Nice Network World hit

Have you joined my incredibly non-annoying, once-in-a-while email newsletter?

Sent a three paragraph pitch this morning at 7:30am.

Resulted in a Network World blog post by 10:30am.

La, la… Life is fun… La, la…

Join the discussion 72 Comments

  • Gloria Miele, Ph.D. says:

    I tell people this all the time, but they think I must be wrong. That their “rights” , blah, blah, blah. That if they just post some long disclaimer…. Thanks for being a reasoned voice in the crowd.

  • If you are using a free service like Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter, and have clicked “yes” to their terms of service, then you have absolutely no rights to complain about anything they ever do with the content you post on their service. – Amen to this. Even though we all hate to actually read the TOS, it is ultimately our own decision and once we agree, we can’t complain.

  • Gloria Miele, Ph.D. says:

    I tell people this all the time, but they think I must be wrong. That their “rights” , blah, blah, blah. That if they just post some long disclaimer…. Thanks for being a reasoned voice in the crowd.

  • If you are using a free service like Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter, and have clicked “yes” to their terms of service, then you have absolutely no rights to complain about anything they ever do with the content you post on their service. – Amen to this. Even though we all hate to actually read the TOS, it is ultimately our own decision and once we agree, we can’t complain.

  • Val G says:

    Amen.

  • Kristin says:

    If they change the terms of service, however, then we have the right to withdraw. I think.

    Didn’t you say yesterday on Twitter “With TOS changes, @instagram now kinda sucks”?

    • Yeah, I get the fact that the only real recourse is to delete our accounts, but I still think we have a little bit of a right to grumble about the change. Yes, they CAN do it. Yes, if you don’t like it you SHOULD delete your account. Those facts don’t make their change anything other than lame.

      • Kristin says:

        I totally agree with you. If their ToS says one thing at signup and then they change it, then yes, I can complain and I can cancel my account. Facebook has privacy settings and I use them, but if they started using my likeness without my permission I’d stop posting photos. Especially of my children.

  • Val G says:

    Amen.

  • Kristin says:

    If they change the terms of service, however, then we have the right to withdraw. I think.

    Didn’t you say yesterday on Twitter “With TOS changes, @instagram now kinda sucks”?

    • Yeah, I get the fact that the only real recourse is to delete our accounts, but I still think we have a little bit of a right to grumble about the change. Yes, they CAN do it. Yes, if you don’t like it you SHOULD delete your account. Those facts don’t make their change anything other than lame.

      • Kristin says:

        I totally agree with you. If their ToS says one thing at signup and then they change it, then yes, I can complain and I can cancel my account. Facebook has privacy settings and I use them, but if they started using my likeness without my permission I’d stop posting photos. Especially of my children.

  • Val G says:

    Amen.

  • brooklyndan says:

    As I like to say, “If you’re not a paying customer, you’re the product.”

  • brooklyndan says:

    As I like to say, “If you’re not a paying customer, you’re the product.”

  • Aprille1 says:

    I love this post. I am really kinda tired of people complaining about it. Nothing is private and truthfully WE ASKED FOR IT! Everyone is a reporter – Merchants can’t pay to do a better job at promoting their businesses than we do everyday – with every post, tweet or whatever. It was only a matter of time.

    America, if you want privacy close your social media accounts, cut off your phone, quit your job and move…….under a rock. Privacy – it’s over people.

  • Aprille1 says:

    I love this post. I am really kinda tired of people complaining about it. Nothing is private and truthfully WE ASKED FOR IT! Everyone is a reporter – Merchants can’t pay to do a better job at promoting their businesses than we do everyday – with every post, tweet or whatever. It was only a matter of time.

    America, if you want privacy close your social media accounts, cut off your phone, quit your job and move…….under a rock. Privacy – it’s over people.

  • leighshulman says:

    I agree. You have no rights, but it’s still a sucky policy. So be it. I’ll probably delete any photos I wouldn’t want used all over the internet in any which way. Others will do the same, thus reducing the overall quality of what you find on Instagram. Again, so be it.

    So, do you think Facebook will do a big ol’ backpedal after the whole ruckus over the new TOS? They usually do, until the next change in TOS.

  • Donna says:

    True words…. Plainly and eloquently said… If I cannot show my mother, my child and my client I don’t post. My personal and professional policy

  • leighshulman says:

    I agree. You have no rights, but it’s still a sucky policy. So be it. I’ll probably delete any photos I wouldn’t want used all over the internet in any which way. Others will do the same, thus reducing the overall quality of what you find on Instagram. Again, so be it.

    So, do you think Facebook will do a big ol’ backpedal after the whole ruckus over the new TOS? They usually do, until the next change in TOS.

  • Donna says:

    True words…. Plainly and eloquently said… If I cannot show my mother, my child and my client I don’t post. My personal and professional policy

  • Jim Mitchem says:

    It’s one thing to know you’re posting to a free service, it’s another thing when that free service changes their TOS so that they can monetize your content. Yes, don’t post anything if you don’t know/agree with the TOS. But reselling a picture of my kid to Pampers to use in their advertising is something like a death knell for that ‘free’ service. Want to monetize? Load up my stream with ads. Boom. Done. I’ll be deleting my account in January if this doesn’t change. Which I’m sure is no biggie to them. Oh well, I’ll find another way to share photos. Simple.

  • Jim Mitchem says:

    It’s one thing to know you’re posting to a free service, it’s another thing when that free service changes their TOS so that they can monetize your content. Yes, don’t post anything if you don’t know/agree with the TOS. But reselling a picture of my kid to Pampers to use in their advertising is something like a death knell for that ‘free’ service. Want to monetize? Load up my stream with ads. Boom. Done. I’ll be deleting my account in January if this doesn’t change. Which I’m sure is no biggie to them. Oh well, I’ll find another way to share photos. Simple.

  • dantynan says:

    yes, but… not all terms of service are the same. instagram’s are pretty specific about using people’s photos in advertisements and other products without compensation or even notice; flickr’s terms don’t have that clause.

    in other words, they can create any legal rights they choose to in their terms, but they still have to abide by their terms or they’ll likely get sued. the terms also have to conform to state and federal law; there’s some question whether instagram’s do. facebook is still trying to settle a case over using people’s faces in ads w/o asking permission, since that violated a california statute.

    cheers

    dt

  • dantynan says:

    yes, but… not all terms of service are the same. instagram’s are pretty specific about using people’s photos in advertisements and other products without compensation or even notice; flickr’s terms don’t have that clause.

    in other words, they can create any legal rights they choose to in their terms, but they still have to abide by their terms or they’ll likely get sued. the terms also have to conform to state and federal law; there’s some question whether instagram’s do. facebook is still trying to settle a case over using people’s faces in ads w/o asking permission, since that violated a california statute.

    cheers

    dt

  • Andrew Grill says:

    This is why you need your own social media network, I built my own intstagram out of my own self hosted wordpress, a couple of plugins and an hour on a sunday. See how at http://lc.tl/diygram

    Owning your own content is the only way to keep control of your content. Simple really!

  • Andrew Grill says:

    This is why you need your own social media network, I built my own intstagram out of my own self hosted wordpress, a couple of plugins and an hour on a sunday. See how at http://lc.tl/diygram

    Owning your own content is the only way to keep control of your content. Simple really!

  • Andrew Grill says:

    also remember – if the product is free, the product is me.

  • Andrew Grill says:

    also remember – if the product is free, the product is me.

  • ryan2499 says:

    Sorry Pete, that’s a cop out. Point taken, for those who want nothing shared or seen, just don’t post, hopefully people get that by now.

    But if a picture of my kid I uploaded for my friends to see is grabbed and used to sell Skittles without my knowledge or consent, I’m sure as heck going to have something to say about that, and I will in fact either delete my account or post/not post content accordingly with new knowledge of a change in TOS like Instagram just put forth.

    The misstep here is Instagram/Facebook leaving people feeling as though they don’t have a voice in what happens to something in which they are emotionally invested. It goes against the very nature of social sharing and the spirit in which applications like Instagram were created and came to popularity.

    • shankman says:

      That’s kind of like closing the barn door after the horse ran out. You’re getting mad over something you had the ability to not let happen in the first place! Besides, Instagram has said it won’t apply to past photos. So instead of getting pissed after it happens, take the correct action to prevent it from happening in the first place!

    • pjperez says:

      While I agree from a PR perspective, it’s a misstep, the fact is, these are all free services people sign up for and agree to the terms they didn’t read to use (which, by the way, generally also included a clause saying “if we change those terms, you agree to them by default”) created by commercial entities answerable to either a) themselves or b) shareholders, meaning their users really don’t have to be given a “voice.” The loudest voice their users can have is to stop using the service. Or as Peter put it: “Don’t want a social media site to do whatever they want with your content? Don’t post your content on a social media site.”

      Doesn’t make it “right,” but the “spirit” of these apps almost always go out the window when big money gets involved.

  • Danny Brown says:

    This is too basic an argument for the Instagram changes, Peter. One of the key matters is this, as made by @KMullett on my blog:

    “Say I take a photo of someone at a conference and upload it to Instagram. No problem. Now Instagram takes and uses that photo for commercial intent. (Well that is what the legalese says). Whoa, now we have a problem. I don’t have a model release from that person and therefore I cannot transfer rights, that I don’t have, to a third party i.e. Instagram for commercial intent. I didn’t upload a model release, and there isn’t a method to do that anyway. Who does that person go after? Instagram didn’t tell me not to upload images of people Idon’t have a release from, or worse minors. What if he/she is wearing Nike apparel in a Museum next to a work of art? Will they just avoid these images? I doubt it. A stretch? Maybe.

    Stock photography sites don’t just pass this off in a TOS and state if you upload it we can use it. They require model releases.”

    Or, check this comment from Allen Arpadi on Forbes:

    “It took many years of effort for photographers to obtain absolute rights to their images. Photographers may use photographs as they wish for their personal use. Photographers can even sell or give some usage away. The images belong to the photographers.

    However, usage of images is qualified by public or private usage and where photographs are captured. For example, a photographer can photograph a friend wearing a Calvin Klein blouse in front a Bloomingdales store for a personal album, but never for advertising (commerce and trade) purposes without consent of both the person and Bloomingdales. This Facebook grab to obtain all rights to usage is copyright and privacy infringement and is a serious matter.”

    Yes, we’re the product by choice by using free apps. However, examples like the two above are not by choice, and that leads to a far bigger problem than the one you mention here.

    • shankman says:

      No. Legally (and I’m not a lawyer) it’s on you to know what you’re clicking “agree” to. Instagram had said its won’t apply to past photos, so when the new terms come out, Instagram is assuming you’ve read them. If you haven’t and you get died by someone in your photo, well, ignorance isn’t s defense.

      • Danny Brown says:

        Theft isn’t a defense either, Peter. Neither is assumption. You want to make money from someone else’s talent? Make sure you’re allowed to.

        • shankman says:

          But Instagram WILL BE allowed to, because anyone who has agreed to the new TOS has given them express permission to!

          • Danny Brown says:

            And the immediate problem with that is clear: the user is giving permission, not the other subjects in the picture.

            Example: I get a picture taken with you. I work for a brand, and I use Instagram. I tell Instagram all pictures are mine and all people agree to be shared. Then I, as the brand employee, put that picture up with a promo for Westboro Baptist Church (let’s say they’re a client), with the caption “We support the ban on gays” next to a book entitled “Why The Real Family is a Man and Wife Family”.

            By definition, and your inclusion in that picture, you now endorse both Westboro Baptist Church and are anti-gay. You really happy with that possibility?

  • ryan2499 says:

    Sorry Pete, that’s a cop out. Point taken, for those who want nothing shared or seen, just don’t post, hopefully people get that by now.

    But if a picture of my kid I uploaded for my friends to see is grabbed and used to sell Skittles without my knowledge or consent, I’m sure as heck going to have something to say about that, and I will in fact either delete my account or post/not post content accordingly with new knowledge of a change in TOS like Instagram just put forth.

    The misstep here is Instagram/Facebook leaving people feeling as though they don’t have a voice in what happens to something in which they are emotionally invested. It goes against the very nature of social sharing and the spirit in which applications like Instagram were created and came to popularity.

    • shankman says:

      That’s kind of like closing the barn door after the horse ran out. You’re getting mad over something you had the ability to not let happen in the first place! Besides, Instagram has said it won’t apply to past photos. So instead of getting pissed after it happens, take the correct action to prevent it from happening in the first place!

    • pjperez says:

      While I agree from a PR perspective, it’s a misstep, the fact is, these are all free services people sign up for and agree to the terms they didn’t read to use (which, by the way, generally also included a clause saying “if we change those terms, you agree to them by default”) created by commercial entities answerable to either a) themselves or b) shareholders, meaning their users really don’t have to be given a “voice.” The loudest voice their users can have is to stop using the service. Or as Peter put it: “Don’t want a social media site to do whatever they want with your content? Don’t post your content on a social media site.”

      Doesn’t make it “right,” but the “spirit” of these apps almost always go out the window when big money gets involved.

  • Danny Brown says:

    This is too basic an argument for the Instagram changes, Peter. One of the key matters is this, as made by @KMullett on my blog:

    “Say I take a photo of someone at a conference and upload it to Instagram. No problem. Now Instagram takes and uses that photo for commercial intent. (Well that is what the legalese says). Whoa, now we have a problem. I don’t have a model release from that person and therefore I cannot transfer rights, that I don’t have, to a third party i.e. Instagram for commercial intent. I didn’t upload a model release, and there isn’t a method to do that anyway. Who does that person go after? Instagram didn’t tell me not to upload images of people Idon’t have a release from, or worse minors. What if he/she is wearing Nike apparel in a Museum next to a work of art? Will they just avoid these images? I doubt it. A stretch? Maybe.

    Stock photography sites don’t just pass this off in a TOS and state if you upload it we can use it. They require model releases.”

    Or, check this comment from Allen Arpadi on Forbes:

    “It took many years of effort for photographers to obtain absolute rights to their images. Photographers may use photographs as they wish for their personal use. Photographers can even sell or give some usage away. The images belong to the photographers.

    However, usage of images is qualified by public or private usage and where photographs are captured. For example, a photographer can photograph a friend wearing a Calvin Klein blouse in front a Bloomingdales store for a personal album, but never for advertising (commerce and trade) purposes without consent of both the person and Bloomingdales. This Facebook grab to obtain all rights to usage is copyright and privacy infringement and is a serious matter.”

    Yes, we’re the product by choice by using free apps. However, examples like the two above are not by choice, and that leads to a far bigger problem than the one you mention here.

    • shankman says:

      No. Legally (and I’m not a lawyer) it’s on you to know what you’re clicking “agree” to. Instagram had said its won’t apply to past photos, so when the new terms come out, Instagram is assuming you’ve read them. If you haven’t and you get died by someone in your photo, well, ignorance isn’t s defense.

      • Danny Brown says:

        Theft isn’t a defense either, Peter. Neither is assumption. You want to make money from someone else’s talent? Make sure you’re allowed to.

        • shankman says:

          But Instagram WILL BE allowed to, because anyone who has agreed to the new TOS has given them express permission to!

          • Danny Brown says:

            And the immediate problem with that is clear: the user is giving permission, not the other subjects in the picture.

            Example: I get a picture taken with you. I work for a brand, and I use Instagram. I tell Instagram all pictures are mine and all people agree to be shared. Then I, as the brand employee, put that picture up with a promo for Westboro Baptist Church (let’s say they’re a client), with the caption “We support the ban on gays” next to a book entitled “Why The Real Family is a Man and Wife Family”.

            By definition, and your inclusion in that picture, you now endorse both Westboro Baptist Church and are anti-gay. You really happy with that possibility?

      • Danny Brown says:

        Theft isn’t a defense either, Peter. Neither is assumption. You want to make money from someone else’s talent? Make sure you’re allowed to.

      • Danny Brown says:

        Theft isn’t a defense either, Peter. Neither is assumption. You want to make money from someone else’s talent? Make sure you’re allowed to.

      • Danny Brown says:

        Theft isn’t a defense either, Peter. Neither is assumption. You want to make money from someone else’s talent? Make sure you’re allowed to.

      • Danny Brown says:

        Theft isn’t a defense either, Peter. Neither is assumption. You want to make money from someone else’s talent? Make sure you’re allowed to.

  • Rob says:

    This post is why I subscribe to you Peter!

  • Rob says:

    This post is why I subscribe to you Peter!

  • MurphGuide says:

    Very true, Peter. Well said.
    Consumers also have the right to let their feelings be known, using whatever social media platform they choose. And if enough people feel the same way, their voices become loud enough for the social media industry to take notice.

  • MurphGuide says:

    Very true, Peter. Well said.
    Consumers also have the right to let their feelings be known, using whatever social media platform they choose. And if enough people feel the same way, their voices become loud enough for the social media industry to take notice.

  • Elizabeth Peace says:

    Which is exactly why I deleted my Instagram account today with complaining.

  • Elizabeth Peace says:

    Which is exactly why I deleted my Instagram account today with complaining.

  • John Z Wetmore says:

    I watermark every photo I put on the web with my website URL. At least my website gets a plug if someone uses it (either via the TOS, or someone else browsing the web stealing whatever catches their fancy). I also burn my URL on any videos I put on YouTube that might be of enough interest for YouTube to sell. People can cut out or cover the watermark with a little work, but people stealing stuff off the Internet tend to be too lazy for that.

  • John Z Wetmore says:

    I watermark every photo I put on the web with my website URL. At least my website gets a plug if someone uses it (either via the TOS, or someone else browsing the web stealing whatever catches their fancy). I also burn my URL on any videos I put on YouTube that might be of enough interest for YouTube to sell. People can cut out or cover the watermark with a little work, but people stealing stuff off the Internet tend to be too lazy for that.

  • pjperez says:

    And then he dropped the mic, exited stage left.

  • pjperez says:

    And then he dropped the mic, exited stage left.

  • Daria says:

    The people who roll their eyes and state: “Well, of course… you signed the terms of service! What did you expect?” and make everyone else who is upset feel a naive and gullible are wrong. When you signed up for Instagram you were not told that your photos could be sold. SOLD. This actually this is a change in the terms of service, so even though we clicked yes on previous terms, we now absolutely have a right: the right to complain, at least, and say: “we do not like this”. The difference is between them owning photos and them having the right to sell them for a profit. Not talking about sunsets, clouds and close-ups of raindrops on leaves. Until now, photos of your kids could not appear anywhere for a profit without you getting paid. After Jan 16th, they can. Big difference here. In my view, this chang in policy warrants closing the accounts.

    • shankman says:

      That’s a valid opinion – If you’re not happy with the new terms, close the account. But the people who bitch and bitch and bitch and keep posting photos? They’re the ones who are wrong.

  • Daria says:

    The people who roll their eyes and state: “Well, of course… you signed the terms of service! What did you expect?” and make everyone else who is upset feel a naive and gullible are wrong. When you signed up for Instagram you were not told that your photos could be sold. SOLD. This actually this is a change in the terms of service, so even though we clicked yes on previous terms, we now absolutely have a right: the right to complain, at least, and say: “we do not like this”. The difference is between them owning photos and them having the right to sell them for a profit. Not talking about sunsets, clouds and close-ups of raindrops on leaves. Until now, photos of your kids could not appear anywhere for a profit without you getting paid. After Jan 16th, they can. Big difference here. In my view, this chang in policy warrants closing the accounts.

    • shankman says:

      That’s a valid opinion – If you’re not happy with the new terms, close the account. But the people who bitch and bitch and bitch and keep posting photos? They’re the ones who are wrong.

  • Matthew Loop says:

    Too many marketers and businesses that don’t understand the idea of building a list off of social media. Facebook is not a place where you should ever have your home base. You don’t control jack-squat there or on any social property you don’t own.

  • Matthew Loop says:

    Too many marketers and businesses that don’t understand the idea of building a list off of social media. Facebook is not a place where you should ever have your home base. You don’t control jack-squat there or on any social property you don’t own.

  • Dawnmarie Childs says:

    That’s so “Suck it up Cupcake!” Love it!

  • Dawnmarie Childs says:

    That’s so “Suck it up Cupcake!” Love it!

Leave a Reply

Top