Instagram wants right to sell users' photos to advertisers

*Sigh* The Great Omnipotent Bot is at it again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767537

Hello Cloud. Goodbye intellectual property. I hope that everybody is busy assembling their Pi-based personal servers.

If social networks are actually such an important part of modern humanity, how come no-one seems willing to actually pay a subscription to access one?

Is it all just "castles made of sand"? Can we expect the bursting of internet bubble v2.0? Or will The Bot assimilate us all?

I suggest that we all start uploading pictures of our cats' bottoms to Instagram now!

You could call it 'Cats' Bottoms-Book'.

Is that actually legal? I can't even get re-prints of my son's school photographs. What about the data protection act?

The needs of big business seem to trump mere legislation a lot of the time...

I guess a lot of this depends on whether the EULA you agree too (or the box that you click without reading the small print) is actually enforceable in your locale. Unfortunately the onus often seems to be on the individual to protest an agreement in retrospect, rather than on state legislators to protect the individual from the outset, although perhaps Europe is a little more proactive in this area than some. Business also knows that most people will click the "ok" box anyway - especially if all their competitors have near identical terms and conditions too.

[jamesh]

Easy; don't use Instagram. It's pants anyway.

Easy; don't use Instagram. It's pants anyway.

True, true. But if Instagram / Facebook pull off this little coup then the list of service providers to be avoided will get pretty long very quickly, 'cos they'll all be doing it. And not just files, pictures and whatnot - I'm concerned that anyone who uses online office tools or design applications could unwittlingly kiss goodbye to their I.P. / personal data too.

On a related note, it seems even Spongebob has been helping himself to children's email addresses without parental permission...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767541

Never did trust Spongebob Squarepants (if indeed that is his real name).

My understanding of Europe-wide Data Protection legislation is that all data collected must be necessary for the stated aims that it is collected for. I admit this is routinely flouted whenever someone agrees to supply their inside leg measurement when registering to receive a service that does not really require registration - I do not believe you can legally sign away this statutory right to privacy via a Faustian pact. Maybe that small print states its aim to be pimping your soul?

Maybe it's time for 'FacePi' or something; works like a social media site but the data is placed on your own little Pi at home which can connect to the Pies of your 'friends'.

I like that idea.

Whats "Instagram"? Ok, ok I'll get me zimmer.
seriously though, if you use sites designed for transmitting "blah blah blah" for anything else you need yer bumps feeling. E-mail still works ya know.....

Thats the equivilant of only ever telephoning your friends and never visiting them.

Personally, my life isn't interesting enough for Face Book.

Maybe thats why no one visits me.


I feel so alone.


I hate it when people talk about Face Book

Thats the equivilant of only ever telephoning your friends and never visiting them.

Personally, my life isn't interesting enough for Face Book.

Maybe thats why no one visits me.


I feel so alone.


I hate it when people talk about Face Book

Am liking the use of the term "Faustian Pact" with regard to EULA btw. They should all be entitled thus.

EULA = End User Licnce Agreement - right?

Don't follow how that is relevant though.

Not sure that any small print can take away your statutory right to privacy.

An analogy might be that if you go to a Naturist holiday resort you implicitly give permission for other Naturists to look at your naked body, but you do not implicitly give them the right to photograph you and show their colleagues back at work. This is because having pictures of your naked body shown to others is not a necessary part of Naturism - It's all about feeling free - so I'm told - I'm not a Naturist you understand. Honestly I'm not. Wait... come back...

Perhaps that was an analogy too far.


Why doesn't anyone visit anymore?

Seriously though, it sounds like you could go out on the town, have a few too many and end up as the face of an NHS anti-drinking campaign.

Could have wider (defamatory) implications, especially if you didn't know your mates were photographing you at the time and don't even have a facebook account yourself.

What a stupid policy.

An analogy too far indeed. I fear that any naturist club would pay me real folding money NOT to join...

Yeah, that's what EULA stands for and I guess it's one of the reasons that lawyers were invented. Perhaps we have a legal expert in the House of Pi who can enlighten us, but it seems that you can put just about anything in a EULA and it's up to individuals to challenge it, rather than for legislature to call foul and march you off to jail. The law in your locale may take precedence, but someone has to wake it up first. Who knows...

Oh, and I forgot about the tie-in between Facebook and loyalty card dataminers Datalogix. Mr Zuckerberg seems to have forgotten to tell all his friends about this one:

http://m.computerworld.com/s/article/9231818/Facebook_Datalogix_deal_may_skirt_privacy_promises

Opting out properly of Datalogix snooping ironically involves sending them a fair amount of personal data. There's a simple opt-out which places a cookie on your computer, but that will be deleted during normal houskeeping and evidence suggests that they may be ignoring it anyway. It's not an immediate issue for UK spammers as they don't plan to invade our shores 'til 2013. Oh, hang on, that's next month...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8b9faecc-0584-11e2-9ebd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2FQqp9YI1

Still, if I was Mr Zuckerberg I'd be resorting to desperate measures to placate angry shareholders too.

Instagram selling your photos is perfectly legal as by using their service you are granting them permission to do so.

I don't use Instagram. It's a fad. Why not take a photo and then trash it later on rather than ruining it at the point you take it? If you want all your photos to look like they were taken in the 1970s then do that on a PC. At least when the fad passes you can get your photos back.

I find it quite funny that people are buying Smartphones on the basis of their camera capabilities and then using Instagram to trash the quality. It's like buying an HD TV and then smearing vaseline over the screen to reduce the definition.

Facebook buying Instagram is just one reason why Facebook probably won't be around in 10 years time. It shows a huge lack of judgement and gross over valuation of the whole company.

Facebook buying Instagram is just one reason why Facebook probably won't be around in 10 years time. It shows a huge lack of judgement and gross over valuation of the whole company.

I'm tending towards agreeing with this for no other reason than in order to make money out of a virtual society one surely has to be more creative than to simply rummage through the occupants' dustbins...

As to the wider picture I'm minded of pygmy_giant's "Faustian pact" phrase. Just because your service provider's EULA insists that you e.g. hand over you first-born male child upon demand does that mean that it has an absolute right to do so? 'Course not! It won't stop them "testing the law" though.

It's also easy to say "Don't use [enter name of provider here]" - but unless someone draws a line in the sand it's conceivable that not too long from now the only way that anyone will be able to access the web as themselves (rather than anonymously via a proxy) is by handing over all intellectual property rights, personal preferences, realtime geographical location, spending power, health status and whatnot to goodness knows whom.

In effect we could all end up being unpaid employees of whoever owns the internet and I think it sucks just a bit.