Skip to comments.Did You Really Think Facebook Wouldn't Turn Your Instagram Photos Into Ads?
Posted on 12/18/2012 12:42:47 PM PST by beaversmom
The language at issue:
[Y]ou hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service.
Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“Simple. Do NOT use FB”
Easy for you to say - you probably don’t spend half of your waking hours on FB, keeping up your status.
I guess it’s easy for me, as I don’t do that either.
This is from the Instagram site just now:
“Ownership Rights Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period.”
Have they given up the ownership thing? Also, does anyone use the Amazon Cloud? Don’t they have something similar?
Thanks. Sounds like weasel words, though.
How would this fly:
Hey RIAA/MPAA: I’m not going to claim ownership rights to the works of your artists whose music/films I download (and perhaps sell on a street corner). I respect your artists’ rights to the ownership of those creative works. Period. So we’re good, right? Right? /s
As if it will just stop with the Instagram content. People have repeatedly poo pooed the notion that this is the power grabs that the heads at Facebook are doing.
They have temporarily rolled back this plan. The legal language will be changed, I suspect that the attempts at ownership will continue.
And some will probably proclaim (such as Snopes) will probably proclaim that because the offending lines have been removed from the current policy, that it was all an unsubstantiated hoax. An inboxer rebellion.
And Big Media proclaims that they aren’t rich enough because of theft on the internet. Meanwhile Big Media continues to take the work of others to sell it without paying the creators or acknowledging their rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.