I am so not "getting" this Instagram thing / do you guys want to look at each others pictures?

Im totally gonna chug this pepsi because I was attracted by mh's picture of his cat w/ a pepsi logo put on top of it

'everything can be sold to everybody' is probably the principle that makes me most depressed these days

RIP Instagram

heaven needed an X-Pro filter

catpepsi

dudes, i've been posting hipstamatic pix to my MySpace account this whole time.

If this was Soundcloud saying they were going to give samples of your music to agencies for commercial jingles without compensation, there'd be petitions to whitehouse.gov made on the hour.

― pplains, Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:09 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

this is true but also there's something fundamentally more time-intensive about a piece of music... mustering up outrage over someone jacking an instagram photo of mine would cost me more time than it does to take and upload an instagram photo (and i care about my instagram photos)

I dunno I don't usually get worked up over Facebook-rights stuff but this is p gross

selling off to 3rd parties is another level above rotating user pictures on Facebook ads I think

I've never used instagram but this is a whole other level of evil, and I'm actually pretty surprised that so many people are 'meh' about it.

agreed

I know a dude who accidentally gave permission for a band to use his friend's cell phone picture in their live album art.

Now I make fun of said friend for having his fuzzy picture inside a Metallica album booklet, credited to someone else

so what I'm basically saying is this way, they will always be credited to your instagram name or not, at least

what what's going on?

lesson: make sure you have a cool instagram name

otm

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/

xpost to ENBB

ENBB: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/

Obviously everyone here is being all arch about it, b/c hipsters with instagram can never produce anything of any worth. But that really isn't the point. My family snaps aren't "worth" anything, I'd still be appalled if they were sold without my permission to companies I had nothing to do with to use as they like.

xxxpost

only solution now is to pollute instagram with enough garbage that it's impossible to find useful pictures or game the system by taking pictures that would obviously fit into an ad for self promotion

brb have to take a few dozen pictures of me eating a KFC double down sandwich

What's the point of a privacy setting if your pictures can be sold to whoever

brb have to take a few dozen pictures of me eating a KFC double down sandwich

This is called a "Tuesday" in Instagramland.

xpost- no point

also no way to opt out of the policy other than delete your account before Jan. 15

^^ that is what gets me - the chance of my few photos of boring stuff actually being sold/used is zero, but that lack of an opt-out option is stupid. plus i have no problems deleting my acct bc i don't use it as a social site, i just like the dumb filters.

i don't use it as a social site, i just like the dumb filters.

Me too, really. I don't follow a single person on Instagram that I'm not already friends with on fb.

wait until someone needs stock photos of boring stuff, then you'll regret

i "quit" instagram weeks ago-- instagram was going to be played out in 2013 before this news even hit

definitive standpoint

as a stand-alone social network I never really got into it but as an, I dunno, rich-featured version of Twitpic or whatever it was pretty useful

Another article: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean

relevant facebook terms:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like 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 license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

sooo, pretty much the same as facebook, with the exception that facebook has theoretically more privacy control

is it though? I don't think this is in the Facebook TOS. could be wrong

"a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

>>> with the exception that facebook has theoretically more privacy control

maybe that's the difference. Facebook lets you opt out of the creepiest third-party ad shit.

geez i hope my stupid pictures of my dog wind up advertising for-profit colleges someday

http://seattleipguy.tumblr.com/post/38238067044/instagram-wont-be-putting-most-of-your-photos-in-ads

Patent attorney takes a look at the Instagram TOS and makes us feel better.

Uh, facebook shows "these three friends like this movie" with your profile picture on it. Not other pictures you've taken, but with an image of you.

right but you can opt out of that I think

i "quit" instagram weeks ago-- instagram was going to be played out in 2013 before this news even hit

Well okay Jeane Dixon, so tell me where I should put my priceless photos of the sidewalk then.

let's bring back Cellpwn Pics in 2013

Yeah, I'm never going to top that helicopter landing in the hood.

oh hey they're working on rewording it

Re: people not really caring about this, I think it's endemic of at least some subset of millennials who just don't seem at all bothered by really overt online invasions of privacy. Which I feel has something in common with "being famous" as a goal that some of these same people pursue. Some sort of complete dissolution of private walls in the value-free (in the "all publicity is good publicity" sense) pursuit of being seen/noticed (see also: the seemingly carefree proliferation of online nudie snaps). It's all part of some strange gestalt that I totally don't get and that marks the most overt sense I've ever had of a distinct generation gap between me and people younger than myself.

I don't think the issue is necessarily privacy, or even ownership, although these are both concerns. These are images that are already public in some ways, and I don't think the intent is to make them visible to individuals who couldn't already browse and find them.

It's entertaining that flickr is seen as a good alternative, which it mostly is, if you're worried about ownership. But flickr is more highly-searchable and -indexed than most sites, too. If you have public images, it's interesting to see who tags them as favorites or views them. I would get people coming from Google searches or flickr searches for concert pictures I took. Then there were cases where an image would get favorited, you check out their profile, and every image they've added is of a shirtless man. Or they only add images of people smoking cigars.

i once had 200+ views on a picture of my foot

only that many?

must have been on some "look at this grotesque picture of a foot" blog or sthg

whenever i think abt flickr i think about jaxon (r.i.p.) uploading a photo he took of his wife during a hike that some creep added to the "sweaty Asian women" group

eek

yeah, I was weirded out the other day when I realized that if you search for a famous actress or celebrity, the top few google search suggestions always include "x's feet"

1. Become global social megasite
2. Buy rival
3. Shut rival down by making all the users leave.
4. MORE PROFIT!

im on there as datpurp666 fyi

is instagram dead? feel like ppl forgot abt it via vine/snapchat....

I've got a truck driving buddy who takes some awesome road and sunrise instagrams from his cab.

If he moves on to vine and snapchat, I will throw up.