Exclusives, delete your Instagram! - Or don't.

Deleted mine.

Folks, we are actively monitoring the Instagram TOS changes, the situation is still developing and those that utilize Instagram on a personal or professional basis should continue to express their concerns over the changes to Instagram.

Isnt the title of this thread: Exclusives, delete your Instagram!  but the OP hasnt? Lead by example?  


 


PS: I dont have one, so cant delete it.  

glad i don't have an account

But this is so bizzare, so they won't get into trouble infringing all kinds of copyright laws...? Do they operate in Mars and they don't get affected by copyright laws on earth?

For my work with one of my clients I always have to submit project insurance which asks questions like, "Is the name or likeness of any living person used or is any deceased person portrayed in this production? If Yes, have all necessary clearances been obtained"; "Is there a plausible risk that a living person could claim to be identifiable, whether or not the person's name or likeness is used or the prodution purports to be fictional"...etc. so I don't get how instagram could sell the photos that they claimed were theirs.


 


 

(Edited on 2012-12-19 15:48:23 by Ceneri)

Lobo, did you really just tell us to keep whining?  

I'm sure everyone's heard by now that Instagram has backpedaled on this. Looks like it might still be OK to use after all.

Blech. Lobo, can you confirm that if the TOS are definitely in conflict with the iStock Exclusivity policy iStock HQ will notify us and give a few days to delete our accounts? I'd rather not 'nix my instagram account preemptively but will of course do so if it's in conflict with my exclusivity here.

Videographers went through this with Vimeo once before: they changed the language in their TOS, and all was well.

Read this: http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening

How is this going to affect IS Exclusives then, if it's true what Instagram says? I don't have an account, I downloaded the App in my ne1w ipad the same day, before the news came out... so I'm just waiting to see if I can use it or not. 

Facebook needs to get back to its Emission Price


At ANY cost....Greed to Grave !

Hisptamtic is another very good app for the effect....

hello a good altrenative is 500px !


 

Hmmm, am I reading things incorrectly or is everything ok with the Instagram debacle? They won't use/sell/etc. our photos without compensation or our knowledge?

I've deleted my photos there but haven't deleted the account.

Good job, Instagram! Regardless of whether all this $#!/ was intentional or not. >:-P

(Edited on 2013-01-02 10:48:43 by kcastagnola)

Is there an explanation what a non-English-native speaker has missed so far? What is an instagramm? Is it edible? Which color has it?

Where can I delete it? As obviously I *should* delete it...

With the amended TOS for instagram have those who deleted their images from instagram put them back online or are you still staying away?

Any changes?

Hi, any final word on this and whether or not using Instagram is an issue for artists remaining exclusive here? 

Thanks

Although IG *said* they heard users and were making changes, in truth, they didn't make any substantive change I can see. Here is an excerpt from their current TOS which goes into effect January 19th:



There's that word "sub-licensable" that should be a key concern for anyone wishing to maintain control over the licensing of their images. Also, fully paid? I've never been paid by IG.

Also, the wording in general just looks sketchy still paraphrased: 'We don't claim ownership of your pictures ... instead you give us rights to do anything we want with them.'

ETA: Fixed UBB markup and a final thought...

Someone else's idea on another site hit the nail on the head. IG screwed up and they are loosing users as a result. They very well could have done it another way: Make a very simple mechanism for an advertiser to click a button and ask a user permission to license their photo for a reasonable fee. Users would probably love the extra cash or the simple ability to decline.

A few articles came out in the past couple days that IG has lost HALF it's daily users. It is still gaining monthly users, but Internet companies consider daily users to be "power users" and they are sought after. Here's one from International Business Times.

(Edited on 2013-01-16 07:48:36 by bmcent1)

I can't offer an official reply but, seeing as how iStock had no objections to the original TOS that Instagram used and that Instagram rolled back to those original terms one day after people objected to the changes, I'm not sure what there is now that iStock could have issue with. It may be possible to get one of the senior content people to confirm this, I'll see what the score is.

Hope we can get a clear answer, thanks for seeking one Kelvin.

Exclusivity is seemingly more muddied every day, but it looks cut and dried that by agreeing to the TOS, IG users are granting a royalty-free license. In some past cases this was permitted because it was deemed necessary only to allow the operator to legally display the images, but in IG's case they are also grabbing sub-licensing rights and it seems advertising is sought and needed for their business model.

There's no conflict/issue for an exclusive member to use Instagram. If you wish to continue or start using their service, please feel free to do so.