IDiivil wrote:
I certainly hope this is wrong... saw this in my FB feed earlier and am very concerned now

I'm not concerned about it for a personal standpoint, I don't "Instagram". BUT these sites with their "rights grab" are just blood sucking leeches who hope no one reads the TOS- that concerns me a lot.

Jeff Fiore wrote:

I'm not concerned about it for a personal standpoint, I don't "Instagram". BUT these sites with their "rights grab" are just blood sucking leeches who hope no one reads the TOS- that concerns me a lot.

I hate that buzzword. It's not a rights grab. The user is granting IG an unrestricted usage license for any media uploaded and any action taken thru their site.

Crack The Sky wrote:
Really?

So if a model uploads your image to instagram then you lose all your rights on the image even though you didnt upload it?

This is actually what these sorts of terms and conditions are often intended to cover - they're intended to protect Instagram from almost any conceivable sort of litigation.  By agreeing to the terms and conditions you are asserting that you have the right to grant usage rights, and anything else they can think of.

So, if a model does the uploading without owning the copyright, or having usage rights, or whatever, the real owner of the copyright, or whatever, can't, according to the terms and conditions, sue Instagram.  The model might be liable, but Instagram won't.

salvatori. wrote:
I realize that Instagram is all photos, but regarding Facebook (which I know owns IG), does the policy extend to things other than photos?

For example, if a person writes a poem and posts it on their FB page, can Facebook take that poem and sell it to, let's say, Hallmark?

Without going through all the terms and conditions, the answer is probably yes.

On the other hand, if you copied a poem from a Hallmark card and posted it on Facebook, Hallmark probably wouldn't be able to sue Facebook for breach of copyright, because, under the terms and conditions, you, as the uploader of the poem, somewhere agreed that you owned the copyright and you transferred it to them.  However, since you didn't own the copyright, it's you Hallmark will go after, not Facebook.

These sorts of terms and conditions are quite common.  It's up to you to decide if you think they're intended to protect Facebook, Instagram, etc., from litigation, or whether they're rights grabs to take your copyright away from you.  Most sites with these terms and conditions don't actually violate your copyright to any meaningful degree, and it probably isn't in their best interests to do so, but, of course, there are rogues out there.

And there is no law which requires you to post images on Instagram anyway.

Kent Art Photography wrote:

Without going through all the terms and conditions, the answer is probably yes.

On the other hand, if you copied a poem from a Hallmark card and posted it on Facebook, Hallmark probably wouldn't be able to sue Facebook for breach of copyright, because, under the terms and conditions, you, as the uploader of the poem, somewhere agreed that you owned the copyright and you transferred it to them.  However, since you didn't own the copyright, it's you Hallmark will go after, not Facebook.

These sorts of terms and conditions are quite common.  It's up to you to decide if you think they're intended to protect Facebook, Instagram, etc., from litigation, or whether they're rights grabs to take your copyright away from you.  Most sites with these terms and conditions don't actually violate your copyright to any meaningful degree, and it probably isn't in their best interests to do so, but, of course, there are rogues out there.

And there is no law which requires you to post images on Instagram anyway.

Thanks. I understand that there is a difference between owning a copyright and granting usage rights, and I can see that most people will be initially upset that IG/FB gets usage, but that the person will somehow feel better when they learn that they still 'own' their image (even though they never made any money).

All somewhat murky and I'm sure that's what they are counting on. I mean, this is a photographer/model site and look at how many times issues of copyright and usage come up...

IDiivil wrote:
I certainly hope this is wrong... saw this in my FB feed earlier and am very concerned now

Have you read your FB terms of usage?  They assume a license too.

Jean Renard Photography wrote:
EDITED.............The wording is very clever and is in fact a payment for the use of their service.  You use it, you pay via your data and images.  Keep in mind that while this might strike some of you as new and egregious,  many apps routinely up their level of permissions with each new version and people don't seem to care or understand the value in what they are giving away.  This is the latest attack on copyright and privacy....

I think we'll see more and more changes to all sorts of free  photo storage programs and social networking sites.  They have millions of subscribers and no real way to make money except through advertising.   

There's no surprise that FB stock tanked.  People realized they really don't have a strong business model. So they do what they can to make money.

Their biggest asset are their subscribers.  Will this make them rich? Probably not. Will many subscribers actually be affected by these new usage terms? Probably not.

I think this affects people who depend on their images to make a living, more than the hobby shooter.

salvatori. wrote:
......
I don't know if FB owns a stock photo agency, but if they don't, I can't see that being too far off into the future. So, they take a pic of my kids, put it into the stock portfolio, and sell it to 'Architectural Digest' and they end up using it on the cover.....

Are you saying this actually happened or is it hypothetical?

Brhum wrote:
Also being covered by CNET

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559 … ur-photos/

According to the article they've made repeated attempts to contact FB for a response / clarification on the issue but have not had any response back - which they find worrying.

FB is as fucked up and NON-customer friendly and non-responsive, as you can GET! 
There's nothing social about their site.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
Are you saying this actually happened or is it hypothetical?

Oh, I have no idea (no one knows less about what's happening in the digital world than me...), but it seems like a natural thing for them to do.

If they own usage rights to millions of photos, why not pick and choose the good ones and stockpile them to show ad agencies, etc., in the hopes for sales?

I wouldn't even be surprised if FB allows for larger pic files to be uploaded (if in fact there is a size limit presently) so that they have higher quality images to sell.

Mind you, I don't like any of that, but as many would say, I am not forced in any way to use FB or IG. And I don't for many reasons, and this one would certainly go into that list.

salvatori. wrote:

Oh, I have no idea (no one knows less about what's happening in the digital world than me...), but it seems like a natural thing for them to do.

If they own usage rights to millions of photos, why not pick and choose the good ones and stockpile them to show ad agencies, etc., in the hopes for sales?

I wouldn't even be surprised if FB allows for larger pic files to be uploaded (if in fact there is a size limit presently) so that they have higher quality images to sell.

Mind you, I don't like any of that, but as many would say, I am not forced in any way to use FB or IG. And I don't for many reasons, and this one would certainly go into that list.

I doubt FB would get into the business of trying to broker photos.  I think what would be more likely to happen is offer a service in which people could order prints or product with photos.  That is if they decided to try to generate revenue from uploaded photos.  To me this all seems more of them trying to protect themselves.

Marc Damon wrote:

I hate that buzzword. It's not a rights grab. The user is granting IG an unrestricted usage license for any media uploaded and any action taken thru their site.

+1.

I don't use such sites because I don't want to give them such license, but your point is spot on.  It's a usage license, not a "rights grab" or ownership transfer as many in the threads about this have claimed.

salvatori. wrote:
I realize that Instagram is all photos, but regarding Facebook (which I know owns IG), does the policy extend to things other than photos?

For example, if a person writes a poem and posts it on their FB page, can Facebook take that poem and sell it to, let's say, Hallmark?

Kent Art Photography wrote:
Without going through all the terms and conditions, the answer is probably yes.

On the other hand, if you copied a poem from a Hallmark card and posted it on Facebook, Hallmark probably wouldn't be able to sue Facebook for breach of copyright, because, under the terms and conditions, you, as the uploader of the poem, somewhere agreed that you owned the copyright and you transferred it to them.  However, since you didn't own the copyright, it's you Hallmark will go after, not Facebook.

These sorts of terms and conditions are quite common.  It's up to you to decide if you think they're intended to protect Facebook, Instagram, etc., from litigation, or whether they're rights grabs to take your copyright away from you.  Most sites with these terms and conditions don't actually violate your copyright to any meaningful degree, and it probably isn't in their best interests to do so, but, of course, there are rogues out there.

And there is no law which requires you to post images on Instagram anyway.

Actually, in the U.S. sites like Instagram are protected from the actions of their users until they receive a DMCA takedown notice.  That is the purpose of it.  The notice tells them that they have copyrighted work which is infringing.  The theory is that they can't possibly know if their users are uploading the images legally so you send them a DMCA takedown notice to tell them.

So long as they comply with the DMCA takedown notice, they are not subject to liability.  If they decline to comply, then they can be sued.

What I find interesting is what happens if they use your image in a print ad or in some other fashion that can't easily be terminated quickly?  I agree with what most are saying here, the model can't grant to Instagram rights they don't have.   

Since Instagram says that it will be using images for advertising without notice, I suspect that they will take steps to be sure they can remove images if a DMCA takedown notice comes in.  I am sure they have a good legal department.

On the other hand, I am sure they will push the legal envelope as far as they can.

-Ira wrote:
I doubt FB would get into the business of trying to broker photos.  I think what would be more likely to happen is offer a service in which people could order prints or product with photos.  That is if they decided to try to generate revenue from uploaded photos.  To me this all seems more of them trying to protect themselves.

I'm not a cynical person and don't see this as some kind of grand scheme; I just see it as what you said - a way for FB to protect themselves, but they were already doing that.

I would assume that, now that they own IG, they are planning on taking things in a new direction, photo-wise. And they may be doing a 'wait and see' as they formulate one of their infamous 'social business plans;' brokering photo sales, offering prints for sale, etc.

Think of that for a moment... many photographers use FB to promote themselves. A photographer shoots and uploads a pic of Kate Upton in a bikini (beofre she became known), FB takes it and offers 8x10s for sale.

The photographer would have no recourse, even if she then became famous and FB sold a million copies...

Kent Art Photography wrote:
What needs to be considered is the reality of the situation.  And the reality is, in this case, that Instagram would probably be damaged by the furore caused if they actually used the uploaded images for profit, and the profit they might make wouldn't be worth all the trouble.  It would seem that they can do what they like with the pics, but, actually, they wouldn't dare.

This wouldn't apply to "competitions" run by companies no-one has ever heard of, or similar scams, where the sole purpose is to aquire copyrightable pics that can be sold on.

If you read some of the articles out there on the issue, that is exactly what Instagram has said they are giong to do.  According to what I have read, they are primarily going after images uploaded by teens for advertising.  They plan to use images from teens as young as 13.  They require minors to assert that at least one parent has given them consent to upload, and based on that promise, they are claiming license.

Farenell Photography wrote:
Just goes to show you that if you don't want any of your pictures stolen/aggrogated/reblogged/corporately-grabbed/pinned/whatever, don't put them on the web.

that is the direction i am leaning toward more and more. in particular, because of the viral copycatting i see going on. and in fact, i have been hording my work for the last 3 months, not posting it anywhere.

ei Total Productions wrote:

If you read some of the articles out there on the issue, that is exactly what Instagram has said they are giong to do.  According to what I have read, they are primarily going after images uploaded by teens for advertising.  They plan to use images from teens as young as 13.  They require minors to assert that at least one parent has given them consent to upload, and based on that promise, they are claiming license.

Well, not the articles I've read.  Lots of articles have reported people as saying that's what Instagram are going to do, but I can't find one that actually quotes Instagram as saying it.

Here's the BBC article on it:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767537

Even with the "critical mass" of Facebook, just because an organisation can do something doesn't mean that it will do it.  I still believe it's a catch-all to cover their asses and is probably intended to cover them when they integrate with Facebook.  But I might be wrong.

salvatori. wrote:
Thanks. I understand that there is a difference between owning a copyright and granting usage rights, and I can see that most people will be initially upset that IG/FB gets usage, but that the person will somehow feel better when they learn that they still 'own' their image (even though they never made any money).

All somewhat murky and I'm sure that's what they are counting on. I mean, this is a photographer/model site and look at how many times issues of copyright and usage come up...

What's the difference between ownership, and full usage rights no matter what the copyright owner thinks? Besides legality there is no difference.

Kent Art Photography wrote:
This is actually what these sorts of terms and conditions are often intended to cover - they're intended to protect Instagram from almost any conceivable sort of litigation.  By agreeing to the terms and conditions you are asserting that you have the right to grant usage rights, and anything else they can think of.

So, if a model does the uploading without owning the copyright, or having usage rights, or whatever, the real owner of the copyright, or whatever, can't, according to the terms and conditions, sue Instagram.  The model might be liable, but Instagram won't.

Not a lawyer but I believe under U.S. copyright law at any rate, Instagram would  be liable to the copyright holder, no matter what their agreement (TOS) might be with the model, and the model, in turn, would be liable to Instagram, under their TOS, for recovery of any judgement rendered in favor of the photographer.

Whether or not Instagram would be able to recover anything might be another question.

The question here revolves around the sale of rights by Instagram which Instagram does not own, whatever their assertions.  I may publicly assert that by parking in front of my house you have granted me unrestricted rights to the use of your car, including the sale thereof, but I'll still go to jail if I drive it off to the used car lot.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
Not a lawyer but I believe under U.S. copyright law at any rate, Instagram would  be liable to the copyright holder, no matter what their agreement (TOS) might be with the model, and the model, in turn, would be liable to Instagram, under their TOS, for recovery of any judgement rendered in favor of the photographer.

Whether or not Instagram would be able to recover anything might be another question.

Has anything like this ever happened?  These sorts of terms are very common, but has anyone ever fallen foul of them?  I would imagine that take-down notices would normally be enough in normal circumstances, but I wonder if anyone has actually successfully sued for copyright infringement when a model, for example, has uploaded something she shouldn't have done.

Edit:-

The extra bit you added - Maybe if whoever parked outside your house had to agree to your terms and conditions  then might you have a stronger case?  I don't know.

Kent Art Photography wrote:

This is actually what these sorts of terms and conditions are often intended to cover - they're intended to protect Instagram from almost any conceivable sort of litigation.  By agreeing to the terms and conditions you are asserting that you have the right to grant usage rights, and anything else they can think of.

So, if a model does the uploading without owning the copyright, or having usage rights, or whatever, the real owner of the copyright, or whatever, can't, according to the terms and conditions, sue Instagram.  The model might be liable, but Instagram won't.

But, they are NOT stupid.  They are not going to just use content because they want to.  If it's important to them, they are going to find out who the photo belongs to and get the necessary rights.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
But, they are NOT stupid.  They are not going to just use content because they want to.  If it's important to them, they are going to find out who the photo belongs to and get the necessary rights.

Hey, these threads can't have level headed reason. Put your foil hat back on!




Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Image Magik wrote:

What's the difference between ownership, and full usage rights no matter what the copyright owner thinks? Besides legality there is no difference.

What I mean is this: a person takes a pic and owns the copyright to that pic. FB/IG gains usage rights when you post the pic on their sites.

They make money selling the image, although they don't own the copyright to the image. I'm thinking that will be enough of a pacifier to an individual, even though FB did nothing to create the image.