4 ms·

I bet celebrities will care when their picture unknowingly appears in some ad.

declan 14y ago
Or on TMZ.com... (Put another way: the right of publicity will limit commercial use of Instagram photos, at least in the states that recognize it. But TMZ is editorial use, not commercial use.)
krichman 14y ago
UIAM you can't publish an advertisement with someone in it until they sign a model release form.
- nwh 14y ago
  You supposedly read and agreed to the TOS, aren't they effectively giving your permission?
  - vidarh 14y ago
    The person reading and agreeing to the TOS is not necessarily the same person as the one(s) appearing in the photos. It is the latter that needs to sign a model release.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  In the UK I think the person has to be "featured", ie a central focus(?), to require a model release - based on the ECHR right to a private life for example; exclusions apply for news reporting it seems. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum137/82809-legalities-relating-model-release-forms-uk.html http://www.apug.org/forums/forum137/82809-legalities-relatin... After 20 minutes of searching with Google and reading on about 10 websites I couldn't find any photog sites that even reference the law ...
greenyoda 14y ago
The point about the model release form is interesting. While you can sign away your own rights to your photos, you can't sign away the rights of friends and strangers who appear in them. According to Wikipedia[1]: "Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
- klapinat0r 14y ago
  But wouldn't it mean the user who uploaded the photo is liable, not Instagram? -- I asked off of the Pinterest TOS drama earlier this year: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3660323 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3660323
  - dennisgorelik 14y ago
    Both would be liable, but: 1) Usually it does not make sense to sue amateur photographer. 2) It may make sense to sue Instagram and their clients, especially when serious money are involved. IANAL
kmfrk 14y ago
The same discussion happened with just about all Twitter image-hosting services except yFrog. It didn't seem to cripple their business.

Or on TMZ.com... (Put another way: the right of publicity will limit commercial use of Instagram photos, at least in the states that recognize it. But TMZ is editorial use, not commercial use.)

krichman 14y ago

UIAM you can't publish an advertisement with someone in it until they sign a model release form.

nwh 14y ago
You supposedly read and agreed to the TOS, aren't they effectively giving your permission?
- vidarh 14y ago
  The person reading and agreeing to the TOS is not necessarily the same person as the one(s) appearing in the photos. It is the latter that needs to sign a model release.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
In the UK I think the person has to be "featured", ie a central focus(?), to require a model release - based on the ECHR right to a private life for example; exclusions apply for news reporting it seems. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum137/82809-legalities-relating-model-release-forms-uk.html http://www.apug.org/forums/forum137/82809-legalities-relatin... After 20 minutes of searching with Google and reading on about 10 websites I couldn't find any photog sites that even reference the law ...

greenyoda 14y ago

The point about the model release form is interesting. While you can sign away your own rights to your photos, you can't sign away the rights of friends and strangers who appear in them. According to Wikipedia[1]: "Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release

klapinat0r 14y ago
But wouldn't it mean the user who uploaded the photo is liable, not Instagram? -- I asked off of the Pinterest TOS drama earlier this year: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3660323 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3660323
- dennisgorelik 14y ago
  Both would be liable, but: 1) Usually it does not make sense to sue amateur photographer. 2) It may make sense to sue Instagram and their clients, especially when serious money are involved. IANAL

kmfrk 14y ago

The same discussion happened with just about all Twitter image-hosting services except yFrog. It didn't seem to cripple their business.