Shared publicly  - 
I don't know what to think about the Instagram kerfuffle. On the one hand, I get that a business is, well, a business and people like making a profit. Hell, seeing as how I'm going on a trip soon and I keep crunching the numbers to see just where I stand, I can completely understand why someone would be invested in turning a profit. Money, as they say, is good.

But giving someone the right to use my photos in advertisements, that's making me pause a bit. On the other but, the likelihood that any one of my photos would ever be chosen is quite small, I think, so what am I really objecting to? The principle of the thing?

I'm not opposed to deleting accounts as +J. Smith will tell you, but when I delete them, I like to do so because it fits my agenda, not because I have been forced to in order to opt out of a TOS.

Guess I'll mull it over a bit more. Right now making a decision seems a tad premature.
Eric Nicolas's profile photoNiguel Valley's profile photoPatricia Elizabeth's profile photoEoghann Irving's profile photo
>>the right to use my photos in advertisements<<

If you aren't getting paid then it's anti-American!
But now I'm having a vague recollection of the G+ TOS making photographers uncomfortable too so maybe I should look at that again and compare the two. Seems silly to be okay with one thing on one service but object to it on another simply because people are muttering and venting.

Also? This is starting to sound like work. Oooph.
I have been thinking about marking my pictures with a logo - something I have been against for aesthetic reasons, but that I am starting to embrace for potential economic ones.
Thing is, a watermark isn't much of a deterrent if someone really wants to get the photo. Anyone with a decent amount of photoshop skills can get around that with a little effort.
Yes, but that crosses the line from casual thoughtless stealing to concerted willful stealing - and it's really the first kind that is the larger problem. And if an image is marked I like to think a business like G+ or Instagram wouldn't remove the mark to use it.

Perhaps I am being too optimistic.
Well, no a business most likely wouldn't. I've always not cared about the casual use. I figured, if someone wants to use a photo as a desktop or with a blog post, so be it. If one was ever used to make money that would be a different matter but I'm also not scouring the web looking for potential misuse of my images. The two times one of my photos was used in a professional manner I was asked so I've always leaned towards giving people the benefit of the doubt and assuming they'll do the right thing. The cynic in me scoffs at that but in this area at least, I think life is too short to be taking this on as something to stress over.
I was nervous about Google's TOS with Google Drive but I later understood it as a condition to simply run the service. They'll be copying my work from server to server, which is needed to run the service.

I'm on the fence about canceling my account. I think of my photography and say "No! Instagram can't sell my work." As far as my personal, everyday, random post I'm not sure that I care. I'd probably be flattered walking through a mall and see my image if used in a non-offensive way.
But doesn't Facebook do that anyway on their own site? Is it really surprising if they have the same TOS for Instagram now they own it and are integrating it?
+Eoghann Irving I have a feeling that Facebook's TOS is close to this. And if it isn't then I suspect it will be in the future. I'm thinking to review there's too.
I just went and re-read the new TOS (I'm not on Instrgram so haven't cared much about the furor) and I'm now sure that the point of the exercise is not to sell photos to be used in adverts.

The point is to be able to associate you the user with adverts that Facebook runs on it's network.
+Eoghann Irving as I understand FB's TOS is that they can't/won't use anything that is set to private. I am not seeing that same language for Instagram. 
As I say I'm not using Instagram, so I'm not sure what the equivalent private settings would be.
Instagram is basically all or nothing. You have a public or private account. There is no ability to choose a setting on a case by case basis.
Hmm. So maybe there should be something in the TOS excluding private accounts then?
Add a comment...