Bottom line: If you don't like the terms, don't use the "service".
...Wayne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Norton [mailto:ken@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2012 8:26 AM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] Instagram Wants To Sell Users' Photos Without Notice
>
> Sans T-Shirt Moose wrote:
>
> > Legal terms and reality are often unrelated. Are there people who will
> > be happy to use images off Instagram, or any web display, no matter how
> poor quality? Absolutely.
>
> Actually, there has been some pretty fascinating and decent stuff that has
> been done by professional and expert photographers through Instagram. I
> think many of us are formulating our opinions based on some junk sent to
us
> by our relatives with junk cellphones.
>
>
> > Are they any more likely to pay Instagram for the images they cop off
the
> screen than any other site? Absolutely not.
>
> Actually, I would disagree with this assessment. Let's say that I want to
> illustrate my www.Zone-10.com website with Instagram photos--not just as a
> means of editorial content, but purely as decoration. Can I grab screen
shots
> and do that? Yes, but not legally. Can I buy them from Instagram for, oh,
say
> $1 apiece? With this new agreement the answer is a blatent yes! Instagram
> pockets the dollar and the person who made the photograph doesn't even
> know the image has been used, much less get even a penny.
>
> The argument you put forth, Moose, is remarkably similar to that put forth
by
> those who didn't see "microstock" killing the stock-image industry either.
As
> always, you have a certain percentage of people producing quality images
> and just because they happen to use Instagram for whatever reason, they've
> handed an entire profit potential to another company with nothing tangible
> in return. There is a HUGE market for microstock photographs.
> Unfortunately, only a small handful of people are making any significant
> money producing the images, but the microstock agencies are doing pretty
> well.
>
> What has me knotted up, though, is model-releases. The way the user-
> agreement is written, Instagram wipes its hands free of any liability in
> concern to model-releases and opens up the photographer to lawsuits if one
> of the images is sold without a model-release. So, basically, we're doubly
> hosed because we have to make sure that we never Instagram a photo
> without model-releases of everybody in it and we get no money for the use
> of the photo. So, the photographer assumes 100% of the liability without
any
> benefits.
>
> This really is uglier than what meets the eye.
>
>
> > Just because they claim the right to do so doesn't mean they will.
>
> They will and already are. I've been pointed to several examples already.
The
> existing agreement is pretty open-ended and they've been exploiting it
> without telling anybody. The agreement change that they shot themselves in
> the foot with just tells us what they are already starting to do.
>
>
> > I suppose my deeper question is why anybody on this list would post
> > images on such a service - and if so, why they would care what happens
to
> them after they have been mangled.
>
> Did you rump get frozen to the peak of that mountain top you are sitting
on?
> Your bias is showing.
>
> AG
>
> --
> Ken Norton
> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.zone-10.com
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|