploaded to Instagram. That works out at 5.1 million pictures a day. If even only 0.1% of pictures were marketable... that's over 500 pictures a day.

Could be good business there, but not for the creators of the content.

ElectricalImage

The view that these organisations have to make a living somehow, so why not monetize the service looks very much like common sense, but actually it doesn't bear inspection.

1. Facebook make a handsome living from advertising related services - the ads we see on the home page are targeted, using the information they already have about us. The corporation might not make paper profits, but no individual associated with it will be short of Christmas cheer this year.

2. None of these internet based organisations exist for charitable purposes. PGP was probably the last one. Like every other startup, Instagram was always going to be monetized, the only thing delaying it was 'how'. The modus operandi for many of these firms is a) get venture capital, b) attract an audience, c) Sell to the highest bidder. It's an established entrepreneurial method, deferring the risk to the venture capitalists.

3. Yes, they have every right to attempt to make money from us. In the absence of regulation, only the market will determine how far they will go. And go they will.

The bottom line surely is - if you don't want your photographs to be sold on without compensation, then don't put them on Instagram. The reality is that only a tiny proportion of photographs will be used in this way, but its up to the individual to decide whether the numbers add up to a risk worth taking.

779HOB
779HOB  21021 forum posts United Kingdom
18 Dec 2012 - 3:32 PM

From reading Twitter I wouldn't think Instagram will have any photos left by the 16th of Jan to sell. There's a lot of accounts being deleted.

robthecamman
18 Dec 2012 - 6:34 PM

chris never start a new sentence with and bad english. on the subject never heard of instagram dont use twitter or facebook guess the more do use. copyright goes down pan dont you understand how the media works why trust them now?

scruffytrafford

As per IG blog......... Rights
Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. 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, 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: http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/.
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. 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.
You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such.
You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Service or otherwise have the right to grant the rights and licenses set forth in these Terms of Use; (ii) the posting and use of your Content on or through the Service does not violate, misappropriate or infringe on the rights of any third party, including, without limitation, privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, trademark and/or other intellectual property rights; (iii) you agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owed by reason of Content you post on or through the Service; and (iv) you have the legal right and capacity to enter into these Terms of Use in your jurisdiction.

mikehit
mikehit  56536 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
18 Dec 2012 - 8:15 PM


Quote: Chris never start a new sentence with and bad english. on the subject never heard of instagram dont use twitter or facebook guess the more do use. copyright goes down pan dont you understand how the media works why trust them now?

As opposed to lack of punctuation and lack of prepositions... Wink

answersonapostcard
answersonapostcard Site Moderator 1012607 forum postsanswersonapostcard vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
18 Dec 2012 - 8:36 PM

Instaport, for those wanting to remove pictures - this makes it easier to do. Seems like alot of accounts being deleted, well done Facebook for ruining a really nice part of the web Grin

Heard someone uploading pictures of cow poo and alike so all they have to sell is c**p ;0

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.