Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Should I stay or should I go now?
Has Instagram signed a "suicide note" with its new Terms of Service
"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you,"
or are we all just being whiny babies as Gizmodo suggests about something the business needs to do to keep it free to use?
Personally I'm not sure if my fuzzy pictures of cats and and home-made cakes will be of a lot of interest to advertisers but it may mean I use the service less to share pictures that aren't actually out of focus or dull (to others) pics of my kids.
Since my Flickr account Mrs Eds is creative commons I don't expect anyone to pay me for my snapshops on the net anyway but I do like a credit. Not sure Instagram are even offering that.
So will you be deleting your account by Jan 16th?
Tags for Forum Posts: Instagram
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
In the same way that the first photography laws favoured the wealthy (man with a camera) over the weak (naked young lady) this is "because we can".
Any business with 10 employees that is purchased for a billion dollars is going to HAVE to do this because someone paid for something that has costs but produces no revenue.
You tell me how you thought the business was making money? I would remind you that Bernie Madoff's investors closed their ears to this question and I think Facebook just blew a billion dollars.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
No this is worse than getting ads across your free site - this is taking copyright, in perpetuity, for nothing. You will have no control over where your pics end up, or how many times they are used, or what manipulation others may add. They will be being paid for the use. Don't sign.
-
Permalink Reply by Bel Fegore on
-
I have put my account on private for now and will wait what they do. This is quite obviously a PR disaster for them and Facebook and will probably be revoked.
Users of those kind of services should be aware that the business model of those companies is built on eventually exploiting the free content and the connected user data that is generated by offering 'free' services.
However, while it is understandable that those companies need something to throw to their investors in terms of a business model, taking copyright from creators who may not even know that this is happening, is never OK, and not excusable by saying 'oh you should have expected that'.
-
-
I think we need to nationalise some of these cloud services. If you can come up with something for free that is used by millions of tax payers (e.g. The BBC) then surely the government should be running it. Rather than a billion dollars, why not a knighthood and a little bit of cash?
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Seems like Instagram are already 'reviewing the situation' judging by their lastest blog post
-
-
For those not wanting to donate any/all of any earnings from pics plus give away the copyright and control to Facebook via Instagram in perpetuity, here is an alternative workaround. It's a tiny bit of work to set up but it gives all the above back to you. I've not tried it as I have my own blog and don't tweet, but it should work much like Instagram. http://blog.nyip.com/main/2012/12/19/alternatives-to-instagram.html...
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
