Technology catch-all thread

[Soxbadger]

Thankfully a service I never used.

 

But this sort of policy change sounds borderline illegal, and if it isn't, it needs to be. This is one of the drawbacks to these free service offerings and why I tend to avoid them when possible.

 

Why would that be illegal?

 

People are using instagrams service, if a condition of use is that you give up all your rights to anything on instagram, dont use instagram.

 

[Y2HH]

Why would that be illegal?

 

People are using instagrams service, if a condition of use is that you give up all your rights to anything on instagram, dont use instagram.

 

For example...what if I'm Tom Cruise...and you took a picture of me browsing at the local mall and post it on Instagram. Does that give Instagram the rights to use your photo, of Tom Cruise in their advertising as they're trying to say it does?

 

For that matter, what if you take a picture of my daughter at a kids toy store because you thought it was a cute picture to share, and Mattell thinks it's a great picture...how does that give instagram the right to sell the likeness of my daughter to Mattell...again, like they're claiming it does. Just because YOU took a photo of something, doesn't mean YOU own the rights to it...and it sure as hell doesn't mean THEY own the rights too it.

 

I can go on an on about the implications of this...it should be illegal...and I hope they get sued into the dirt.

[Kyyle23]

I ordered a HD Kindle for my daughter for Christmas, looking forward to playing around with it.

[Soxbadger]

For example...what if I'm Tom Cruise...and you took a picture of me browsing at the local mall and post it on Instagram. Does that give Instagram the rights to use your photo, of Tom Cruise in their advertising as they're trying to say it does?

 

For that matter, what if you take a picture of my daughter at a kids toy store because you thought it was a cute picture to share, and Mattell thinks it's a great picture...how does that give instagram the right to sell the likeness of my daughter to Mattell...again, like they're claiming it does. Just because YOU took a photo of something, doesn't mean YOU own the rights to it...and it sure as hell doesn't mean THEY own the rights too it.

 

I can go on an on about the implications of this...it should be illegal...and I hope they get sued into the dirt.

 

I think you are confusing the term "illegal" with "may have potential liability."

 

Ill use your examples. If you take a picture of Tom Cruise and use it for advertising, you likely would get sued by Tom Cruise's people if the advertisement suggests that Tom Cruise supports the product. But Tom Cruise's people have no way of stopping them from posting the picture, because the owner of the copyright is the person who took the picture, and that ownership could be transferred to instagram via agreement.

 

As for the second part.

 

You take a picture of your daughter, you have an inherent ownership right over that photo, unless another agreement supersedes (work for hire). In the example at hand (and this is without me reading the article or even knowing what instagram is doing, so lets assume) Instagram has a terms of use, that specifically state "In order to use instagram you agree to the following 1: You agree to transfer all right title ownership copyright or any other claim to any picture on instagram.

 

So now Instagram has the right to sell a copy of the picture. Now you can argue false light, you can argue missapropriation of likeness, you can argue anything you want.

 

But that doesnt make it "Illegal", it may mean that instagram would have some liability. But if they are just taking pictures and selling them, when you explicitly allow that, its going to be a rough case. These type of agreements have been upheld in courts before, so I am not sure there is any reason to expect a different outcome.

 

Once again, if you do not like it, dont use instagram.

 

[Y2HH]

I ordered a HD Kindle for my daughter myself for Christmas, looking forward to playing around with it.

 

Fixed.

[bmags]

The tablets thread died. I was planning on getting the nexus 10, ended up getting an iPad. No regrets. Thinking about getting the NBA season pass now that I can watch that without taking up my fiancees HGTV time.

 

It's a pretty good marriage tool (not that the nexus 10 couldn't have accomplished this).

[Y2HH]

I think you are confusing the term "illegal" with "may have potential liability."

 

Ill use your examples. If you take a picture of Tom Cruise and use it for advertising, you likely would get sued by Tom Cruise's people if the advertisement suggests that Tom Cruise supports the product. But Tom Cruise's people have no way of stopping them from posting the picture, because the owner of the copyright is the person who took the picture, and that ownership could be transferred to instagram via agreement.

 

As for the second part.

 

You take a picture of your daughter, you have an inherent ownership right over that photo, unless another agreement supersedes (work for hire). In the example at hand (and this is without me reading the article or even knowing what instagram is doing, so lets assume) Instagram has a terms of use, that specifically state "In order to use instagram you agree to the following 1: You agree to transfer all right title ownership copyright or any other claim to any picture on instagram.

 

So now Instagram has the right to sell a copy of the picture. Now you can argue false light, you can argue missapropriation of likeness, you can argue anything you want.

 

But that doesnt make it "Illegal", it may mean that instagram would have some liability. But if they are just taking pictures and selling them, when you explicitly allow that, its going to be a rough case. These type of agreements have been upheld in courts before, so I am not sure there is any reason to expect a different outcome.

 

Once again, if you do not like it, dont use instagram.

 

I said YOU took the picture of my daughter, not me. YOU have no inherent right to her likeness. And that's the problem with this TOS. Anyone and everyone can use Instagram to take photos of things they have no inherent right to use. I can be walking through a mall, snap a picture of you (whom I've never met before), and because I posted it on Instagram because I thought it was funny, how does that give Instagram the rights to use a photo that I don't even technically have rights too?

 

I didn't say it WAS illegal, I said it should be.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Y2HH

[BigSqwert]

Dropped my Nexus 7 down a flight of uncarpeted stairs yesterday. The device was in two pieces on the floor. I walked down the stairs with a feeling of deep sadness. Picked up the two pieces, snapped them back together, and viola! The dang thing works flawlessly. Asus FTW!

[bmags]

Dropped my Nexus 7 down a flight of uncarpeted stairs yesterday. The device was in two pieces on the floor. I walked down the stairs with a feeling of deep sadness. Picked up the two pieces, snapped them back together, and viola! The dang thing works flawlessly. Asus FTW!

 

Because your device ended up fine, I feel okay pointing out that I find nothing funnier than seeing scenarios like that.

[Soxbadger]

I said YOU took the picture of my daughter, not me. YOU have no inherent right to her likeness. And that's the problem with this TOS. Anyone and everyone can use Instagram to take photos of things they have no inherent right to use. I can be walking through a mall, snap a picture of you (whom I've never met before), and because I posted it on Instagram because I thought it was funny, how does that give Instagram the rights to use a photo that I don't even technically have rights too?

 

I didn't say it WAS illegal, I said it should be.

 

Well then you are just arguing for arguments sake, because its the same way every photo, video, ownership argument goes.

 

If you take a picture of me, you may or may not have the right to use it. Its complicated and is based on a lot of facts. That being said, the person who took the picture can not transfer more than they owned to instragram. So if they did not have a valid ownership over the original work, instragram cant get it either.

 

These are very fact based cases, so without an a real example its hard to explain. But if your daughter is in a public place, and I take a picture of her, I may or may not be able to sell that picture.

 

It doesnt give Instagram more rights than you had, the other party who actually owns it, has no privity of contract to the agreement and therefore its not binding. Sorry that I missed that, I just assumed that everyone knew you cant give away what you dont own.

 

And why should it be illegal? Why cant 2 parties contract away rights to ownership over photos? That seems to be a pretty unnecessary law.

[Y2HH]

Well then you are just arguing for arguments sake, because its the same way every photo, video, ownership argument goes.

 

If you take a picture of me, you may or may not have the right to use it. Its complicated and is based on a lot of facts. That being said, the person who took the picture can not transfer more than they owned to instragram. So if they did not have a valid ownership over the original work, instragram cant get it either.

 

These are very fact based cases, so without an a real example its hard to explain. But if your daughter is in a public place, and I take a picture of her, I may or may not be able to sell that picture.

 

It doesnt give Instagram more rights than you had, the other party who actually owns it, has no privity of contract to the agreement and therefore its not binding. Sorry that I missed that, I just assumed that everyone knew you cant give away what you dont own.

 

And why should it be illegal? Why cant 2 parties contract away rights to ownership over photos? That seems to be a pretty unnecessary law.

 

The law should be in place to protect those in case Instagram decides to go ahead and do something without prior consent. Otherwise you're looking at them doing it to regular people that they know cannot afford to take them to court.

 

A lot of these "grey area" rights cases need some law presiding over them to set precedent, so people cannot be taken advantage of.

 

Think of IP lawsuits where regular people were offered a 3K settlement or to go to court. They knew that the court case would be lost...so they offer a settlement LESS than it could actually cost to go to court...so most people pay it. Conversely, if they got a lawyer, went to court and fought it (loss of time, lawyers fees, etc), the case would have been thrown out...but it would have ended up costing them MORE to do that than just settle.

 

Law needs to exist to protect people from crap like that.

[flippedoutpunk]

So the geeks that jailbreak iphones seem to have a very tough time jailbreaking the iphone 5, with this being apparent to me, I will undoubtedly be switching back to a phone with android. What is the next "hot" upcoming android phone, and when can i get my slimy pirate hands on it?

[Steve9347]

Gigabit speed internet coming to my neighborhood!

Think of all the bestiality porn you will be able to enjoy!

[Jake]

I have to say I love my ASUS TF300 tablet that I bought myself on Black Friday. It's my first Android experience. I can see why people say that iOS is still better, but I really like the flexibility and customizability. With that said, there is a slight price to pay in terms of stability/smoothness, though it is not really a big factor at all. It is definitely making me reconsider whether my next phone will be from Apple.

 

Someone needs to explain to me what exactly rooting is and why I would want to do that.

[Soxbadger]

The law should be in place to protect those in case Instagram decides to go ahead and do something without prior consent. Otherwise you're looking at them doing it to regular people that they know cannot afford to take them to court.

 

A lot of these "grey area" rights cases need some law presiding over them to set precedent, so people cannot be taken advantage of.

 

Think of IP lawsuits where regular people were offered a 3K settlement or to go to court. They knew that the court case would be lost...so they offer a settlement LESS than it could actually cost to go to court...so most people pay it. Conversely, if they got a lawyer, went to court and fought it (loss of time, lawyers fees, etc), the case would have been thrown out...but it would have ended up costing them MORE to do that than just settle.

 

Law needs to exist to protect people from crap like that.

 

Nuisance settlements occur in million dollar cases, so not sure what law could be created to stop that.

 

As for the rest, you do realize that the law would ultimately place the liability on the person who took the photo. Because all instagram will do is put in the terms of service "I warrant and represent that I have full ownership over the photo and that I will indemnify and hold instagram harmless for any lawsuit that may derive from my posting of an infringing work."

 

And once again, we are back to where we started. If you do not want Instragram to gang rape you, dont use their service. If you dont want facebook to steal your s***, dont use facebook. People have no right to "free services" from these companies. So if the companies want to make terms of service, they have every right to.

 

No one has to use instagram and if your friends take pictures of your kids and put them on instragram, sue your friends. Because its really the person who took the photo that is infringing. Instagram is just reproducing an infringement.

[Kyyle23]

Fixed.

 

haha no, I have a desktop that I am happy with. She needed her own "computer" and the kindle is perfect for her.

[Steve9347]

Someone needs to explain to me what exactly rooting is and why I would want to do that.

It lets you customize the rom and remove stock apps. I think it's a bigger deal on things like the Nook/Fire that are locked up to provide only Barnes & Noble or Amazon products to your device. You already have access to the Play Market.

 

Removing stock apps from phones is a big deal, from that monster device you have? Not so much. If you find yourself wanting to upgrade the Android version on it down the road, then you might want to root it, but as-is I'm sure there's no real reason for you to root your tablet.

[StrangeSox]

I have to say I love my ASUS TF300 tablet that I bought myself on Black Friday. It's my first Android experience. I can see why people say that iOS is still better, but I really like the flexibility and customizability. With that said, there is a slight price to pay in terms of stability/smoothness, though it is not really a big factor at all. It is definitely making me reconsider whether my next phone will be from Apple.

 

Someone needs to explain to me what exactly rooting is and why I would want to do that.

 

Consider it like giving yourself full administrator access on a PC instead of just restricted user access. You can change more settings, unlock locked features, install programs you might not otherwise be able to and even run a different or modified operating system.

[Y2HH]

As for the rest, you do realize that the law would ultimately place the liability on the person who took the photo. Because all instagram will do is put in the terms of service "I warrant and represent that I have full ownership over the photo and that I will indemnify and hold instagram harmless for any lawsuit that may derive from my posting of an infringing work."

 

Actually, while I'm not a lawyer, that doesn't sound quite right. If that were the case, Instagram has just created a situation where they can use pictures of people and then put the onus on the person that took the picture...

 

Example:

 

1) I take a picture of Tom Cruise drinking a Starbucks, I post it on Instagram.

2) Instagram takes the photo of Tom Cruise drinking Starbucks and sells it for advertising.

3) Tom Cruise sues ME?

 

That doesn't sound right.

 

Sounds like in such a case, Instagram is using the likeness of someone else and saying they can simply because a random person took a picture of them and put it on Instagram via attempting to hide behind a weakly written TOS that most people haven't read.

 

I think I have every right to post a picture of Tom Cruise on instagram drinking a cup of coffee...if instagram used it, they'd be at fault, not me.

[StrangeSox]

Magazines publish pictures of celebrities all the time. I'm failing to see why Instagram couldn't sell your pic of Tom Cruise to People or whatever.

[bmags]

Actually, while I'm not a lawyer, that doesn't sound quite right. If that were the case, Instagram has just created a situation where they can use pictures of people and then put the onus on the person that took the picture...

 

Example:

 

1) I take a picture of Tom Cruise drinking a Starbucks, I post it on Instagram.

2) Instagram takes the photo of Tom Cruise drinking Starbucks and sells it for advertising.

3) Tom Cruise sues ME?

 

That doesn't sound right.

 

Sounds like in such a case, Instagram is using the likeness of someone else and saying they can simply because a random person took a picture of them and put it on Instagram via attempting to hide behind a weakly written TOS that most people haven't read.

 

I think I have every right to post a picture of Tom Cruise on instagram drinking a cup of coffee...if instagram used it, they'd be at fault, not me.

 

Tom Cruise doesn't have a right to sue if he's drinking coffee at a starbucks.

 

[Soxbadger]

Actually, while I'm not a lawyer, that doesn't sound quite right. If that were the case, Instagram has just created a situation where they can use pictures of people and then put the onus on the person that took the picture...

 

Example:

 

1) I take a picture of Tom Cruise drinking a Starbucks, I post it on Instagram.

2) Instagram takes the photo of Tom Cruise drinking Starbucks and sells it for advertising.

3) Tom Cruise sues ME?

 

That doesn't sound right.

 

Sounds like in such a case, Instagram is using the likeness of someone else and saying they can simply because a random person took a picture of them and put it on Instagram via attempting to hide behind a weakly written TOS that most people haven't read.

 

I think I have every right to post a picture of Tom Cruise on instagram drinking a cup of coffee...if instagram used it, they'd be at fault, not me.

 

Well I didnt explain how the liability would work because I was being lazy but Tom Cruise would not have a cause of action directly against you.

 

Tom Curise sues instagram, instagram sues you to indemnify and hold them harmless.

 

Basically its like an insurance contract. If you cause an accident, the other driver sues you, but your insurance is responsible for the liability due to a contractual relationship.

 

I bolded a part because I want to make it clear that this is acceptable. There is tons of case law on this subject due to credit cards. And the courts have consistently held that it is the responsibility of the user to read and understand the terms of their contract and that it is also okay for the CC to change the rules and say that your use of your CC is an agreement of the changes, even if you have never seen them. If you extrapolate that law to instagram, I am pretty confident that a TOS that stated you agree to any changes when you post a photo would be legal and enforceable.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

Magazines publish pictures of celebrities all the time. I'm failing to see why Instagram couldn't sell your pic of Tom Cruise to People or whatever.

 

Magazines aren't RESELLING the picture for advertising purposes, Instagram is attempting to say they can.

 

Tom Cruise drinking a cup of starbucks on a magazine isn't the same as Instagram popping up a picture of Tom Cruise drinking starbucks that says "Tom Cruise Loves Starbucks...so should you!"

Edited December 18, 2012 by Y2HH

[chw42]

So the geeks that jailbreak iphones seem to have a very tough time jailbreaking the iphone 5, with this being apparent to me, I will undoubtedly be switching back to a phone with android. What is the next "hot" upcoming android phone, and when can i get my slimy pirate hands on it?

 

They will eventually jailbreak it...have some damn faith in said "geeks".

 

In the meantime...go look at the Nexus 4. You're gonna have to wait though, it's out of stock just about everywhere. If you want a good phone now, go look at the Galaxy S3.

[Soxbadger]

Magazines aren't RESELLING the picture for advertising purposes, Instagram is attempting to say they can.

 

Tom Cruise drinking a cup of starbucks on a magazine isn't the same as Instagram popping up a picture of Tom Cruise drinking starbucks that says "Tom Cruise Loves Starbucks...so should you!"

 

And this is why I say "its a fact based question" and "its hard to answer without a specific fact pattern", because if the case is what you just said, then obviously Instagram would have potential liability.

 

I thought you were talking about the following:

 

I take a picture of my friends and I out on a lake.

I post the picture on Instagram.

Instagram sells my picture to random company Y.

Random company Y puts my picture (unedited) on a website to show people having a good time.