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

damn tweens with their pop idols *shakes fist*

they will deep fry little balls of mac and cheese

not on topic but I must emphasize that deep fried mac and cheese is properly served in wedges, not balls

http://allthingsd.com/20120423/that-1b-for-instagram-that-would-be-23m-shares-of-facebook-and-300m-in-cash-plus-a-200m-termination-fee/

So apparently the $1B = $300m cash plus 23m shares (which would make the shares worth $31/each and value Facebook at $77B if the numbers are right)

With all due respect to anyone here who's done this, stop posting snapshots of album covers or whatever the hell is playing on your iTunes.

So how many people are going to migrate over to the Flickr app?

tbh I don't really care if instagram 'makes money' from my pictures, I don't put my best work on there

Yeah, if they ever saw fit to use some crap I'd posted on there, then they'd really be scraping the barrel. However, whenever everybody ends up in one place and then decides to scatter, it's nice to have a (mostly) unanimous landing spot.

Preparing for the eventual "I'm a paid Flickr user - now and forever" YouTube supercut.

(I'm a paid Flickr user - now and forever!)

idk i'm pretty lazy about engaging with rights agreements & being concerned about copyright when it's entering the realm of the theoretical but this seems so cynical & dubious to me. like it already sounds like the kind of thing you can hear some shamefaced ceo retracting in a couple of weeks because it sounds like the kind of thing to trigger the righteous, petition-circulating libertarian tendencies of internet users. it isn't a million miles away from the thing about amoeba digitising other artists' records & selling them for profit - the idea that you host your photos somewhere & then that some hotel licenses one of them & a corporation makes fifty five cents on it seems super gross & depressing to me.

yeah now that Ithink about it I wonder if they could do some sort of revenue sharing model? like 30/70 splits between instagram/the user? idk

spotify for pictures

ppl seem to think that a mass majority of instagram users/young people wouldn't die of happiness if one of their photos was used in an ad regardless of compensation fundamentally misunderstands the entire generation

let me rephrase:

ppl seem to think that a mass majority of instagram users/young people wouldn't die of happiness if one of their photos was used in an ad regardless of compensation and that fundamentally misunderstands the entire generation

I don't think that's true, it's really easy to get people upset about stuff. like if it were a one time thing or something whatever, but if pepsi is running billion dollar ad campaigns and using instagram pics on a regular basis, you think that info is not gonna set anyone off? see: amanda palmer thing

Yeah maybe they would be happy for a day or a week but once all their friends ask them how rich they are getting (cos everything in the media makes people rich) they'd probably have second thoughts about it.

this isnt going to be used for million dollar ad campaigns anyway, theyre not going to use jordans pic for pepsi, theyre going to use jordans pic to sell like 8 of his friends something theyve been microtargeted on

i sorta feel you, it becomes prestige-y, like some strange colour in the ebay-user star spectrum, but i feel like there's a difference between seeing your holiday photo blown up & nicely accessorised on the page, & just knowing that your photo (/maybe even you!) is being used on a car company's website or in hotel literature for somewhere you don't give a shit about. this just feels so textbook-reason-for-an-indignant-reception, at least if there's a visible faction calling facebook out on it & presenting it as cheap theft, which there is.

additional complications to the mixtape economy

I think the amanda-palmer-reaction is still gonna hold.

xp

I thought s1ocki's cat pictures were already a viral campaign for his film features

my impression is that there were still way more ppl excited to play on stage w/ amanda palmer than there were ppl who were mad abt it. and anyway there are a lot more amateur photographers whose instagrams are good enough to sell products to their friends than good-enough amateur musicians to play onstage at a ticketed gig

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.

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