Facebook/Instagram wants to sell your photos with no compensation to you?

[Colin Southern]

Ok, lets postulate for now that they cannot sell users' photos without committing 'commercial suicide'*. Do they know that, and if they do,
why do they insist on having such a broad clause?

The clause from smugmug has at least a limitation to uses related to smugmug, the facebook clause doesn't have such a limitation.

*) I'm not convinced that it would be commercial suicide, as all the noise about this and other privacy concerns doesn't seem to have had much effect. I'm not even sure that more than 5% of the users knows what is going on.

An exemple of why I don't like such a broad clause: a rather extremist political party in NZ (views opposite to yours) likes your photo of the bridge, and offers to license it from facebook. They get it and post it with your name under it... You gave a license to sub-license the photo w/o limitation, and no release needed, as no recognisable persons on it. But now your name is linked to that party.


Spam?

Remco - my apologies, but this whole line of "evil Instagram / selling peoples photos against their will thinking" is just absurd, and frankly I've got better things to do with my day. It's not going to happen and it never was going to happen - and if people's ability to separate reality from fantasy in this day and age has deteriorated to this this degree, then I feel sorry for them. Not to worry though, as apparently the world ends today -- it must be true -- I read it on the internet.

Moving on.

[ScoutR]

Whoa Colin, you can't just bail like that when Remco has given a perfectly ligit example of instagram doing exactly what they've asked to be able to do. This is not an example of instagram Selling peoples photos. It's an example of someone's photo being Used or borrowed by instagram to use as they plan to do in their advertising. Regardless of whether other sites are doing it or not, what do you think of Remco's example as copied below?

An exemple of why I don't like such a broad clause: a rather extremist political party in NZ (views opposite to yours) likes your photo of the bridge, and offers to license it from facebook. They get it and post it with your name under it... You gave a license to sub-license the photo w/o limitation, and no release needed, as no recognisable persons on it. But now your name is linked to that party.

[Colin Southern]

Whoa Colin, you can't just bail like that when Remco has given a perfectly ligit example of instagram doing exactly what they've asked to be able to do. This is not an example of instagram Selling peoples photos. It's an example of someone's photo being Used or borrowed by instagram to use as they plan to do in their advertising. Regardless of whether other sites are doing it or not, what do you think of Remco's example as copied below?

Sorry, but I think it got to the point where what people are suggesting has gone way past even "ridiculous".

I'm truly gobsmacked that more people in this world can't think for themselves with things like this; we've had the drama - we've had the headlines - what we REALLY need is more people to just take a step back and thing "hang on - that doesn't sound right - that would just be stupid".

I think the original reports were tantamount to nothing more than trolling -- and far too many intelligent people fell for it. Shame on them.

Baaaaaaaaa.

[Glenn NK]

Interesting.

http://blogs.shawconnect.ca/tech/ins...ms-of-service/

[ScoutR]

Sorry, but I think it got to the point where what people are suggesting has gone way past even "ridiculous".

Oh Really? so you think what Remco suggested is ridiculous?

Seem to me like people are Finally starting to think for themselves and pay attention. About time

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Baaaaaaaaaa
Wendy

[revi]

Final thoughts before I'm off for Christmas:
- I don't think facebook is going to trawl through user images and put up big 'for sale' signs. For one thing, they have their users to do the selection ('like'). I can easily see a system where their customers (and that's NOT their users, they are only the product) just click on a discrete button next to a photo, get billed and receive a signed license to use.

- Given how easy it is already to use photos from the web, I'd guess 90+ % of such sales wouldn't even get noticed by the original user. and a lot of those that do notice might actually be happy with it ("My photo is good enough to be used in an ad"). So facebook runs no risk in that respect. And they are not the publisher, so safe from any claims under that angle as well.

So: easy to arrange, little or no risk, what's to stop them?
And I do not believe that someone acting in good faith would put such a condition in the ToS without intention to use it somehow.

Do with it what you want, I'll be back at the end of December

Merry christmas to all

Remco

[Bobobird]

LOL thought this would have gone to page xx by now.

But it is that time of year when everyone goes nuts so that must be it then.