Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 17:31 UTC
Internet & Networking "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.
Order by: Score:
Parallel
by ferrels on Tue 18th Dec 2012 17:40 UTC
ferrels
Member since:
2006-08-15

This reminds me of all those women out there who allowed their ex and current boyfriends to take nude photos of them. Did they really think that those photos would stay private and uncirculated? As P.T. Barnum once said, there's a sucker born every minute.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Parallel
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:56 UTC in reply to "Parallel"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You probably found that those suckers probably genuinely loved them, while naive ... understandable.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Parallel
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Parallel"
Laurence 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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Parallel
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Dec 2012 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Parallel"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But what we learn from OSNews is that we shouldn't expect better of people and we should certainly not complain about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Parallel
by maccouch on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:30 UTC in reply to "Parallel"
maccouch 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

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Parallel
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Parallel"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Don't know about you even after my relationships ended i tend not to be an asshole to the persons with whom i shared intimacy.


THIS!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Parallel
by Drumhellar on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Parallel"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

"Don't know about you even after my relationships ended i tend not to be an asshole to the persons with whom i shared intimacy.


THIS!
"

I second that. Or, third, or whatever...

Edited 2012-12-18 20:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Parallel
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Dec 2012 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Parallel"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It would seem not every one has that same sense of chivalry and hey, if there's a little money to be made...who are we to judge? Eh? Eh?

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Alfman
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 17:53 UTC
Alfman
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.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Alfman
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 17:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by Alfman"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's a baseline. If you treat the web as I described, you'll never run into trouble.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Alfman
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Alfman"
Alfman 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?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Alfman
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Alfman"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Do you not expect people to obey the footer at the bottom of each page?


Honestly? No. You can always ask to be nice - and most people do, and we never decline - but I don't actually expect as such. See? I'm applying my own baseline right there.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Alfman
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Dec 2012 02:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Alfman"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Then why have it at all, if that's what you expect?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Alfman
by M.Onty on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Alfman"
M.Onty 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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Alfman
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Alfman"
lucas_maximus 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

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Alfman
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Alfman"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

and exists on your website it is still yours and it should be respected


Instagram is not your website.

Edited 2012-12-18 19:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Alfman
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Alfman"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No it isn't. However this is what I have issue with:

It's a baseline. If you treat the web as I described, you'll never run into trouble.

...

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

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Alfman
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Alfman"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And that is what I commented about. I thought that would have been obvious.


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Alfman
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Alfman"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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.


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.

There's no use in complaining about it, because there's nothing you can do about it.


Except saying that it isn't okay to do it. You know you kinda have some exposure on here.

Just saying.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Comment by Alfman
by WorknMan on Wed 19th Dec 2012 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Alfman"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

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.


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?

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by Alfman
by lucas_maximus on Wed 19th Dec 2012 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Alfman"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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?


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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Alfman
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Dec 2012 02:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Alfman"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Web > Instagram.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Alfman
by Luminair on Wed 19th Dec 2012 05:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Alfman"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

He's not saying your content isn't yours. He's saying the internet makes it so that anything can be copied, and that life will go on without a strangle hold on content

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:16 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

Coincidentally: nobody cares about your stupid Instagram photos.


... I care ...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by dukes on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
dukes Member since:
2005-07-06

...and isn't that why Instagram is so popular? That people care?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Facebook care enough to buy it for a lot of money.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:56 UTC
shmerl
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

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by shmerl
by SeeM on Tue 18th Dec 2012 22:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
SeeM Member since:
2011-09-10

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.


Try right-click on images, then save as and send them on whatever image hosting you want. Take that, encryption.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by WorknMan on Wed 19th Dec 2012 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13


Try right-click on images, then save as and send them on whatever image hosting you want. Take that, encryption.


And if they disable the right mouse button, then take a screenshot. If they disable that, take a picture of the monitor. That analog hole is a real bitch ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 19th Dec 2012 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Watermarks ...

Edited 2012-12-19 18:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Wed 19th Dec 2012 04:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Nelson 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.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Dec 2012 02:09 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

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.


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by lucas_maximus on Wed 19th Dec 2012 18:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

THIS.

Reply Score: 2

Today will be known
by Nelson on Wed 19th Dec 2012 04:55 UTC
Nelson
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.

Reply Score: 4

Don't use "cloud" services
by moondevil on Wed 19th Dec 2012 07:42 UTC
moondevil
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...

Reply Score: 3

The fact is
by rimzi on Wed 19th Dec 2012 13:48 UTC
rimzi
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.

Reply Score: 4

I do care, and I stopped using Instagram.
by siraf72 on Wed 19th Dec 2012 19:21 UTC
siraf72
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.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by n0b0dy
by n0b0dy on Wed 19th Dec 2012 19:24 UTC
n0b0dy
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.

Reply Score: 2