Instagram to sell user's pictures

[LocoBlade]

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

BBC News Website said:

Facebook's photo-sharing site Instagram has updated its privacy policy giving it the right to sell users' photos to advertisers without notification.

Unless users delete their Instagram accounts by a deadline of 16 January, they cannot opt out.

I can't believe they're really considering this! I dont have an Instragram account anyway so doesn't bother me personally but who would willingly upload to a site that has free reign to sell pictures of your loved ones etc for 3rd party advertising without your permission and with no compensation? Bonkers.

[Mr E]

What happens if you've already sold the copyright to the photo to someone else?

[Pothole]

you really can't believe it or you just think it's a bit outrageous?

[JonnyFive]

Mr E said:

What happens if you've already sold the copyright to the photo to someone else?

I imagine in the T&Cs theres probably a claus about uploading it forfeits previous Copyright or something along those lines.

[LocoBlade]

Pothole said:

you really can't believe it or you just think it's a bit outrageous?

Honestly, do you not have anything better to do?

[Mr E]

JonnyFive said:

Mr E said:

What happens if you've already sold the copyright to the photo to someone else?

I imagine in the T&Cs theres probably a claus about uploading it forfeits previous Copyright or something along those lines.

Unenforceable then.
They could state that you must own the copyright to the image in it's entirety before uploading, but they cannot state "if you upload something that someone else owns, it's ours now".

[Podie]

JonnyFive said:

I imagine in the T&Cs theres probably a claus about uploading it forfeits previous Copyright or something along those lines.

[Du1point8]

They are going to own a hell of a lot of food pictures now.

[JonnyFive]

Podie said:

It is Christmas, after all..

[Pothole]

LocoBlade said:

Pothole said:

you really can't believe it or you just think it's a bit outrageous?

Honestly, do you not have anything better to do?

Honestly? Yes. You probably have something better to do than post your outrage at a perfectly understandable business decision, too.

[Podie]

LocoBlade said:

I can't believe they're really considering this! I dont have an Instragram account anyway so doesn't bother me personally but who would willingly upload to a site that has free reign to sell pictures of your loved ones etc for 3rd party advertising without your permission and with no compensation? Bonkers.

Better check the T&Cs of most places on the internet then... including the good old BBC...

[Simpo Two]

Rights grabs are commonplace. Most people either don't know or don't care.

It's the same mentality as 0844 numbers - hope nobody notices and make a few bucks extra.

[davidd]

pintrest were the same. Taking the rights to everything you pinned (they took a copy) even if it was not yours to give. There was some sort of rumpus about it, not sure of the outcome.

[Mr E]

Podie said:

JonnyFive said:

I imagine in the T&Cs theres probably a claus about uploading it forfeits previous Copyright or something along those lines.

Nicely done.

[LocoBlade]

JonnyFive said:

Mr E said:

What happens if you've already sold the copyright to the photo to someone else?

I imagine in the T&Cs theres probably a claus about uploading it forfeits previous Copyright or something along those lines.

A colleague who's a much keener amateur tog than me seems to think that because copyright is set in law, if you copyright an image the rights automatically granted to the owner can't simply be bypassed by a ticked a box in a set of T's and C's, not sure.

[LocoBlade]

Podie said:

Better check the T&Cs of most places on the internet then... including the good old BBC...

Usage rights within the website/entity that you're uploading to seems more reasonable and I imagine quite common, such as uploading to the BBC news website and the photo being used elsewhere within the corporation to report on the photographed event, but claiming the right to profit from them by selling to third party advertising agencies with no consent/compensation, is that really commonplace?

Edited by LocoBlade on Tuesday 18th December 14:19

[The Jolly Todger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn-dD-QKYN4

[Tonsko]

Isn't this part of the 'payment' that you get for using a free service? I thought Instagram had started this last year, must admit, when they were bought out by <whoever>. It was always a danger though when using a service such as that.

[LocoBlade]

Bought out by Facebook, say no more.

[Simpo Two]

LocoBlade said:

A colleague who's a much keener amateur tog than me seems to think that because copyright is set in law, if you copyright an image the rights automatically granted to the owner can't simply be bypassed by a ticked a box in a set of T's and C's, not sure.

Copyright starts off with the photographer (unless another arrangement is in place) but can be given away or sold. Ticking a box saying 'I give copyright to XYZ' is perfectly possible.


But there may be an element of reasonability in it; for example if the part concerning copyright was very small and designed to confuse and hidden in page 48 of the small print.