3 ms·

It's a hack because Instagram doesn't give you an option to license under CC in their interface, and it's doubtful they will, now that they're owned by FB. CC

by philipn 14y ago

It's a hack because Instagram doesn't give you an option to license under CC in their interface, and it's doubtful they will, now that they're owned by FB. CC licensing on Flickr has had a huge impact on the free culture movement, and it'd be great to see something like that happen with Instagram, which is now (I assume) orders of magnitude more popular. The way the default licensing on Instagram works is: you hold copyright and Instagram has a non-exclusive right to use them in some ways. It doesn't permit usage outside of that. So if you wanted to use an image on your blog or in a Wikipedia article you'd be out of luck (or maybe just get lucky and not get in any trouble).

yew-right 14y ago
Nice work. A good idea. FB is looking to profit from UGC. UGC mean User Generated Content in case you are not familiar all the acronyms. You send them _your_ stuff and they use it to make money but restrict others from using it. They do this with a silly license thanno one reads. So use the CC license instead. If you are into "sharing", then CC is the better choice. If you want to enrich FB, then I guess keep agreeing to FB's license. Truly, they are _your_ photos, not FB's, and you can license them any way you want. The CC license is there because people generally do not write up their own licenses. How many people even truly understand copyright? Most lawyers I know do not even fully understand it. Nothing is to say you can't draw up your own license though. One of my favorites is the "Do Whatever the Fuck You Want License". It is one line: Do whatever the fuck you want. Beautiful. Another one I like is the "non-license". It's two words: Public domain. This is the web. Everything gets copied. And licenses are just words. What matters really is whether someone is going to sue you. A license can make that easier or harder to do. But the truth is, if someone really wants to sue you, if you are in the US, they can. License or no license. Whether the suit goes forward is another matter. Still, getting sued is a hassle, even if the suit is baseless. (A strategy is born. Eureka.) Apologies for the profanity.

by philipn 14y ago

yew-right 14y ago

Nice work. A good idea. FB is looking to profit from UGC. UGC mean User Generated Content in case you are not familiar all the acronyms. You send them _your_ stuff and they use it to make money but restrict others from using it. They do this with a silly license thanno one reads. So use the CC license instead. If you are into "sharing", then CC is the better choice. If you want to enrich FB, then I guess keep agreeing to FB's license. Truly, they are _your_ photos, not FB's, and you can license them any way you want. The CC license is there because people generally do not write up their own licenses. How many people even truly understand copyright? Most lawyers I know do not even fully understand it. Nothing is to say you can't draw up your own license though. One of my favorites is the "Do Whatever the Fuck You Want License". It is one line: Do whatever the fuck you want. Beautiful. Another one I like is the "non-license". It's two words: Public domain. This is the web. Everything gets copied. And licenses are just words. What matters really is whether someone is going to sue you. A license can make that easier or harder to do. But the truth is, if someone really wants to sue you, if you are in the US, they can. License or no license. Whether the suit goes forward is another matter. Still, getting sued is a hassle, even if the suit is baseless. (A strategy is born. Eureka.) Apologies for the profanity.