Comments on: Miami…Calvin

By: Gordon Lafleur

Gordon Lafleur — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:23:21 +0000

Now did you go and lighten this photo up?

By: Thomas Bregulla

Thomas Bregulla — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:59:37 +0000

The updated TOS of Instagram sound softer, but actually to me seem having the same goals and consequences, but written in a way to hide the real message.

with this statement “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”, they don’t need to own anything – they can do whatever they like, including giving others the right to show or print the pictures, without further permission asking. This is, however, the same license we give when signed into facebook.

the updated TOS are here http://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/updated/

As an alternative service, EyeEm seems to be a little fairer,
http://www.eyeem.com/terms
http://www.eyeem.com/privacy
most importantly, I see nowhere anything like sub-licensing. Please read yourself, maybe I overlooked it.

you can find me under http://www.eyeem.com/thomasbregulla

By: Jim Powers

Jim Powers — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:58:02 +0000

Paul, like the old drag racing question goes, “Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?”

By: Imants

Imants — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:54:56 +0000

……..if you don’t want to embark down the open slather road photographers will have to start paying for posting on the social media sites, after all they are getting free advertising of their product. It has been free up to now but people are investing in these companies just as they do in solar energy companies banks etc, there has to be a return for their investment to keep those sites afloat. Advertising space will never bring in enough money.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:03:07 +0000

I’ve said it before and it’s probably not a viable idea, but snail mail and a group of online photographer friends sending each other once a month their best photo to each other is just another way. Boring probably compared to the instantaneous speed of Instagram but I bet it would be thoroughly more rewarding than a Jpeg.

By: Imants

Imants — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 05:45:57 +0000

soon all on the net will be open slather

By: Imants

Imants — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 05:45:17 +0000

The world of communication is changing so is the value of images is no longer what it was in the past.

By: mtomalty

mtomalty — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 05:42:22 +0000

“It’s no longer social media but social licensing…………Too much paranoia here and bizarre grief”

Hardly. Up until December 1 of this year, my principal stock agency has licensed over $50k for
unauthorized use of my archive images alone. I am one photographer of hundreds in the agency and they are one
agency of dozens.
This figure does not represent any punitive damages as their policy is to try to educate the
‘offenders’ and convert them into return clients.
This figure only represents actions against commercial uses of our images by ad agencies,
design firms,etc

By: mw

mw — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:16:47 +0000

I’m in total agreement with Imants on this one. If you show anything on the internet, anyone who comes across it has the right to use it however they want. If they can sell it, more power to them. And don’t forget that corporations are people too. If a big corporate person wants to take your work and sell it, they’re only exercising their God-given constitutional right. It’s the exact same thing as when we drive by a farmer’s field and decide to pack up all the produce and sell it at the nearest farmer’s market, or to Walmart, whicheverever pays the most. Or if we go into the Apple store and fill up our pockets with IPhones to sell on Craig’s list. Nobody complains about that kind of thing. What’s with all this property shit, anyway? Best to just lay back and think of the billionaires.

By: Imants

Imants — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:04:58 +0000

chuckle

By: Jim Powers

Jim Powers — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:39:30 +0000

Instagram is crap. Users deserve what they get.

By: Imants

Imants — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:10:57 +0000

advertising we all do it love it http://www.etrouko.com/artouko.html

By: Thomas Bregulla

Thomas Bregulla — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:17:03 +0000

burn diary I would like to go for :)

here is the answer from instagram on their blog:
http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening

By: Carlo

Carlo — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:14:43 +0000

Paul,

Yes….BURN diary!

Eva,

Have you tried Starmatic?

By: Carlo

Carlo — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:12:29 +0000

Interesting article here:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean

They are “listening” ;-)))

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3781860/instagram-on-its-new-tos-its-not-our-intention-to-sell-your-photos

“Instagram has just responded to the public outcry over its changes to the company’s terms of service today, saying that the company is “listening,” and that “it’s not our intention to sell your photos” — to fix the problem, it will update its terms of service. ”

“Instagram users own their content.”

By: eva

eva — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:34:24 +0000

Starmatic an option? Instagram pics can be imported.. anybody finds something in their terms if use that kills this as an option?

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:28:25 +0000

Well then with Instagram changing it’s rules, it’s time for Burn to bring out the long awaited Burn Diary.

By: Imants

Imants — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:54:51 +0000

Remember not to post ideas on the net someone could use them for their own gain……..as for the photos the flow will not abate good bad indifferent important unimportant useful useless all get lost in the mix.
It’s no longer social media but social licensing…………Too much paranoia here and bizarre grief

By: mtomalty

mtomalty — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:47:40 +0000

With those terms, I think you’d have to be an imbecile to continue to use the platform
if you are a working photographer.

The minefield that this type of clause facilitates is scary.

As an example, I go to a DAH exhibit featuring his work. I happily snap with my iPhone
and I Instagram the shit out of every pic I like and upload.

What then stops an unwise client of Instagram,etc to then license these DAH images for commercial
applications bypassing David and Magnum in the process. It’s no longer social media but social licensing.

Would it happen? Probably not. Could it happen? In the blink of an eye.

Free is never free.

By: Jim Powers

Jim Powers — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:34:48 +0000

Ah, link didn’t work

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/what-instagrams-new-terms-of-service-mean-for-you/