http___www.techweb.com_mobile_240144635_instagram-users-fume-at-photos-as-ads.html.xml
http___gadgeterija.tportal.hr_2012_12_18_zasto-instagram-u-stvari-nije-zao-i-jos-malo-premisljanja-o-kradi-vasih-fotografija__1.xml
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 6.1 7.1 7.2 8.1 9.1 10.1 10.2 11.1 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 13.1 13.2 14.1 14.2 15.1 16.1 17.1 17.2 17.3 18.1 18.2 19.1 20.1 20.2 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 22.1 23.1 24.1 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 26.1
5 Facebook Rivals Hot On Its Heels (click image for larger view and for slideshow) In a variation on the assertion that if you're not paying for a product, you are the product being sold , Facebook's Instagram image-sharing service plans to implement new terms of service next month that allow it to sell users' digital photographs for use in social ads. Through this change in legal jargon, Instagram appears to be transforming itself from an image-sharing service into an image-taking service, but the consequences of the altered terms remain unclear. Writing for The Verge, Nilay Patel insists the new language represents an improvement in some ways because "the old Instagram terms allowed for modification, but the new ones don't." Instagram "does not claim ownership of any Content that you post," yet it claims rights almost equivalent to ownership, in the form of "a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post." [ What does the future hold for Google? Read Google In 2013: 11 Predictions. The terms that have users alarmed concern Instagram's right to sell to advertisers users' images for inclusion in their marketing: "To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you." The revised terms of service go into effect on Jan. 16, 2013. Instagram's terms of service now conform with that Facebook already does with user content. And they don't appear to be that different from the terms imposed on anyone posting content to an ad-supported online service. The Google+ terms of service, for example, state, "When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content." Google, however, insists there's a difference. "As our Terms of Service make clear, 'what belongs to you stays yours,'" a Google spokesperson said in an email. "You own your files and control their sharing, plain and simple. Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In addition, on Google+ you can export your photos and other data whenever you'd like." Yet Instagram also claims that users own their files. So whatever it is that users of online services own, they own less of it once files are shared online. Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman said in a phone interview that it's not obvious exactly what rights Instagram is claiming because its privacy policy comes into play, too. He said a lot will depend on how Facebook interprets its legal language and what it's trying to accomplish. "It seems like Facebook is floating trial balloons about language in its user agreement to stuff a lot of ads in our face," he said. Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In any event, Instagram's terms of service change has outraged users. On Facebook's Instagram page, Instagram user Nicolas Emery commented, "Sorry to read Instagram's updated terms including the right to sell my photos with no compensation or credit. I enjoyed using Instagram but have no hesitation in deleting your app under these terms." Many users echoed that sentiment. Others proposed using Instagram henceforth only to capture inappropriate or offensive images, under the assumption such snapshots would be worthless to advertisers. In a blog post, Kurt Opsahl, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, urged Instagram to reconsider its policy "because it conflicts with the three key principles we developed for social networking services: informed decision making, control and the right to leave." Users, he said, cannot make an informed decision about how their images might be commercialized, cannot opt out and cannot remove their images from Instagram after the new terms of service take effect. Opsahl suggests that Instagram consider image licensing and revenue sharing more along the lines of what Flickr has done. Flickr, a pioneering online image sharing service that many feared would dwindle into irrelevance until Marissa Mayer took the helm at Yahoo, might find new users among those disillusioned with Instagram. Flickr addressed the issue of photo ownership last year, noting, "We feel very strongly that sharing online shouldn't mean giving up rights to your photos. Our Terms of Service clearly spell out that Flickr/Yahoo doesn't own the photos that you upload. You, as a member, maintain all ownership rights to the photos that you upload to Flickr." Whatever that means. Story update: Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom has acknowledged in a blog post that users are upset and attempts to clarify some of the confusion about Instagram's new terms of service. "Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we'd like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram," he wrote. "Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear." Systrom says Instagram plans "to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos."
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 13.1 13.2 13.3 14.1 15.1 15.2 16.1 17.1 17.2 18.1 19.1 19.2 20.1 20.2 21.1 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5
- Objavljeno 18. 12. 2012. - Kategorije - Tagovi - Denis Jeleć Zašto Instagram u stvari nije ‘zao’ i još malo premišljanja o krađi vaših fotografija Nakon što smo vam ranije danas donijeli vijest o tome kako Instagram od 16. siječnja s vašim fotografijama može činiti štogod ga je volja, došlo je vrijeme da malo i proanaliziramo takvu praksu. Nije prošao niti dan otkako je Instagram osvježio svoja pravila o privatnosti i uvjete korištenja – i time izazvao opću eksploziju tekstova i komentara kako je servis sada “zao”, “beskoristan”, “lopovski”, i sličnih epiteta. Da će se dogoditi upravo ovakva reakcija, trebalo je biti jasno onaj tren kada je Facebook kupio ovaj popularni servis. Ovdje jednostavno nema ničeg šokantnog i treba jednostavno ići dalje – sa ili bez korištenja Instagrama. Ukratko vrijedi reći tek kako su podaci korisnika Instagrama sada službeno podaci kojima raspolaže i Facebook. Uz jednu “malu” začkoljicu, činjenicu da među tim navedenim “podacima” stoje i korisničke fotografije, koje se pak sada (usporedba starih i novih uvjeta korištenja u dnu teksta) mogu slobodno koristiti od strane servisa za promociju, oglašavanje, etc. bez ikakve kompenzacije korisniku. Naravno kako je tu vješto ubačen i svojevrstan spin da će servis sada biti lakše održavati, činiti ga čišćim od spama, omogućiti lakši i brži razvoj – no korisnike to ne zanima. Barem onu manjinu koja je pročitala nove uvjete korištenja na ovaj ili onaj način. Iako će biti kontroverzi oko ovoga, korisnici se nemaju pravo žaliti. U pitanju je i dalje potpuno besplatan servis, a korisnici ničim nisu primorani na dalje korištenje. Rok od mjesec dana prije stupanja novih pravila na snagu je dan upravo zato da veći dio njih vidi o čem je riječ – iako tek beznačajan dio zapravo i čita nova pravila, bilo na službenom blogu, bilo preko medija. Ne postoje potpuno besplatne stvari u ovom svijetu. Bilo je sasvim jasno kako Facebook ima dugoročno profitni plan kupovinom Instagrama za milijardu dolara. MTV, Starbucks, Nike, Audi, i stotine drugih top brandova su na Instagramu, a akvizicijom od strane Facebooka broj korisnika je prešao 100 milijuna (od 27 milijuna prije same kupovine). Kompanije ne mogu opstati zahvaljujući nečem što je “besplatno”. Na ovaj ili onaj način, potrebno je izvlačiti profit. Bilo prodavanjem podataka oglašivačima (što je najčešće i slučaj s “besplatnim” servisima), bilo korištenjem materijala za samopromociju (i skupljanjem prihoda na kakav drugi način). Treće “besplatne” opcije nema? Pretplata, jednokratna kupovina aplikacije ili bilo kakva slična opcija bi Instagramu priuštila tek masovan gubitak korisnika uz minijaturnu, ako ikakvu zaradu. Mnoštvo korisnika se sada žali kako se krše njihova autorska prava – i kako žele dio moguće zarade. I donekle su u pravu. Upitnik nad onom “trećom” besplatnom opcijom je jako blizak modelu poslovanja kojeg koristi Google sa YouTube servisom. Tužno je što korisnici misle da se fotografijama veličine 612×612 px može uraditi nešto ozbiljnije (iako takvih pokušaja ima). No, čak i uz ignoriranje tog dijela, korisnik i dalje može činiti s tom fotografijom što želi, jer je on vlasnik fotografije – samo što novim uvjetima pravo korištenja te fotografije od 16. siječnja ima i Instagram/Facebook. Teško je vjerovati da će u konačnici nova pravila imati drastičan utjecaj na broj korisnika ovog iznimno popularnog servisa. Ono što je činjenica jest da Instagram sasvim sigurno neće propasti (zbog novih pravila) – no korisnici su oduvijek imali izbor korištenja, a imaju ga i sada. Oni koji ostanu uz njega, i dalje će besplatno dijeliti filtrirane fotke s drugima, komentirati ih, i prodavati ih. UPDATE: Nakon pročitanih starih uvjeta korištenja, postaje jasno kako je i prema starim uvjetima Instagram mogao činiti identične stvari vezane za korisničke podatke – tekst je tek pročišćen i nadopunjen kako ne bi bilo “nedoumica” što se čini s podacima (a i što se činilo prije no što novi uvjeti korištenja stupe na snagu 16. siječnja). Prava Instagrama ostaju ista, ali jasnija. Staro: Some of the Instagram Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you. Novo: Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf. You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such. UPDATE 2: Upravo se oglasio i Instagram (tekst na engleskom). Kako je i napisano – za krajnjeg korisnika situacija ostaje identična. I dalje su oni vlasnici fotografija i Instagram ih nema pravo prodavati kao takve. Tu i Instagram stavlja točku, uz napomenu kako je pravne dokumente jako lako pogrešno protumačiti – i da uvijek slušaju što im njihovi korisnici imaju za reći. Gotovo poglavlje.