Beware - Instagram users, you don't own your photo's!!!!

[UV101]

Some of you may know that I am a network security consultant full time.

I pretty much gave up on facebook as the security setting for privacy were always changing the defaulting to the lowest setting with every update. I as good as stopped using it over a year ago. Its a shame because its a great way to very informally keep in touch with family and friends you don't see often. The final straw came when the facial recognition software started prompting me for tagging when i thought it recognized me. Although you can turn the feature off do you really think it stops the service running in the background?????:rolleyes:

There are many tagged photo's of me on facebook and while they remain only available to close friends and family, you are often reliant on someone else's security setting to keep the pics out of public view.

Anyway, here is the point of the post.
Facebook got into trouble earlier on in the year trying to claim ownership of the hosted images. The are now doing the same through another company they own "instagram". Some of the details can be found here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/9752288/Facebooks-Instagram-claims-perpetual-rights-to-users-photos.html
but there is more info out there if you google for it.

I personally use photobucket to host pictures for me and I guess its only a matter of time before they all start to go the same way.

I guess if you really don't want to loose control of your pictures or your personal information, don't put them on the internet!!:scratch::scratch:

[Effem]

If it wasn't for the wife messing around on Facebook I wouldn't go anywhere near it as the "privacy settings" are a total joke. Methinks that it has become a giant commercial cesspit and users have no idea whatsoever where their details are being sold off too either.

As for it being a 'social network', once you have read the endless trash people post on there it gets tedious very quickly anyway. "I'm bored" written a million times has a very short shelf life :lol:

[Macca]

After the very predictable disaster that was their flotation they are now presumbaly getting desperate for revenue schemes.

[Haselsh1]

I shoot my images using film and therefore own the negative or slide and therefore the copyright to those images. Also because I have the source material I can prove I own the copyright.

[UV101]

I shoot my images using film and therefore own the negative or slide and therefore the copyright to those images. Also because I have the source material I can prove I own the copyright.

Indeed, but if you were to scan them and host them on one of these services, I think you'll find that counts for nothing!

I can prove that I have the original file. I have meta data relating the to image embedded in the file.

The point I am making is that under the terms and conditions of this particular service, you are authorising them to do whatever they want with the image. Its just another example of the way you loose control of everything once its on the internet. Also once its there, its always there.....nothing you can do!

[chelsea]

My pics are so crap they can keep then.

[isuckedmandelsonslemons]

I'm an open book, I've spent all my money on Hifi gear and CDs. They can have what they want and know what they want. I really don't give a shit.

[walpurgis]

I'm not too worried about run of the mill photos I take getting used elsewhere, but a photo of me has never appeared on the net as far as I'm aware, apart from maybe accessible security footage that has caught me, but that would be an unidentifed image. Not that I'm paranoid about it, but I tend towards being a fairly private person.

Using AOS is the only social stuff I do online, unless you count emailing.