Instagram Rights Grab?

fabs said:
Did you download your photos 1st or did you already have them?
Click to expand...

Many were pics from my website, which is why I didn't want Instagram trying to claim rights over them. The rest, taken by mobile, I lost, but I really am not bothered. The mobile shots were just fun.
 
Now that Flickr has introduced filters, I can see no reason to be an Instagram user.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Many were pics from my website, which is why I didn't want Instagram trying to claim rights over them. The rest, taken by mobile, I lost, but I really am not bothered. The mobile shots were just fun.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. There are images (phone) that I would like to keep for personal reasons so I've been trying to use instaport to download them before I delete my account but it would appear everyone else is trying to do it at the same time!
 
fabs said:
Fair enough. There are images (phone) that I would like to keep for personal reasons so I've been trying to use instaport to download them before I delete my account but it would appear everyone else is trying to do it at the same time!
Click to expand...

I couldn't get them for ages, but then it just suddenly worked, so worth keeping on trying. Apologies to my flickr followers that may have got bombarded with 140 new crap images from me :whistling: :lol:
 
Yv said:
I couldn't get them for ages, but then it just suddenly worked, so worth keeping on trying. Apologies to my flickr followers that may have got bombarded with 140 new crap images from me :whistling: :lol:
Click to expand...

Well it appears that, despite continually crashing out, it was still doing the export in the background. Attempting to do the download now.
 
Oh well, deleted my account. Didn't have much up there but hopefully another tick removed from their user count.
 
This was being discussed on BBC Radio 2 this evening. The words 'commercial suicide' were being used and they were wondering how long it would take Facebook to backtrack on the issue.
 
POAH said:
The resolution is so crap I can't see anyone wanting them plus the search is rubbish too. Ill be deleting my account though if this stays
Click to expand...

Well time magazine have use them for the cover on the magazine twice, one on the mobile version and one on the print version .

A point most look to be missing in the new terms is that if they use your photo to make money, but then for some reason there is legal action then you will be reasons able not them.

Long story short: Instagram can use your content to increase their revenue, and if a legal claim is brought against the company regarding how these images have been used, you (the user) might be responsible for the damages.

Have a quick read around the web it looks like people are leaving in droves no doubt because the likes of Pink have tweeted they are off and telling others to read the new terms.
 
gnirtS said:
Flickr also has a way to instantly ruin photos as well now?

Great....
Click to expand...

The huge popularity of Instagram has demonstrated an interest in this kind of service. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. Who knows, maybe it spawned an interest in photography in some people? I am sure that some instagrammers output better photographs than you too. Being able to choose what camera we use it great. Being able to choose how we edit the photos is great. Being able to choose where we post the photos is great. Maybe you don't see that.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Who knows, maybe it spawned an interest in photography in some people?
Click to expand...

Or 1970s technology. I just can't see the appeal of photos that have had all the saturation, sharpness and life sucked out of them, rammed into an odd shape with a really distracting border put around them.
Technology moved on so we didnt HAVE photographs looking as god-awful as that these days!

I am sure that some instagrammers output better photographs than you too.
Click to expand...

Im sure they do. Most however then ruin it by ramming it through filters to make it look like something they found stuffed in a box in the attic and ready for the bin.

There are countless other photograph hosting sites out there so simply not using this one isn't going to affect anything.
Most users will merrily carry on using it as they don't care if their snapshot is used for anything - some might like the bragging rights for it.
 
gnirtS said:
Or 1970s technology. I just can't see the appeal of photos that have had all the saturation, sharpness and life sucked out of them, rammed into an odd shape with a really distracting border put around them.
Technology moved on so we didnt HAVE photographs looking as god-awful as that these days!



Im sure they do. Most however then ruin it by ramming it through filters to make it look like something they found stuffed in a box in the attic and ready for the bin.

There are countless other photograph hosting sites out there so simply not using this one isn't going to affect anything.
Most users will merrily carry on using it as they don't care if their snapshot is used for anything - some might like the bragging rights for it.
Click to expand...

You do know that not applying a filter or a frame is an option?
 
I don't need to ruin my photos with filters.. I can ruin them without help :)

Instagram also lets you push them out to other services easily. I suspect they'll back down on this rights grab.
 
I was about to create an Instagram account just to delete it in protest! Perhaps I won't have to, now! :)
Digitalize said:
Very glad I didn't over react :lol: I'm sure very little will come from this
Click to expand...

You can be sure that, if people had not reacted today in the way that they did, the T&C changes would have come into force in January. Thank god that, for once, apathy didn't win the day.
 
Digitalize said:
Very glad I didn't over react :lol: I'm sure very little will come from this
Click to expand...

Do you really think that if people hadn't reacted negatively Instagram wouldn't have started back-peddling? Deleting my account was certainly the correct move.
 
Gordon Laing on Twitter:
@Cameralabs Oh dear. Instagram has got it wrong again. Please do sell our photos but ask our permission first and share the revenue!
Click to expand...

He has it right, I reckon.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Do you really think that if people hadn't reacted negatively Instagram wouldn't have started back-peddling? Deleting my account was certainly the correct move.
Click to expand...

They'd have picked up on the chatter without any account deletions. Not the first time FB have done a U turn on policy after upsetting users.

It's a political tightrope for free services, monetizing it's user base without making them feel they've been sold out.

The problem is the napster generation just expect to get stuff for free, and they don't have a thought for how google facebook etc can sustain a great service for free. I've no idea where they think the millions it costs to run something like that comes from.
 
It's not just the napster generation, though, Phil. It's the whole internet generation - the thing that came first, and which Instagram was born into. The idea of monetising the internet is the newer, auxiliary concept.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil V said:
I've no idea where they think the millions it costs to run something like that comes from.
Click to expand...

Maybe the hundreds of millions of dollars that Facebook transferred into its coffers? And if they insists on "monetizing" it, then why can't they charge for it like Flickr, 500PX if you want more than they very basics.
 
SimonH said:
It's not just the napster generation, though, Phil. It's the whole internet generation - the thing that came first, and which Instagram was born into. The idea of monetising the internet is the newer, auxiliary concept.
Click to expand...

I can sort of see why people would think that monetizing the Internet was a new concept, but seriously how does everyone think a web business can run without an income source?

I suppose Google hid its business model quite well for too long, we all switched from a homepage full of adverts to a simple search box. And everyone believed Google were offering us a great search facility out of the goodness of their hearts. No-one uses their ISPs home page as their homepage any more. And the Internet looks free.

Then you add in the I players and newspaper sites and it's too good to be true. But you know what they say about if something looks too good to be true.
 
I tend to agree that I don't think Instagram/facebook would be back peddaling without the outcry and account deletions yesterday. Yes the chatter might have been enough, but the amount of accounts deleted would have shown that people are prepared to take action if 'unfair' T&C's' are foisted upon them. It was also mildly irritating that their announcement last night sounded a tad patronising, inferring that people just didn't understand legal documents and language [no, many of us don't understand full legal terminology, but the choice of language used was pretty clear]

However, I also agree that such services ultimately have to be paid for as they are unsustainable without any income. I quite happily pay for my flickr account and 500px account, they provide a service I wish to use personally [as well as zenfolio, web hosting, domain names, etc for business use] - it is a business model I can appreciate and would not have objected if Instagram had introduced such a plan either for that matter. Mind you, had they said "we are actually going to start selling your images for commercial use [think microstock here] and we wil pay x pence per image, you can opt out if you wish" - how many would have opted out and how many would have thought 'oh yes please' ;)

Monetizing the internet is not a new concept, but is one that some seem to think shouldn't exist but I am not sure you can say it's just the 'internet generation' - I know plenty of people my own age and older that think everything on the net should be free, because they pay the broadband bill every month!


Anyway, now Flickr, which I pay for, has an app service that allows me to quickly and easily grab a silly phone pic and easily share the crap around with all the friends that never wanted to see it in the first place, I have no need for Instagram - I am getting old, I can't deal with more then one silly phone app at the best of times :D
 
Yv said:
Anyway, now Flickr, which I pay for, has an app service that allows me to quickly and easily grab a silly phone pic and easily share the crap around with all the friends that never wanted to see it in the first place, I have no need for Instagram - I am getting old, I can't deal with more then one silly phone app at the best of times :D
Click to expand...

That's pretty much me too.
 
Apologies in advance for the fisking..
Phil V said:
I can sort of see why people would think that monetizing the Internet was a new concept, but seriously how does everyone think a web business can run without an income source?
Click to expand...

I emigrated to the US in the 90s to ride the dotcom wave and came home in the mid 00s, a couple of years after it all collapsed in on itself. A lot of IT staff got hired and got paid, some of them for several contiguous years. Pretty much everyone I worked with who was involved would agree that the internet was a tremendous success.

Of course a lot of investors would argue that it was a disaster, but having gawped open-mouthed the alacrity with which investors threw money at ludicrous concepts they had absolutely no grasp of, it's difficult for me to feel much pity.

But then, importantly, the brokers have done alright. They're in the money, rise or fall. Being in THAT position (brokerage) is where there is money to be made. What so many people (and companies, investors et al) fail to recognise is that the internet is exactly that: a vehicle for brokerage. Whether it's the exchange of money or information, property (including intellectual) or services, the internet is almost purely a transactional environment. If you want to leverage the power of the internet, it is its ability to facilitate transactions better than its real-world equivalent.

Phil V said:
I suppose Google hid its business model quite well for too long, we all switched from a homepage full of adverts to a simple search box. And everyone believed Google were offering us a great search facility out of the goodness of their hearts. No-one uses their ISPs home page as their homepage any more. And the Internet looks free.
Click to expand...

Monetising the internet is not impossible. Google has succeeded by usurping (and improving on) Yellow Pages as the primary indexing source for business. Ebay has succeeded by usurping (and improving on) the auction house/cottage industry/market stall (ground rent). Real-world businesses who embrace the internet stand to gain not just by creating a point of sale but also with regard to business logic and process integration. Although it's an oversimplification, successfully exploiting the internet is more about regarding it as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

Phil V said:
Then you add in the I players and newspaper sites and it's too good to be true. But you know what they say about if something looks too good to be true.
Click to expand...

It's important not to lose sight of the fact that most of us are paying tens of pounds more per month these days for delivery of an internet connection which didn't exist or wasn't available before the mid nineties. The iPlayer isn't free, but the cost of access to it is well hidden, or is integrated into the connection we've all accepted that we do have to pay for. It is too good to be free, I agree.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Maybe the hundreds of millions of dollars that Facebook transferred into its coffers? And if they insists on "monetizing" it, then why can't they charge for it like Flickr, 500PX if you want more than they very basics.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Maybe the hundreds of millions of dollars that Facebook transferred into its coffers? And if they insists on "monetizing" it, then why can't they charge for it like Flickr, 500PX if you want more than they very basics.
Click to expand...

Facebook won't run it at a loss and the purchase price does not necessarily equal an injection of working capital to subsidise it being free for people to use.

No problem with them making it a pay only service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top