back to article Zuck on that! Instagram loses HALF its hipsters in a month

Think users don't care about copyright? Time to think again. The spectacular fallout from Instagram's photo landgrab continues. Shortly before Christmas, the Facebook-owned social network proposed changing its terms of use so it could exploit members' photographs for profit - without compensating the owners. This prompted a …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Peter Simpson 1
      Pirate

      Re: How many of those orphan works will actually be of value?

      "Your family photo holidays might end up decorating some travel companies leaflet but, being honest, you weren't going to get any money for them anyway."

      Well, I *might* have been able to get some money for them if I'd been asked...and perhaps the advertiser would have paid me.

      These are the same media companies who are whining that non-commercial file sharing on bittorrent deprives them of revenue, correct?

      I dunno, seems like they're proposing one set of rules for them and another set for the "consumers".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Peter Simpson 1

        "These are the same media companies who are whining that non-commercial file sharing on bittorrent deprives them of revenue, correct?"

        Are they?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Peter Simpson 1

        "'These are the same media companies who are whining that non-commercial file sharing on bittorrent deprives them of revenue, correct? I dunno, seems like they're proposing one set of rules for them and another set for the 'consumers'".

        I can't make out your point here. Could you explain it please?

  1. Richard 120

    Hmmm

    I'll have to check all of my cameras ability to add metadata and configure it with my identity if possible. Not that much of it goes out onto the interwebs, I don't trust cloudy things, I can't think why.

    1. El Presidente

      Re: Hmmm

      No point. The metadata will be stripped automatically.

      Mail Online do it as do other newspapers.

      Instant orphan works.

    2. Remy Redert

      Re: Hmmm

      Don't worry. The first thing the place you upload your pictures to will do is strip all the metadata for you. Wouldn't want that getting out onto the web would we? might contain private information you see.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm

        Although if this does go through, stripping metadata becomes a clear act of deliberate copyright infringement.

        Somebody should be able to make that stick.

        1. Peter Simpson 1

          Re: Hmmm

          "Somebody should be able to make that stick."

          Some highly paid lawyer, probably. The amount of money *you* would see would be insignificant and probably not worth all the pain.

          Contrast that with the ability of large media corps to field teams of legal wranglers and you see the problem.

          Their copyrighted works are valuable and will be defended from infringement at all costs -- yours?

          Not so much..

      2. dssf

        Re: Hmmm Water-Steg

        A Sharp phone I bought in Tokyo in 2004, and other phones I've seen in Korea in 2012, will let users add painted-on-like info to the photo. Now, if the site to which the photo is uploaded dares to remove THAT, and dares to try to justify it by saying some sh*t such as "viewers of your photos do not want to be distracted by textual copyright info...", I'd say really, REALLY run over such an asshole with a steam roller. If viewers can read text and crayon-like text describing the location, time of day, and feelings, then the image can carry "copyright/full-attribution/no-sales or resales/no 3rd-party-collection-use" info.

        If only the damned phones in the USA came with such watermarking AND steganographic software BY DEFAULT, rather than for free, users could be taught their inalienable right to not have their copyright stolen from them. But, then, fb, instagram, and all number of other sites would scream murder and end the world -- or the lives of those such as us who decry their greed for free photos they intend to monetize without permission and without compensation.

        Hobbyists who misappropriate works without attribution get slammed in courts, and depending on the medium, get ungodly fines. Corporations do it, and most of them could expect to get off free, even if the work they use is the next undiscovered Ansel Adams photo. Stripping the metadata makes it nearly impossible for the specific originator of a photo to be found or compensated, even if out of 985 claimants only 1 or two have originals that are exact vantage/shooting point matches.

        Engineers and others are taught to be clear, concise, accurate, honest, and more, such as citing their sources, with their work and notes, in the name of preserving the integrity in and the respect for their respective fields. Marketers and boards of directors, driven by profits, seem to not value such admonitions.

        And, now, fecal-skinned politicos and lobbyists advocating the analogous wild west on IP against individuals by claiming orphaned works, it is almost akin to declaring war on the inventor. This should be smacked down harder and more painfully than any fake wresting *appears* to look.

        What nerve.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Big Brother

          Re: Hmmm Water-Steg

          " users could be taught their inalienable right to not have their copyright stolen from them. But, then, fb, instagram, and all number of other sites would ... end ... the lives of those such as us who decry their greed for free photos they intend to monetize without permission and without compensation."

          You know, I'm with you on your basic idea, but I find it doubtful that Facebook would carry out a plan to assassinate recalcitrant forum posters...

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmmm

      Jeez.

      Maybe I'll print my email address onto transparancy and tape that over the lens of my phone, so all my pictures are "watermarked"...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Re: Hmmm

        "Maybe I'll print my email address onto transparancy and tape that over the lens of my phone, so all my pictures are "watermarked"..."

        Someone copies your watermarked file and crops out the watermark. Tada! it's orphaned! Along comes MegaCorp, finds the cropped photo and suddenly your holiday photos are advertising yoghurt for incontinents. If you want to take someone to court for it, you'll probably find that you have to hunt down someone on the other side of the world, with a different legal system, because the megacorp who profited from using your photo in an advert didn't do the cropping.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hmmm

          There's always stenography - make your watermark invisible. I'm not sure how robust it can be as far as recompression or scaling of the image goes, but it might do the job - you don't need to store your biography in there, just enough data to show you're you and knew what you were doing.

    4. Hayden Clark Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm

      Adding EXIF data to your jpegs won't help, when most media organisations have a policy of stripping all metadata on publication.

      Plus - you can't read the EXIF data from a paper magazine!

    5. streaky
      FAIL

      Re: Hmmm

      Theory goes they'd have to prove that they couldn't trace the owner. If the only place it exists is on say flickr and it appears in say the daily mail - they be screwed.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    how to orlowsky everything

    see the article :/

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    See...

    Proof that if we did not use copyright to protect the media companies there would be no content created... oh wait!

  4. John Tserkezis

    I don't think this is about copyright at all, it's simpler than that.

    I don't believe that copyright is the reason why people are abandoning Instagram, because Facebook had these very policies from early on, and MANY quite happily posted all and sundry there (due to ignorance of the fine print, or otherwise).

    The widely publicised changes had the perceived effect that they're getting "less" now - through no action of their own. Like having to pay for something you were getting for free earlier. The fact that few if any, were actually *selling* their photos is irrelevant.

    I'm sure *some* did it because of the copyright, or at least the perceived loss of same, but that doesn't account for the huge numbers. The butler^H^H^H^H media did it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I don't think this is about copyright at all, it's simpler than that.

      Facebook photos tend to be blurry snaps from drunken nights out. Instagram photos are taken by people who view themselves as artists and as such they care more about their copyright than most.

      That Facebook had these policies from day one is beside the point. Facebook and Instangram target different demographics, although I admit their is probably some overlap.

      1. John Tserkezis

        Re: I don't think this is about copyright at all, it's simpler than that.

        That Facebook had these policies from day one is beside the point. Facebook and Instangram target different demographics, although I admit their is probably some overlap.

        I don't agree: it's entirely the point. Whatever terms and conditions, whatever demographic, whatever userbase Instagram *used to* have, is gone - it's all Facebook now. Whether you like it or not.

        Also remember Facebook's primary agenda here - to boost their signed-up user base. THAT is what is worth money to them, THAT is why they've done this (bought Instagram).

        The fact they offer a service to you or anyone else is not their primary objective, it's just the icing to attract a viable enough user base.

        You are not the customer, you are the product. While that statement may not be absolute, but it most certainly leans that way.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I don't think this is about copyright at all, it's simpler than that.

          Your original point was that "I don't believe that copyright is the reason why people are abandoning Instagram".

          Facebook are now trying to enforce their standard T&Cs (the ones that appropriate the copyright of uploaded works) against Instagram users. Instagram users are leaving en masse. That to me is a fairly clear indication that this is about copyright. The fact that Facebook users were happy about these T&Cs on Facebook is beside the point in regard to Instagram.

  5. dssf

    Z-Axis Minus .5 User Base....

    What really should matter statistically is how many new users of phones or acquirers of phones with Instagram preinstalled is how many of them:

    -- seek to remove it from the phone

    -- don't activate an acccount

    -- dissociate their accounts (if for a weird reason fb/phone carriers prearrange this as some "seamless experience") from Instagram and their logins and mobile

    -- seek firewall tools to block Instagram-user phone connecttivity

    -- take down their Instagram sites

    -- start redirection of their Instagram-related URLs/link

    -- are reported by photo hosting reporters as hunting for new photo repositories

    -- take to twittter to announce redirectt URLs

    I am not saying this to torpedo Instagram (FD: I do not have an Instagram account). But, this article could some day be updated if trending information shows more momentum that undermines the fallacy of "new users", since "new users" are aquired more akin to a Baleen whale intake rather than a self-chosen march to Instagram.

  6. Christian Berger

    I like how they labeled the line "DAU"

    "DAU" in German stands for "Dümmster anzunehmender User". Kinda like the GAU "Größter anzunehmender Unfall" (largest accident to be expected), DAU means "dumbest user to be expected".

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCmmster_anzunehmender_User

  7. The Alpha Klutz
    Megaphone

    all in all just another brick in the wall

    if you forget to put metadata in your image, i say FUCK YOU. get your shit took. what did you think would happen

    1. Steve K
      Stop

      Re: all in all just another brick in the wall

      As mentioned above, metadata can be stripped easily. How about Steganographic incorporation of metadata- as long as it can survive image decompression or scaling?

  8. heyrick Silver badge

    Copyright or sales?

    "Think users don't care about copyright? Time to think again. The spectacular fallout from Instagram's photo landgrab continues."

    It seems to me that it isn't so much a matter of copyright so much as 1, somebody else profiting from your work (I wonder how many would stay if they were offered a slice of the action), and 2, the work may be used in a way or for a cause that the creator disagrees with. Thankfully the creators have copyright on their side, but I can't help feel that it might have gone a lot better if Instagram had set up an opt-in scheme where they act as image brokers and everybody gets a cut of the pie...instead of a big ol land grab.

    1. Turtle

      @heyrick: The Instagram Expropriation Fiasco

      "It seems to me that it isn't so much a matter of copyright so much as 1, somebody else profiting from your work (I wonder how many would stay if they were offered a slice of the action), and 2, the work may be used in a way or for a cause that the creator disagrees with. Thankfully the creators have copyright on their side..."

      See, the thing is, that what is used to prevent others from profiting from your work, and what is used to prevent your work being used in ways that you don't want, is... copyright. And you seem to know that, too.

      So your statement that the Instagram Expropriation Fiasco isn't a matter of copyright is mistaken. And if it wasn't for copyright, Instagram could just take your work. And in fact, *anyone* could just take your work no matter what Instagram said about it. "Copyright" is the reason why Instagram had to ask at all.

      So your post is very puzzling.

  9. Andy J

    3 things

    For those who are criticising this government remember that the orphan works 'grab' first appeared as Clause 43 of the Digital Economy Bill under Labour. As someone already said, it is the civil service (the IPO) who are behind this.

    Second it's the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (specifically, clauses 65 to 69) not the "Business And Enterprise Bill" as stated by Orlo.

    And while this proposed legislation does worry me greatly, it is wildily inaccurate to say "Since most digital photographs don't have the creator's ID attached in the metadata, they're classified as "orphan works"." That kind of sloppy journalism does not help to win the argument. A more considered set of arguments can be found on the Stop 43 site: www.stop43.org.uk

    1. Mark .

      Re: 3 things

      Thanks for the link. Though I don't think their case is helped by using the same kind of language we get from the likes of the RIAA, regarding copyrights as being some god-given human right (as opposed to a state granted temporary monopoly - so the idea that the state might take that away shouldn't be inherently dangerous).

      Indeed, if this law was about orphaned music, and the opposition website went on about the livelihoods of artists, I can't help thinking the stance from people here would be rather different...

      I guess there is the point that it seems geared towards favouring businesses, and seems rather a two-faced stance given this originally appearing in the DRA, which tried to enforce copyright law more strictly, again to favour businesses. But beyond that, is there a reason why people who generally favour relaxed copyrights should oppose this bill?

      (My experience is that photographers often have much more pro-copyright views than say geeks.)

      1. Turtle

        @Mark .: Re: 3 things

        "Though I don't think their case is helped by using the same kind of language we get from the likes of the RIAA, regarding copyrights as being some god-given human right (as opposed to a state granted temporary monopoly - so the idea that the state might take that away shouldn't be inherently dangerous)."

        As long as we understand that your right to get paid for your labor, to enjoy and dispose of your property (because the state will enforce your right to monopolize the use of your house, car, etc), all your legal rights, in fact, are granted by the state and not "god-given human rights". And therefore, as you so eloquently put it, " the idea that the state might take that away shouldn't be inherently dangerous".

        Have an armband.

  10. Private Citizen.AU
    Headmaster

    Instagram users dont do christmas?

    Instagram suffers a downturn during the period December 17th - January 14th. Is it atypical for a site to suffer a downturn over the christmas break? one graph taken from one christmas does not prove a trend. dont know much about instagram or the monitoring site, but I am getting quite cynical about damn statistics.

    Are you sure that 7 million instagram users arent off, getting happy snaps of the family gatherings so they can come back and flood the world with what they did while I sat and did nothing but played 10 year old computer games.

  11. bag o' spanners
    Pirate

    Sensible photographers physically (visibly) tag their web-accessible work. That generally occurs in the editing part of the publishing process, prior to the jpeg scrunching and the launching of optimised product webwards.

    If you've spent large amounts of readies on a dslr, posh glass, lights, models, MUAs, and all manner of studio and location gubbins, you'll most certainly tag anything that started life in RAW or Tiff format, before uploading it to its jpegged destination.

    Not sure that they'd really be arsed to do that for the badly lit, fixed focus jobbies that dribble out of your average phone. Anything which is going direct from a blurry phonecam lens covered in takeaway grease and pocket fluff, to a vanity web podium for instant gratification, is unlikely to be regarded as particularly theftworthy. It's the equivalent of an instamatic snapshot.

    Squirting some oversaturated colours into said snapshot to make it look amazingly "artistic" to a few drunk mates may satisfy the average airhead's desire for peer recognition, but it doesn't produce much in the way of commercially viable artstuff.

    It is, of course, perfectly possible to painstakingly potatochop the visible semi-transparent tag out of a pro photo, but the cost of getting someone to do it properly doesn't really make commercial sense in the real world. They'd be working on an optimised jpeg version that contains a max of 200-400kb of data, rather than the 25-50 mb in the original. Producing the original RAW or Tiff file in court with all the EXIF data intact is a guaranteed win, no matter how big and greasy the copyright violator happens to be. Which may explain why digital content creators are so obsessive about backups.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Yes, but if I legally license your 25-50mb file, crop it a little, remove the tags, drop it on a server, then *someone else* can *legally* use it because its now an orphaned work.

      That's why this is a bag of fail.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Easy, just don't do it.

    The Internet is not your forever friend.

  13. Mark .

    More copyright, or less copyright?

    Can someone clarify the specific objections, that don't come from a general pro-copyright POV - I mean, usually Governments try increase Government law, which usually gets much objection from places like The Reg (and myself). One of the commonly cited problems with copyright law is the problem of orphaned/abandoned works.

    So for once we have a Government relaxing copyright law, and that's a bad thing too? Is it simply that it's a different group of people criticising, or is there something I'm missing?

    I mean, if you support say, 14 year copyright terms, that applies to all _your_ content too. And complaining about commercial exploitation is a red herring, as that would be allowed too, once copyright expires.

    If orphaned works are really determined by meta-data, then that would be dumb, but if so, then this law would legalise most filesharing (and more), since many files (e.g., plain CDs) don't have metadata! But I suspect that the law isn't quite that simple?

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like