Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Instagram Has a Holiday Gift For You!

I'll bet plenty of you are Instagram users, members, whatever people who use the Instagram photo sharing app are called. I'm not, by the way... a user, member, whatever.

I never felt inclined to join up with Instagram. My continued lack of interest in doing so hasn't had anything to do with any particular issue with Instagram. I just never bothered. For whatever reasons, it just didn't appeal to me enough to take the time to join or use.

But now there's a very good reason to not join Instagram.  And because of this reason, I'm quite happy I never hooked up with them. You see, Instagram has announced it has the right to sell your photos. And guess what else?  They're claiming the right to sell them without paying you a penny! Nope. Not one red cent. Not only that, they say they can do so in perpetuity and without any notification at all.   Nice deal, right?  I mean, you know, nice deal for Instagram.

Don't believe me? I don't blame you. I didn't believe it either until I read THIS ARTICLE on C|NET's web page.

As you might imagine, I'm now very happy about my ambivalence and lack of interest in joining Instagram.  Oh! Did I mention that Instagram says you have no right to opt out?  You know, now that they've decided they can sell your images? Well, that's what they say.

That's Mia at the top pulling off one of her white satin gloves while wearing some sexy and festive Christmas/Xmas/Solstice/Kwanzaa/Hanukkah/Holiday/Whatever lingerie. (Click it to enlarge.) I shot this one and some others of Mia just last night. Oh yeah. I shot two other pretty girls as well. But they weren't wearing gloves or sexy and festive holiday wear. In fact, they were wearing even less than Mia. Yeah. My job sucks. (Not.)


Bill Giles said...

Oh well. I doubt that there are many Instagram users that are paying much attention to their licensing agreements anyway.

Peter Wine said...

This is big news, and even celebs are deleting their account (the only real opt out, and that only if before January 16th.)
Like you, I've never had an account (I hear people actually buy the app! So it's not like they don't have any revenue,) and now I guess I never will.
Originally, I was worried that these terms would spread to Facebook (who bought Instagram this year for around One Billion U.S. Dollars.)
However, seems that the Instagram folks have seen some backlash (like a bunch of deleted accounts already,) and have "heard you" that the terms have "raised some concerns" and will have more to say soon.
Like, OOOPS, we were, uh, misquoted, I'll bet.
When I first read about it, I (like Bill) figured that people wouldn't care about this.
And while some have said, "they can have my crappy, unfocused pictures" and similar things, many (apparently) have voted with their (Internet) feet.
And they should also demand a refund of their app fee stating a breach of faith or breach of contract as the reason.

jimmyd said...


I've seen some decent work people have posted via Instagram. Granted, not a whole lot of it, but some. I doubt they'd pass muster for printed magazine work but, for the internet or to be used in a video -- a commercial or something else -- or even in newspapers, they're probably good enough quality wise.

Ashley Karyl said...

The first thought that immediately springs to mind is what about model releases? Instagram want to use images for advertising without the faintest scrap of approval from the subject, so who do they expect to carry the responsibility when the person in the image complains?


jimmyd said...

Ashley: That's a great question! I have no clue. Maybe their plan is to pay-off anyone who notices their image, likeness, whatever is being used commercially and that no model release is in place. They'll simply dangle some cash and pay them off. Betcha that wouldn't take all that much money and since they're not alerting anyone to any sales that might take place, most people won't even discover their likeness is being used. Instagram is owned by Facebook, after all. I think FB has plenty of cash.

Anonymous said...

Fortunately, at least for those who actually care, Instagram's co-founder has posted a sheepish response denying this was their intent and promising that it won't be. So the "scare" is off.
If anyone cares. Why would Instagram with it's billions of pleasant but mostly shitty images be fair game anyway? Ther'd be no model releases but I'm sure that would only be an issue for real users. Not the millions who already swipe whatever they want. Yawn.

Jay Kilgore said...

I saw this news and deleted my instagram account right away. Thing is I never used it, not even for one photo. I had it cause it was another marketing tool. I have no doubt the PPA, ASMP, EP and other photography groups would jump down instagrams throat as soon as they tried to make it official, like facebook and myspace before it. But the fact they are trying is what bothers me.

Just last night I was discussing this with a young lady that is totally ignorant about it all. Here's what she said

" There are filters used designed BY Instagram that people use for different color schemes."

Apparently, unbeknownst to me, instagram is the creator of cross processing? I asked her how did a company that started in 2011 create a photographic concept that was around 60 years before it? Odd. She had no real reply and sadly this ignorance is what starts many fires. I agreed to disagree with her and bowed out of the convo. Can't convince stupid.

Anonymous said...

You forgot Festivus, the holiday for the rest of us.

leon rainbow said...

Hey, Jimmy, Love the blog. Instagram quickly changed the policy and retracted after the backlash from users a day or two after they announced their privacy policy change..http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/20/3790560/instagram-new-terms-of-service-from-overreaction-to-retraction