back to article New Year's resolution: Don't use Instagram, it'll sell YOUR photos

Social network Instagram has provoked uproar among its latte-photographing users: it has changed its terms and conditions to grant itself licensing rights to sell all photographs taken by the app. The amendment in the Ts&Cs will come into effect from 16 January. The firm will not technically "own" the images but will be able …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. nigel 15
    Devil

    If i upload something that i don't own

    what happens when facebook sell it?

    it's a funny old mess. i know it has been referred to as their suicide note, but i suspect that most people wont care.

    1. tfb Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: If i upload something that i don't own

      The case that's specifically interesting is what happens if I take a picture of someone, which Instagram then use to sell advertising? That's commercial use and I think at least very questionable. Of course it is probably you, not Instagram who are liable for this.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If i upload something that i don't own

        It raises an interesting point - is it going to be illegal to upload people's pictures to Instagram without permission? Before, you could make a case that they were personal. By extending this into the commercial sphere, you would seem to be doing something that is at least a tort.

        I hope the lawyers get onto this quick, because I really don't like being photographed by strangers with the risk of ending up identified on farcebook without my even knowing I am there, and if this puts a stop to it so much the better.

        1. Chris 3

          Re: If i upload something that i don't own

          Indeed. Where's my model release form?

        2. FreeTard

          Re: If i upload something that i don't own

          I couldn't agree more. My sister uploaded pics and a video of my baby pushing her new toy pram around the kitchen and I made her remove them. Now I'm not even on farcebook for this very reason - but how to police such things...???

          You need an account to know about it, I only found out as the wife is on farcebook, but I don't let her upload pics of the kids, and the kids themselves are banned from the site.

          Facebook/instagram, you're a shower of bastards.

          1. Hieronymus Howerd

            Re: If i upload something that i don't own

            Banning the kids is a brilliant way to make them overbearingly interested in getting on Facebook at the first opportunity.

      2. Bakunin

        Re: If i upload something that i don't own

        "The case that's specifically interesting is what happens if I take a picture of someone, which Instagram then use to sell advertising?"

        I assume the line "Instagram does not claim ownership of ... " is some kind of legalese that leaves you responsible for the image but they get to profit off it.

        1. Ben Tasker Silver badge

          Re: If i upload something that i don't own

          I assume the line "Instagram does not claim ownership of ... " is some kind of legalese that leaves you responsible for the image but they get to profit off it.

          Not quite, though they have covered their backside elsewhere

          The terms leave them able to say Bakunin licensed us to use it for commercial purposes, and we did so in good faith, if there was no permission to use the likeness of the model, Bakunin should not have granted us the license

          The not claiming ownership is basically clarifying that the rights to the work do not transfer. Largely because if they did, people would get very, very upset. The only real difference though, is that the former doesn't stop you re-using (and/or relicensing) the work elsewhere - for Instagram the only difference is they can't assume exclusivity

          1. Michael Strorm

            Re: If i upload something that i don't own

            "The terms leave them able to say "Bakunin licensed us to use it for commercial purposes, and we did so in good faith, if there was no permission to use the likeness of the model, Bakunin should not have granted us the license" "

            Is there an explicit indication that the agreement includes a model release, or is this just implied (or perceived to be implied by you).

            Even if that was accepted that it did, and it was valid, there's a problem.

            It's obvious that, as a service aimed at the general public, a significant proportion of people either (a) won't have read the agreement and be aware of what's in it, (b) might have read it, but won't have understood it and/or won't have understood the *implications* of what they were agreeing to and/or (c) won't care about the copyright status of any uploaded random crap anyway.

            This is obvious to me, so it wouldn't be remotely plausible for Instagram (or Facebook)- billion dollar companies with presumably massive legal resources- to argue in court that it hadn't occurred to them.

            Regardless of whether one could argue that the end users agreed to the terms and *should* have known what they were doing, it wouldn't change the fact that Instagram/Facebook were (I'm guessing) on the hook for any copyright violations or incorrect model releases when they would have known damn well in advance that it would happen.

            IANAL, but I doubt Instagram/Facebook could simply wash their hands of responsibility if they weren't (at least) pre-screening and verifying material, regardless of that clause. (Anyone with an appropriate legal background care to confirm if this is correct or not?)

            1. Ben Tasker Silver badge

              Re: If i upload something that i don't own

              @Michael

              Is there an explicit indication that the agreement includes a model release, or is this just implied (or perceived to be implied by you).

              By agreeing to give them the rights, you are saying that you have the rights to do so, so a model release is being implied (bearing in mind that a model release doesn't have to be a bit of paper - the paper just provides you with proof of what's important: that they consented to their likeness being used).

              It's obvious that, as a service aimed at the general public, a significant proportion of people either (a) won't have read the agreement and be aware of what's in it, (b) might have read it, but won't have understood it and/or won't have understood the *implications* of what they were agreeing to and/or (c) won't care about the copyright status of any uploaded random crap anyway.

              You could say the same about EULA's, the terms and conditions of your bank account or any other legalese document. As the user, you've confirmed that you've read and agreed, so the terms are binding (not actually that simple, but for a different outcome you'll likely need a day in court).

              FB/Instagram wouldn't automatically be off the hook for copyright violations (especially if they couldn't produce a real person to point the finger at - i.e. the uploading user had used fake details), but they could potentially then take action against the user (dependant on finding him/her) for breach of contract. They'd certainly try to use it to reduce any damages awarded against them (we used the image in good faith your honor)

              It's a risk that a lot of web-based companies take, to some extent. Look at Helium - if I upload someone elses work as my own and they then license it to a magazine you enter a similar sort of situation.

              IANAL but I have studied law.

        2. Michael Strorm

          Re: If i upload something that i don't own

          "The case that's specifically interesting is what happens if I take a picture of someone, which Instagram then use to sell advertising?"

          My first thought was of this infamous case from a few years back:-

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/24/creative_commons_deception/

          Having re-read that article, it's not clear that the issue wasn't also one of copyright (the uploader to Flickr and the one who "granted" permission for reuse wasn't the photographer/owner). But the issue in question is that even if copyright permission *had* been legitimately granted by the owner, the ad agency probably still would have been able to be sued by the girl in the picture because they didn't have a model release.

          "I assume the line "Instagram does not claim ownership of ... " is some kind of legalese that leaves you responsible for the image but they get to profit off it."

          Trust me, I'm sure a competent lawyer will find some way to argue that, regardless of any attempt to weasel their way out of responsibility through pseudo-legalistic disclaimers, they're still on the hook. A particular motivator being the fact that Instagram/Facebook are the ones with all the money, not the random sod that uploaded it.

          (Particularly as the affected person wasn't the one who agreed to such questionable terms and conditions?)

    2. mafoo
      Angel

      Re: If i upload something that i don't own

      >what happens when facebook sell it?

      You're liable :P

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If i upload something that i don't own

        Are you?

        A contract under English law exists where there is a "meeting of minds". If I sell my holiday pictures to a picture agency (unlikely but bear with me) I am likely to get a document to sign saying what my rights and their rights are. But if it is the first time, the person sticking the document under my nose is going to say "Do you have a right to sell these pictures? Have you got model release forms for these naked ladies disporting under a waterfall? That villa in the background - did you have permission to take pictures on site?"

        Instagram doesn't appear to be doing that. They are trying a CMA, but they are not doing any diligence to make sure their users are obeying the law. And they are doing the selling.

        It isn't a defence against a charge of fencing stolen property to tell the police that you got the drug addict to sign a declaration that you didn't own the goods, you were just making money off flogging them. Who gets the higher sentence if caught - the petty thief or the professional fence?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Lets give it to them right up the a*se

      Set up a few fake accounts, upload copyrighted photos from as many famous photographers, swamp Instagram with thousands of these pictures.... Sit back and wait.....

      Watch the shit hit the fan when Instagram gets bent over, claiming it wasn't their fault for using copyright photos...

      1. Vector
        FAIL

        Re: Lets give it to them right up the a*se

        "Set up a few fake accounts, upload copyrighted photos from as many famous photographers, swamp Instagram with thousands of these pictures.... Sit back and wait....."

        Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Instagram will claim safe harbor under the DMCA, as long as they take appropriate action on being notified of IP issues with the images involved.

        How they're going to dodge the model release is more interesting and, frankly, quite frightening.

        Isn't it about time to start the conversation about secondary privacy? You know, everything someone else knows about you is not necessarily available to the highest bidder. It's not just photos; how many people have handed out your email address(es) in the guise of "contact management?"

    4. A J Stiles

      Re: If i upload something that i don't own

      That was what I was thinking when I first heard this. Some user uploads an image over which they don't have the rights; Instagram use it in an advertisement campaign; the rightsholder sues Instagram; Instagram in turn find out the user signed up with bogus credentials in the first place, and have no comeback against them.

      If / when Instagram go back on this decision, you can bet this -- and not user power -- was the real reason.

  2. Keith 21
    Thumb Up

    Good!

    Perhaps this will stem the tide of those nauseating hipster-wannabe crap quality photos which are supposedly suddenly of merit because they've been filtered.

    The sooner they disappear, the better!

    (As for those whinging, did you seriously expect Instagram to host all your shit for free forever? Seriously? Get real...)

  3. Steve Foster
    Joke

    Internet Payback?

    Take photos only of stuff no-one would want to use? Oh wait, that's what Instagram users already do...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Great... sign up for Instagram.. take a pic of the Apple logo....

    1. hexx
      Thumb Up

      this made my day, i can put coat on and walk home now

    2. Richard Taylor 2 Silver badge
      Happy

      Better still - go minimalist _ just the leaf

  5. El Presidente
    Thumb Up

    Narcissistic mugs using social networking ...

    Deserve everything they get. Hipster nob heads the lot of em.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    I guessed this was coming after the ludicrous price that Instagram got bought for....

  7. Justice
    Meh

    Don't like? Don't use!

    What deuce are they going to with a server filled with royalty-free images of peoples lunch?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Pint

      Re: Don't like? Don't use!

      Virtual buffet.

    2. Haku
      Coat

      Re: What deuce are they going to with a server filled with royalty-free images of peoples lunch?

      Instagram modified pictures often look sun-bleached so surely the obvious people to sell them to are kebab & take-away shops for their menus?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Whoever is making your office coffee needs to be retrained immediately. Coffee should NEVER look like tomato soup, even when served in an orange cup....

    1. Sorry, "Sorry that handle is already taken" is already taken.
      WTF?

      And what's that floating on the top? :/

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Alert

      I suggest that said staff retraining needs to be implemented with a baseball bat, hammer, or other such blunt instrument. That's some shocking looking coffee. Even if you had the 'greasy spoon cafe' filter activated on your Instagram app at the time...

      P.S. Where's my nice cup of tea icon!

  9. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Bod

      Re: copyrights

      Licenced used and copyright ownership are different. Under the T&Cs you'll be giving them unlimited licence to use the photos even though you own the copyright, just as any photographer typically does when selling their work. Copyright covers making a copy without permission, but you've already granted them a copy by uploading the photo in the first place.

    2. El Presidente
      WTF?

      Re: copyright

      By using this service you agree to assign .....

      1. ShadowedOne
        Flame

        Re: copyright

        By using this service you agree to bend over anytime we want, and take it any way we give it to you.

  10. cookieMonster
    Thumb Up

    haaaahhhhhaaaaaaa

    the gangs running those social networking sites are turning into a bigger bunch of wankers than the bankers are....

    1. WatAWorld

      Re: haaaahhhhhaaaaaaa

      Oswald Mosley is the only non-banker in the same league of wankers as bankers.

      Social networking sites are tier two wankers -- professional wankers capable of outrageous wankiness, but incapable of utterly destroying the free world's economy.

      1. LaeMing Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: haaaahhhhhaaaaaaa

        Yeah, they are just wannabe-wankers.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Some users are threatening to quit the site

    This is absolutely the best people can muster these days, when they're fucked - they THREATEN to quit. Oh, gimme my "dislike" button to broadcast my despair to the world...

    1. WatAWorld

      Re: Some users are threatening to quit the site

      It worked on classmates.com, myspace and google plus.

    2. Joe K

      Re: Some users are threatening to quit the site

      I've been watching people bin their accounts on Twitter all day, the pro/semi-pro photographer community is abandoning ship en-masse.

      All it takes is a tweet from Beiber or some other celeb livid about the possibility of Facebook harvesting their image for adverts and the shit will truly hit the fan.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Some users are threatening to quit the site

        who cares about [insert any figure] pro / semi pro, if you have a BILLION monkeys snapping away with their mobiles and digicams, day and night, round the globe?

      2. Zot
        Coat

        Re: Some users are threatening to quit the site

        Beiber's been throwing shit at fans for ages.

  12. g e
    Holmes

    So. Here's what to do...

    Backup your instagram images, delete them and then upload pictures of crap. Lilterally.

    From fields, the pavement, your cat's litter tray...

    #FillInstagramWithShit

    No Shit? I think not, dear Watson!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So. Here's what to do...

      Or replace all your photos with copies with a watermark across them saying "Zuckerberg is a ginger haired twat"

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Cupcake pictures"

    They need to be careful, a guy was just sent to prison for 10 years for spreading those on the Internet.

    Or have I missed something?

  14. Chris 171

    Hahahahahaaaaa haaaaaaaaaa

    Delightful! Like people didnt see this coming from the off..!?

    Just as Flickr have started pulling the stick out of their proverbial too. That said, Flickr could do without a megadump of hipster chintz (seems from what Ive seen to be the alt repository of choice), there are enough eyebleeding HDR images already as it is.

    Flickr had all this in the palm of its hand for years, heres hoping for a resurgence.

  15. El Presidente
    Facepalm

    Sweet justice ahoy

    When some freetard's "orphan" image is used in a global ad campaign and the freetard loses out on megabucks because it didn't read the small print.

  16. DrXym Silver badge

    Never got the point

    Having to look through someone else's holiday pictures is torture. Why on earth would I want an app which essentially amounts to same thing?

  17. Miek
    Linux

    "non-exclusive ... and royalty-free" -- Nice to see the big media types paying for content they want to use instead of stealing it (via T&Cs)

  18. Gerard Krupa

    Not just your photos

    The terms say they can use your name and likeness in advertising. I suspect this is going to help Facebook's best bud Zoosk sell their paid communication service by providing them with a better class of fake online dating profiles.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This mug is copyrighted

    I'm going to start wearing a lapel badge that says something like "No photographs without owners consent".

    and in very, very small type "See terms and conditions etc.".

    If they photoshop that out of the image I'll be on the phone to a lawyer.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This mug is copyrighted

      I don't know if that disclaimer would be enforcable in public. However, it probably wouldn't be necessary anyway if you didn't want to be included in an advert, since (AFAIK) under most jurisdictions they'd still require a model release from you for that use.

  20. Jason Hindle

    Entrusting your photos to Instagram

    Is a bit like entrusting the family jewels to a safety deposit box you don't own and don't have the key to. If snapping and sharing's your vibe, the annual fee for a proper photo service (Flickr Pro, Smugmug, Pbase, 500px and so on) is hardly exorbitant.

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: Entrusting your photos to Instagram

      No it's worse than that.

      It's like GIVING the familly jewels to someone you hardly know, that lives somewhere else and considers that the jewels now belong to them.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If a thing is free, YOU are the product being sold

    How many times do I have to post this for people to realise this?

    Google, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube..... they make money through taking your personal details, browsing preferences and your content, and selling on to others.

    1. Chris 3

      Re: If a thing is free, YOU are the product being sold

      And yet,you continue to read The Register.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If a thing is free, YOU are the product being sold

        Yes, but in this case I don't mind. If the Reg can sell information on what I look at and post on IT related subjects to the IT vendors, it might microscopically improve the service I get from them. I want feedback from our customers, I don't see why they wouldn't want feedback from me.

        With the "social media" sites, I don't have a clue who their customers are. Perhaps they're flogging my search for kosher restaurants in South London to the BNP. I have no way of knowing.

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: If a thing is free, YOU are the product being sold

      AC, If you had a proper nick name I could credit you for the quote. I just posted it on another article's comments.

  22. Lloyd
    FAIL

    Does anyone in IT

    use products like this and think that the owner's won't rip off their stuff? If so, would you like to buy some Apple products, why yes, they're just over here in this suitcase, yes next to the other suitcase full of potatoes.

  23. Great Bu

    It doesn't seem to matter.......

    .....how many photos of my knackersack I upload, M&S still don't seem interested for their summer bus shelter ad campaign....

  24. Senior Ugli
    Coat

    PROTIP

    The popular page on instagram is full of twats and shit - indeed as some people have stated.

    But if you look for your friends and leaders of the industry you are in, then you should get better photos. I treat my account like a photo diary cos I genuinly belive some stuff is share worthy, however I have never photographed food or coffee. Also I use and account for a small clothing label and drop the logo discretly in every photo. If they reuse them photos then theres some free advertising.

    It would ruin photos but a tiny tiny discreet logo or watermark would ruin the stock photo idea!

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't want you pictures / Info used and abused?

    Don't upload.

    Simple.

    1. chr0m4t1c

      Re: Don't want you pictures / Info used and abused?

      Not simple, unfortunately.

      Any pictures you don't delete from the service by the 16th Jan are also to be deemed to fall under these conditions. Which sounds fine, but if the pictures have comments from other users or have been re-shared they *can't* be deleted.

      Personally, as an amateur photographer I'd be quite happy to let them use my pictures if they shared the royalties with me, but I'm not giving them my work for free. I've heard that's what's wrong with downloading movies from bittorrent, we can't really have it both ways, can we?

      Luckily, I only joined the service very recently so I have (or rather had) about six pictures that I have now deleted. If I upload anything in future I will make sure it has a proper copyright notice and something stating it's not for commercial use (or similar) without proper written consent.

      At the very least it would create a grey area that possible licensees will probably stay away from or might at least get me involved in any commercial discussions.

      Mind you, once the media companies that use this service to make their clients "hip" get word of this I expect more than a little fur to fly.

    2. Vector
      Unhappy

      Re: Don't want you pictures / Info used and abused?

      It would be simple if I could guarantee that nobody else would upload pictures of me...

      Not so simples, then...

  26. WatAWorld

    They are pretty clear that they don't own and can't sell your photos.

    Usually the question is, "Did the other commentard read the article?" But in this case I'm wondering about the editor.

    "Sell"? They are pretty clear that they don't own and can't sell your photos.

    What they can do is sell the use of the photos.

    Still, it is a pretty dreadful wording.

    I wonder, did they intend something like Facebooks' "Instant Personalization" but the lawyers used over-general wording?

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You could just store your pictures on your own hard drive

    And back them up with, say, Google Drive.

  28. Car93
    FAIL

    Seems pretty simple we'll just stop posting anything to the service, and where we do post photos to FB for purposes of business promotion we'll just ensure the photo's are suitably watermarked with copyright to deface them.

    For social media this seems a particularly anti-social step to take !

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ive got a good idea to scupper them.

    I'm a fairly serious photographer and never uploaded a cupcake pic, few cats maybe.. my.plan is to delete all decent pics and then upload 500 pics of my arse and balls, thats gonna mess it up for them if we get a few hundred thousands behind it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: pics of my arse and balls

      I hope children won't have access to these pics or it might mess you up to.

      1. IT MUNKEY

        Re: pics of my arse and balls

        They one be bare arsed any its only balls we all have them well about half of us.

  30. Andy Christ

    Makes me wonder

    Kind of bizarre, though hardly surprising, how may posters here jump in to denigrate Instagram and its contributors. Yes the Popular page is rubbish ("nail polish, shoes, and One Direction") but it is extremely easy to find mind-blowingly gorgeous images through the search feature — navigation within the app is brilliant. By now I'm guessing the majority of the world's professional photographers have accounts and are uploading their works in order to hawk either prints or full resolution images. These pros are not taking pics through Instagram's crappy filters but are using their own cameras and commercial software. What I wonder is whether they will want to stay on after this latest change in policy. Kind of a difficult calculus as to whether having the odd pic swiped for an ad will devalue a work or burnish the artist's reputation.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Makes me wonder

      Oh please, Instagram is complete and utter nonsense! If you want to see superb images from websites that doesn't sell their users down the river, here's just three off the top of my head.

      www.1x,com

      www.500px.com

      www.deviantart.com

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A classic YouTube video that sums up what Instagram means to any sane photographer.

    ==> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn-dD-QKYN4

  32. h3

    I don't use Instagram. (My mother wants to).

    The Autodesk pixlr applications for Android (Free at least for now) seem far better made.

  33. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Dammit!! There goes my anonymity

    I guess my beautiful image is going to be used to market breakfast cereal and action movies, because I'm that good-looking! Ask me, I'll tell you!

    Curse you, Instagram!!

  34. Wang N Staines

    UK

    There are privacy laws in the UK that will protect you from this, however because Facebook is a US company it'll be tricky. We'll see when this comes to the UK court, I suspect quite soon.

  35. southpacificpom
    Devil

    Good old days

    Reminds me of the time when you joined an online service that asked for your email address and they said it was safe as they "did not share or onsell your personal email details". Yes really, and they all used to sell email addresses by the database load to interested parties. Bunch of fuckin etard liers.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If you don't pay for something then you're the product.

    Pigs who get fed and shelter over their heads seem to be getting something for free, but we all know the end result.

    1. Rukario
      Flame

      Pigs who get fed...?

      You mean, whilst they exist in the state known as "pre-bacon"?

  37. trashbat

    First they came

    For my faux-ruined, light-leaked photos of the humdrum, and I did not speak out, for I was tweeting.

    1. trashbat

      Re: First they came

      Although later I did say, 'here they are, they're all shots I took of a T-Mobile advert anyway'

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Full circle

    I used to use a personal web site for sharing a few snaps but then started using facebook. All I am going to do now is resurrect this site and only post very low quality thumbnails to Facebook with a watermark over them (maybe linking to the personal site url). I am not surprised they are trying to find a revenue source and understand the need to do this somehow (you can’t expect to get something for nothing) but I don’t want to allow personal pictures to or my profile to be used.

    PS: I have always used some dis-information when signing up for any online service.

    Best Regards

    Ewar Woowar aged 106 and 3/4.

  39. Jean-Luc Silver badge
    WTF?

    Doesn't add up

    Yup, I realize that FB paid out $1B for Instagram, but

    Upside?

    What is the really big upside in selling amateur photos to advertisers? Are the photos gonna be that great? What's in it for the advertisers that they are going to jump on this awesome opportunity and shell out a lot of moolah? Do big, high-profile, advertisers even want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole?

    Downside:

    Didn't FB already have a splat about "sponsored stories"? I don't see why they would want to run extra risks regarding user privacy issues. FB may or may not be appreciated by all and sundry and they were overvalued on their IPO. But they are the ONLY social network around and will remain so until an upstart has a way more attractive offering (network effect). Leaves them plenty of time and $ to figure ways to be profitable. JUST BY NOT SCREWING UP.

    An incoming upstart may be attractive on the basis of superior service. Or just by being "less evil". I really don't see why FB wants to expose itself to that second risk by earning itself a lot of negative press.

    At the end of day, I figure FB just doesn't "get" privacy. It is a calculated gamble and not necessarily a bad one, from the profit-maximization point of view of FB. But in this particular case, are how the likely benefits worth the probable risks?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019