Facebook, Instagram, Flickr etc

[matt_wright]

I currently use Flickr to share my photos online. Is that what most people use (I don’t have, or currently need my own website)

I tend not to put my photos on Facebook as I heard once (maybe read it) that if you put a photo on Facebook you automatically relinquish the copyright on it. (Also it seems to destroy the quality from what I’ve heard)

A) does anybody know if there is truth to that?

B) Is there anything similar like that on Instagram

Not that I have anything I think people would want to steal / use - just interested in the facts about it.

Thanks

Matt

 

[KIPAX]

I currently use Flickr to share my photos online. Is that what most people use (I don’t have, or currently need my own website)

its a freebie advert ridden hole for people who cant afford proper hosting and love having nice pic comments throw at them

I tend not to put my photos on Facebook as I heard once (maybe read it) that if you put a photo on Facebook you automatically relinquish the copyright on it. (Also it seems to destroy the quality from what I’ve heard)

You heard wrong on both counts

A) does anybody know if there is truth to that?

I know..

B) Is there anything similar like that on Instagram

never tried it.. seen what people do to my pictures they copy on there and would probably want to cut my head off if i saw the rest

Not that I have anything I think people would want to steal / use - just interested in the facts about it.

then dont worry about it


just my opinion

 

[Phil V]

What he said ^

 

[Phil V]

They’re all ‘different’.
You should first work out what you want from the service.

 

[Cagey75]

its a freebie advert ridden hole for people who cant afford proper hosting and love having nice pic comments throw at them

I can afford hosting but I prefer to use good ol' Flickr, I don't give a s**t about comments it's just an easy place for me to dump my artsier images that nobody cares about on the even sh**tier social media platforms. Hosting ... lol, I'm actually much more likely to view your Flickr page than some pompous 'all bout me' web page.

 

[Clot on the Landscape]

Bit Harsh Kipax! flickr works fine for me, plenty of storage, plenty of friendly photogs, plenty of inspirational images. I like nice comments, who doesnt? I dont get blown away by them...I know Im crap whatever they say! I can afford proper hosting but I dont make money from it so whats the point?

 

[jamesev]

Facebook doesn't mean you relinquish rights but the image can be used in the domain without infrighing rights.

If someone takes the image from FB and then reuploads it then thats a copy right breach, if they use the functionality in FB to do things like share its not because the image hasn't gone anywhere just the original instance is "referenced"

Not sure about Insta but as its developer is now Facebook I suspect something similar.

 

[Steve Smith]

When you sign up to Facebook you allow your images to be shared anywhere. This is not giving up copyright, just to cover Facebook for multiple shared copies appearing anywhere out of their control.


Steve.

 

[jamesev]

When you sign up to Facebook you allow your images to be shared anywhere. This is not giving up copyright, just to cover Facebook for multiple shared copies appearing anywhere out of their control.


Steve.

Can you link to the terms of service when this is cited?

 

[Phil V]

Can you link to the terms of service when this is cited?

He said the same thing you did.

 

[SteveSc]

Instagram's terms of use (here) says this:

"Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service's Privacy Policy, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 ("Sharing of Your Information"), 4 ("How We Store Your Information"), and 5 ("Your Choices About Your Information"). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy."

and facebook's terms of use (here) says pretty much the same:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, such as photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide licence to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP Licence). This IP Licence ends when you delete your IP content or your account, unless your content has been shared with others and they have not deleted it.

 

[Fuji Dave]

I can afford hosting but I prefer to use good ol' Flickr, I don't give a s**t about comments it's just an easy place for me to dump my artsier images that nobody cares about on the even sh**tier social media platforms. Hosting ... lol, I'm actually much more likely to view your Flickr page than some pompous 'all bout me' web page.

Bit Harsh Kipax! flickr works fine for me, plenty of storage, plenty of friendly photogs, plenty of inspirational images. I like nice comments, who doesnt? I dont get blown away by them...I know Im crap whatever they say! I can afford proper hosting but I dont make money from it so whats the point?

 

[Phil V]

Instagram's terms of use (here) says this:

"Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service's Privacy Policy, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 ("Sharing of Your Information"), 4 ("How We Store Your Information"), and 5 ("Your Choices About Your Information"). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy."

and facebook's terms of use (here) says pretty much the same:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, such as photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide licence to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP Licence). This IP Licence ends when you delete your IP content or your account, unless your content has been shared with others and they have not deleted it.

Which put simply means you grant them and their partners permission to show the images you post with them to the people you’ve said it’s ok to show them to.

 

[GlennW]

You heard wrong on both counts

Partially; while Facebook doesn't 'destroy' the quality, it definitely does compress and alter things in a way that does detract from the image quality. But realistically, probably only the author of the image notices this.

 

[Andy82]

Partially; while Facebook doesn't 'destroy' the quality, it definitely does compress and alter things in a way that does detract from the image quality. But realistically, probably only the author of the image notices this.

Within the Facebook app settings there is an option to upload in high quality. However, I don't know if their idea of high quality is the full file size and resolution.

 

[GlennW]

Within the Facebook app settings there is an option to upload in high quality. However, I don't know if their idea of high quality is the full file size and resolution.

Yeah it definitely wasn't the last time I used it. But that was a couple of years ago now, dropped my photography page on there when they started taking the p*** with their pay to reach implementation.

 

[ABTog]

As said, it depends what you want to use it for. I use each for different things.
FB: I upload photos to Facebook that I want to share with friends, but don't believe they have a worldwide audience. I'm ok with the lower quality, no one is printing them and they are fine for viewing on a computer or iPad.
Flickr I use for uploading my favourite images for sharing with other photographers or in community groups. For example I participate in a 52 week photo challenge group (take a new image each week based on a theme or technique), it's great for trying new things and getting feedback (just like this forum).
Instagram, this is something I'm relatively new to, but I just use it to share my best/favourite images. The people following me/viewing them are a mixture of friends, fellow photographers and randoms. What I find it good for is inspiration. It's great for finding places to visit, locations, styles to try, etc. So I'm getting more out of it than just "photo sharing".
Hosting: I do have personal hosting, but this is just a repository for family photo albums.

You could use something like SmugMug if you want to upload images to share and want the option to password protect some images or allow people to print images.

The copyright "issue" has been covered above and that's what you have to accept with using Facebook and Instagram.

As for quality, Facebook and Instagram both reduce the resolution and compress your image. Instagram also has an image ratio limit of 4x5 for portrait orientated images, but not for landscape ones. But both are fine for viewing on mobile devices.

 

[matt_wright]

Thanks for all the replies guys - I really appreciate all the time people have spent replying.

re Flickr - I like it as a hosting site and it is free (which is good for me) I also like using it as inspiration by looking at other images.

Thanks

Matt