|
My TRP secret santa gift arrived!  
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:You can debate their journalistic integrity all you want, but bickering about whether or not they're 'legitimate' is haraam. i'm really happy to see this forum go in the way of LF. can i be dorkroom muezzin? e: i guess in this subforum, LF has a different meaning. how awkward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
gently caress your god.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 12:44
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:gently caress your god. Reported for god sass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
Is Flickr being lovely for anyone else? On the weekend it was basically down for me - I could log in to my account, and see everything except pictures. Flickrmail, comments on my pictures, anything else that was basically text showed up, but the photos were just empty white spaces, and endless page-loading. Today it was OK, but it's back to shittastic for me in the last hour. Also their auto-play video advertising their new iPhone app is terrible and probably related to the disruption in THE ONE THING I PAY THEM TO loving DO. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 11:55
|
|
|
Im kind of over flickr now, whats the next best hosting site?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
What are your requirements? I don't think there's any go-to darlings right now. 500px was the new hotness for a while but people seem to have lost interest in it. Smugmug seems popular for people who want to make money off their stuff, and if you don't mind getting data mined to hell and back, there's google's picasa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
A basic photo dump site really. Is there someone out there who can automate my LR to autodump crap pics to SAD?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
have you heard of a lil site i like to call DeviantArt??
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Tumblr is where it, apparently, is at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
xzzy posted:What are your requirements? 500px was the new hotness because it actually had a fairly high level of quality relative to other photo sites. Then it became more popular and basically turned into flickr2. E: Also upon just adding some new photos for the first time in months, it seems to be a cesspool of mutual votespamming. mr. mephistopheles fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:cesspool of mutual votespamming mods namechange
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
It's a bit unfair to call it flickr 2.0; for one thing the comments aren't full of people posting tastless 'As seenin group x' or 'triple gold' images. While there are more people doing bulk dumps of substandard phtos, the popular stream is still stuffed full of the same level of photo it always had been.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 09:22
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:It's a bit unfair to call it flickr 2.0; for one thing the comments aren't full of people posting tastless 'As seenin group x' or 'triple gold' images. Yea, instead of 'triple gold' you get 'voted'. Instead of 'seen in group x' you get 'check out my stream and don't forget to vote and comment'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Voted 5, going hogwiley
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
I haven't seen mention of this yet here: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
ya, it's being idly discussed in the cell phone photography thread. It's really one of those things where you have to ask "what did you expect?" to all the parties and at the end of the day probably nothing is actually going to change with how instagram works and affects you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
i really dont care its not like i used it for commercial work anyway, a bunch of people have been going mental on facebook though, which is funny because it has nigh on the same t+cs doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:i really dont care its not like i used it for commercial work anyway, a bunch of people have been going mental on facebook though, which is funny because it has nigh on the same t+cs doesn't it? Yeah exactly. It's basically instagram's lawyers writing a really strong TOS for themselves. People reading into it as they want to turn instagram into a stock library so companies can profit vastly on using overfiltered 1000x1000 images on billboards. Someone on my facebook posted "oh my god I don't want to walk into a shop and see my face on a box because of instagram" But really they should have known that people would be whipped up into a frenzy by a bunch of linkbait blogs and make a more equitable TOS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
could they realistically use anything anyway? like would it stand up in a copyright case? i'm so ignorant of law it's ridiculous, but i suspect most of the people moaning are as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:could they realistically use anything anyway? like would it stand up in a copyright case? i'm so ignorant of law it's ridiculous, but i suspect most of the people moaning are as well. As far as I know nobody has really tested TOS like this in the court of law but I would imagine a good lawyer could fight it well (although they probably would have good lawyers too). I imagine the most invasive thing you'll see from this is like Delta Airlines buying an ad campaign that's like "Check out all these pictures from #holidaydestination - book at a special rate now" and them displaying pics with hashtags from that location. Like they really should have come out with a nice infographic showing something like the above and being like this is what it's going to look like etc. Of course this is a network that basically acted like opening it up to android was like undesirable ethnic people moved into their fancy neighbourhood so there's going to be flipping out no matter what they do. I do wonder when we'll get to a threshold where people will be willing to pay for something like instagram. I'd definitely sling them 2 bucks a month for a non-ad, good privacy policy version. Would other people though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:could they realistically use anything anyway? like would it stand up in a copyright case? i'm so ignorant of law it's ridiculous, but i suspect most of the people moaning are as well.  Their terms say anything you post to their service is automatically licensed to them royalty free and without limit. This means they can sublicense or use your pictures however they want. The only control the user has is who can access the photos via Instagram itself. pseudonordic fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:
the first is basically legalise to be able to display images you post on other people's devices. Virtually every service you upload images to has the same clause. What people are mainly freaking out about is - quote: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. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
If it's non exclusive and also transferable then what does that mean? You could tell them to stop and licence the pic yourself?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:If it's non exclusive and also transferable then what does that mean? You could tell them to stop and licence the pic yourself? You couldn't make them stop, but your'e also free to license it yourself, you still maintain copyright.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:You couldn't make them stop, but your'e also free to license it yourself, you still maintain copyright. Yeah which is the most important thing. Basically this is "lets cover our rear end as much as possible so we don't get sued" rather than building the worlds largest and mediocre stock library.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Oh right, so like paragon8 said, the likely thing that'll happen is companies can use stuff tagged involving their product and be like, 'yo check out what a nice time people are having drinking coke,' and then the #coke pics or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:Oh right, so like paragon8 said, the likely thing that'll happen is companies can use stuff tagged involving their product and be like, 'yo check out what a nice time people are having drinking coke,' and then the #coke pics or something like that. Yeah, hopefully. The other factor to consider with situations like this is that Facebook and instgram are publically traded companies and their stock would tank if they suddenly did turn instagram into a stock library and start selling pictures of people's babies to random companies. FB and Instagram are very aware that their value is their userbase and they won't push them too far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
It's confusing as poo poo. Why haven't instagram issued a clarifying statement? About half of my facebook has deleted their account already so it seems like it's in their interest to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Zlatan Imhobitch posted:It's confusing as poo poo. Why haven't instagram issued a clarifying statement? About half of my facebook has deleted their account already so it seems like it's in their interest to do it. Well I mean the whole irony is that what facebook extracts from its users is much more invasive and personal. With instagram you're still keeping your copyright and that's the big thing. All instagram actually gets from you is that literal 1000x1000 file. If you want to take an extra step drop a watermark on them or make them otherwise unusable to use in an ad. Instagram definitely hosed up in that they didn't realise that everyone would be whipped into a frenzy by a few linkbaiting photoblogs. All that being said - we are reaching a point where we do need to actually be like "hey listen guys, if you're not this vague in your TOS we won't have to flip our shits" So hopefully this outburst does lead to the TOS being clarified or rearticulated but yeah - instagram isn't doing this to gently caress anyone over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Yea, instead of 'triple gold' you get 'voted'. Instead of 'seen in group x' you get 'check out my stream and don't forget to vote and comment'. Also 'you get voted' is a theoretical concept when it comes to my photos...
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
If you don't like glitter awards, delete them and stop joining groups that encourage posting them. Not a difficult problem to solve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
I do (delete) and don't (joined such groups). Okay, I was laying the drama on a bit thick, but flickr comments can sometimes descend in to a mess. I find the cleanness of 500px far preferable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
dukeku posted:If you don't like glitter awards, delete them and stop joining groups that encourage posting them. Not a difficult problem to solve. But how will I get page views?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Musket posted:But how will I get page views? mom+dad
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
Musket posted:But how will I get page views?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Exclusively photograph naked aldies. If you read that in a Scottish accent it sounds like you want us to make nude photos of the elderly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Well I mean the whole irony is that what facebook extracts from its users is much more invasive and personal. With instagram you're still keeping your copyright and that's the big thing. All instagram actually gets from you is that literal 1000x1000 file. I think the interesting part is going to be the privacy of the subjects in the photo. Say someone at the bus stop takes a picture of me drinking a soda and there's a sunset and they slap some filters on it to make an art. If Instagram licenses that photo to (Soda Company) for an ad or marketing, can I seek damages since my likeness is being used for commercial purposes without permission? There's been no model release or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
red19fire posted:I think the interesting part is going to be the privacy of the subjects in the photo. Say someone at the bus stop takes a picture of me drinking a soda and there's a sunset and they slap some filters on it to make an art. If Instagram licenses that photo to (Soda Company) for an ad or marketing, can I seek damages since my likeness is being used for commercial purposes without permission? There's been no model release or anything like that. that's a big part of the TOS - is there are clauses where you as the uploader assert you have the sole copyright of the image you're uploading which allows them deniability if someone seeks damages. In practice nobody really does but instagram is just covering their rear end. Anyway as of now Instagram has responded to the furor and will be modifying the TOS. So good on them, but next time make them better in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
Musket posted:But how will I get page views?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:58
|
|
