"Everyone from CNET to the BBC is freaking out today about Instagram's new terms of service. The new terms, they claim, allow Instagram to sell user's images. Users are understandably upset. Wired published a tutorial on how to download all of your Instagram photos and delete your account. But long-time Instagram users should think twice before pulling the trigger. The truth is that Instagram has always claimed full rights to your images, but has just re-worded their terms of service to make their intentions clearer." People should stop obsessing over individual service's privacy terms. There's a very simple rule on the internet that everyone ought to be aware of: the moment you put something on the web, it's no longer your property. Deal with it. Coincidentally: nobody cares about your stupid Instagram photos.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-08-15
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2007-03-26
Indeed. It's easy to sit on the outside and call these people suckers, but it's still an epic betrayal of trust.
I'm not sure the OPs comparison is fair either, one is a corporate entity and most upload services are dubious when it comes to ownership of uploaded content. Where as the other is a more about the emotions and trust between partners.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2012-03-14
just curious, why wouldn't them remain private?
Don't know about you but even after my relationships ended i tend not to be an asshole to the persons with whom i shared intimacy.
Also, there's a neat thing couple of things out there called Cryptography and external harddrives...
Edited 2012-12-18 20:34 UTC
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:
2011-01-28
"There's a very simple rule on the internet that everyone ought to be aware of: the moment you put something on the web, it's no longer your property. Deal with it."
Right, so presumably you'll be taking all blurbs like the following down in the next incarnation of osnews?
"Reproduction of OSNews stories is permitted only with explicit authorization from OSNews. Reproductions must be properly credited."
Of course I'm just prodding you for fun, but on a serious matter, it *is* yours via copyright. The moral here should be that we need to take care not to inadvertently transfer rights to service providers because we didn't read/understand the terms.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2011-01-28
Thom_Holwerda,
"It's a baseline. If you treat the web as I described, you'll never run into trouble."
What do you mean? It sounds like your rule is saying we shouldn't expect to keep the rights to anything we put on the web. But isn't osnews itself contradicting that rule?
Do you not expect people to obey the footer at the bottom of each page?
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2009-10-23
What do you mean? It sounds like your rule is saying we shouldn't expect to keep the rights to anything we put on the web. But isn't osnews itself contradicting that rule?
Do you not expect people to obey the footer at the bottom of each page?
He's talking about a practical and pragmatic mental attitude, not a legal position. Its still worth trying to defend, or at least state, your copyrights, so long as it being breached in a manner you can't do anything about doesn't upset you.
I do disagree slightly with Thom though. I think its worth people at least being made aware of the lack-of-privacy terms you get with services. Ownership of ones own space on the web or (more futilely perhaps) lobbying for genuine ownership through new services is worth promoting. Royal Mail doesn't claim to own the contents of my post, so its not an inevitable thing. They can just get away with it at the moment as no one reads the damned T&Cs.
I would like to see a legal requirement for a abbreviated terms-and-conditions for services and software. Something less than 500 words.
Member since:2009-08-18
Sorry, copyright is copyright.
If you give away the copy right via T&Cs then you should have read them, however if an image is yours and exists on your website it is still yours and it should be respected.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
I am sorry Thom, sometimes you come off as someone who would rather live in shit than pick up a shovel.
Edited 2012-12-18 19:56 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2009-08-18
No it isn't. However this is what I have issue with:
...
There's a very simple rule on the internet that everyone ought to be aware of: the moment you put something on the web, it's no longer your property.
And that is what I commented about. I thought that would have been obvious.
Edited 2012-12-18 20:02 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Ah. Even then. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's inevitable. If you put a €100 bill out in the open on the street, you don't expect it to last very long either. Doesn't mean it's right that someone takes it, just that it's inevitable.
There's no use in complaining about it, because there's nothing you can do about it.
Member since:2009-08-18
While true. Doesn't mean it is right.
I live near La Linea in Spain, everyone litters. Doesn't mean it is correct? No it makes the streets filthy. I put my rubbish in the bin (that are provided) because it is the decent thing to do.
Except saying that it isn't okay to do it. You know you kinda have some exposure on here.
Just saying.
Member since:2005-11-13
Right, what he said. If you put something out on the internet that's not encrypted, it's no longer yours. And no amount of bitching and whining about how unfair/wrong it is will change this fact. Not that I like it any more than you do, but I generally tend not to stress over things that we can't change.
Sure, it might be legally yours still, but it's time that we stop this madness in believing that we have control over the distribution of something in a space where things are infinitely reproduceable and instantly transportable for $0. Asking people not to copy something that can be copied an infinite amount of times for nothing is the very definition of insanity. It's like if somebody invents a replicator that can copy physical objects... are you going to ask people not to clone a loaf of bread?
Member since:2009-08-18
Ask Jesus if he thought it was easy? </joking>
However someone's time and skill went into making the original loaf much like a photograph. Should they not be compensated for making it so.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2007-03-30
Member since:
2005-07-12
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:
2010-06-08
That assumes that users don't care about their privacy or "there is no privacy on the net". Both these ideas are false. Users care and there is privacy. But services need to be built from the ground up in a way that respects privacy and upholds it. I.e. using encryption, allowing setting the exposure only to the desired group and so on.
Edited 2012-12-18 20:56 UTC
Member since:2011-09-10
Try right-click on images, then save as and send them on whatever image hosting you want. Take that, encryption.
Member since:2005-11-13
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2005-11-29
A much more sensible policy in my opinion is to make companies spell out their privacy policy in human readable terms.
That way the layman can make a conscious choice about either using the service or not. An informed choice should be in the end goal.
People should be as wary about personally identifiable information, and how their data is used, as they are about their passwords or social security number.
Member since:
2005-08-18
Uh, that's not how it works. Everything I put up belongs to me unless I explicitly grant anyone, or the public, the rights to it.
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:
2005-11-29
As the day the Internet proved it was stupid.
It was never the spirit of the ToS to claim that Instagram had ownership over the photos, only that they had usage rights.
Knowing the type of person that uses Instagram..I doubt they care very much. I did get a lot of confused people asking me what all the fuss was about, so to the layman it seems there still is a messaging problem around privacy concerns.
Another point I'd like to bring up is what I feel to be somewhat of a "cried wolf" effect. Today's shitstorm was meritless, and I wonder how many more of these people will tolerate before they begin to tune this out. It could end up hurting the efforts of people who value clear and concise privacy policy.
I think it was annoying all the grandstanding that went on today "I'm deleting my Instagram account!", it showed a genuine lack of sincerity among a lot of people. I think we'd be well suited to pick our battles once privacy concerns rear their ugly heads.
I'm more concerned with Apps on app stores and what they do with personally identifiable information. That's a conversation much more worth having than worrying about Instagram "owning" your filtered picture of food.
Member since:
2005-07-08
Actually I like this type of actions take place.
It is a good way to wake up people and show them what can happen when they give their data to third parties somewhere in the Internet hoping them to treat them nicely.
I keep on using my own server since the early days of the Internet and don't intend to change it.
Too bad most people lack the knowledge to do so and end up trapped in corporate decisions.
Now waiting for changes of ToS in dropbox...
Member since:
2009-12-17
The fact is that legally while everything you put on the web belongs to you if you do not sign agreements that say otherwise.
The fact that copying, remixing and other non-commercial usage of your material might prevail, even hastened by the Streisand effect, is entirely other matter.
Member since:
2006-02-22
I'm sick and tired of getting a free service in exchange for providing my behavioural data and handing over licenses for my photos.
I joined instagram basically because everyone was doing it. I stopped when the new T&Cs were announced.
National Geographic and others have done the same thing with their accounts.
Personally I would sooner pay for instagram as a service and remain private (like flickr), but alas, that doesn't seem to be an option.
I've been on flickr for a couple of years now and their new mobile app is a massive improvement. I'll stick that. Goodbye instagram.
Member since:
2009-09-03
Guys, the internet is much like television or the radio. Who was there to prevent people with recorders from recording music or movies? Hey, they say it's copyright. Hell, if you recorded the credits, it absolutely says it, right there! But you still recorded, and watched and copied for a friend.
Same things can and will happen to anything you post on line, legal or not, whether you like it or not. Tough luck, it's called a reality check.
Consider this, I have your instagram pictures, I mixed them all together to create something which I sold. Your pictures are part of it, very very obviously so. Yes, yours too, more than one. I'm making big $$$ as you read these lines. Now go ahead, try finding out who I am, where I am from, what's the product and how much money I've made. Or whatever information is deemed enough to sue me, then take me to court. I dare you, I double dare you. You'll be spending so much time and money. But you're right! But it's yours, but it's specifically and clearly stated! But nobody gives a rats arse. It's that simple. If still in doubt, try some torrents.