Comments on: Instagram says ‘self-help’ best option for woman suing over photos — and it’s right

By: klingaling

klingaling — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:58:54 +0000

Asinine. Putting the burden of deleting the account on the user is ridiculous. The next time Instagram execs go out for lunch, the valet should walk by their table and casually announce, “BTW, we’re selling you cars. If you want to finish your lunches, that’s up to you but if you don’t move your cars, we’re selling them.” – and when they get to the valet station, maybe it’s really hard to find their keys. I’m sure the Instagram execs won’t mind since it’s in spirit with the thievery business model.

And BTW, if you’re commenting via gigaOM, you’ve given them the right to update your profile.

By: David Thomas

David Thomas — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:03:51 +0000

Yeah, the same argument is made on behalf of the fast food companies — you don’t have to use them because we live in a self-select market. I feel this way about FB, because it is too much work to maintain privacy with the way they change rules all the time…oh, wait a minute — hmmm, yeah, that’s a problem for consumers who provide their content to websites, isn’t it. Changing terms AFTER data collection or BURYING options in legal minutia isn’t going away, and perhaps the courts are not the right vehicle, but we are certainly seeing a need to create more extensive federally mandated web-user protection rights. Won’t services like Instagram love that?

By: Rusty

Rusty — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:19:43 +0000

So someone please help me out. If an advertising agency wants to use a photo of someone…if they are recognizable at all…even remotely…the agency must either get a release or pay for permission to use the photo of that person in an ad. It’s the law. They may even have to pay union wages for “talent” on such a preexisting photo.

If an ad agency wants to use a photograph taken by a specific photographer, they must pay compensation. Seems fair. They are using that person’s work to make money.

And yet when companies like Facebook and Instagram do the same thing, they get a free ride. They don’t have to pay.

I get why users are upset if a company wants to take their photos and claim free use of them. I’m pretty sure if I want to claim free use of the songs in iTunes I can’t just take them for free. I must pay.

The MPAA and the RIAA make SURE consumers pay for any use of the content works of their members.

The concept of fair use for consumers has pretty much disappeared. But apparently just taking the digital content of consumers is OK.

I understand that advertising supports nearly all the free services. The quid pro quo of here’s our free service, but you must watch advertising to pay for it has been around for a long time (see network TV). But I still don’t see how companies can just claim fair use of the content created by their users as if it was their own.

…but if people just keep letting them do it….I guess they can get away with it.

By: alexmedawayhasleftthebuilding

alexmedawayhasleftthebuilding — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:16:08 +0000

haven’t people learned anything from sexual harrassment panda?