On 12/19/2012 1:25 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> 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.
I could bandy words, and say that 'they' in the above sentence is explicitly
limited to those defined in the first
sentence. But I take your point.
> 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.
As above, that doesn't concern those I was talking about.
> 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.
I wasn't involved in any discussion of that. I just assumed that it would do
so. The market for high quality stuff was
declining, even as the market for lower quality stuff, particularly for web
use, was growing. It is assumed by many that
no one can tell the difference. And to an extent, that's true, just not to the
extent that some folks operating with no
budget or time may think.
> 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.
Self Made Idiots. Others have made this point. If they think free display is
the way to go, and think no one is going to
value their work the same, they are fools.
> 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.
Things change, markets come and go. I feel compassion for those whose former
livelihood has dried up. Yet, the world
changes, and is as it is.
> 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.
Ah well, yet another reason to limit me images to those without people. ;-)
Of course, I've just taken many people
pics in the last couple of days.
> This really is uglier than what meets the eye.
If you don't like the kids, step out of the sandbox.
>
>> 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 ...
You've already started back-pedaling on this one, so I needn't comment - at
least until you find a stable position. (Oh,
now that I reread that ... Really, I didn't mean mucking out.)
> 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.
Chuck said it. Politicians and business people, among others, say and do
outrageous things - so they can back down to
what they wanted in the first place.* Whether that is the case here, it's true
so often that it must be considered probable.
>
>> 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.
I'm not sure what you are saying. My bias is that folks should learn with whom
they are getting in bed, and make
informed decisions. At least if they care about specific outcomes. Throwing
things down a well is likely to get them
wet. Bitching about what they should have known going in is foolish. Continuing
to do the same thing over again has been
claimed by some to be a definition of mental illness.
A brother wasn't careful with whom he slept. A wife was enamored of Kaiser
healthcare, in spite of warning signs. Both
are dead. Losing rights to a few images through carelessness is peanuts.
Take the lumps, learn, and move on.
Curmudgeon In Training Moose
* It may even have been the case that I was accused of such behavior, when
negotiating a joint venture. A scurrilous
lie, of course. It was the lead negotiator using the numbers guy as a stalking
horse. I kind of hoped we could get the
price I proposed, but wasn't surprised when we didn't. It was still a good
deal. The stupid one was my boss, who nixed
my idea about paying for it. Oh well, what's a few million among friends? :-)
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|