Slashdot Mirror
TwitPic Will Sell Your Photos, But No Cash For You
Andy Smith writes "Twitter picture-posting service TwitPic has defended its plans to sell users' photos, but still won't cut users in on the deal. TwitPic founder Noah Everett claims that the move has been made to 'protect' users of the service."
Ah, more submissions from Andy Smith. Just like last time it's completely off. TwitPic is not "planning to sell users' photos", it's just adding a clause in TOS that they have the right to them too. Just like YouTube and tons of other user content sites. In nowhere they state they plan to sell them, but Andy again twisted it like that.
You know what, if you intent to sell your photos yourself and have full copyright on them, what about not uploading them all around the internet and giving them right to use them?
So obviouslt TwitPic is protecting users from that evil evil money!
a bunch a pictures of twits?
Sorry, couldn't help myself. Twitter is the worst name ever...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oh wait. It's not an article. It's an opinion piece. TwitPic will sell your photos? Where the fuck does it say that? You just made that up. This is FUD to the extreme. Who the fuck allowed this on the front page?
This means that Twitpic users can be called twits.
Most sites that accept user content make them the property of the site (Slashdot being a notable exception). This includes CNN iReporter or whatever they call it where idiots give away valuable footage to CNN for free when they could make an easy 5 digits on it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So the gist of this guy's blog post is "If I take everything said in the press release and twist it till it screams, it sounds vaguely like they're trying to do something bad. OMG PANIC!!111!!!!one". I know it's popular to think that everything any corporation of any size does is evil, but do you think we could at least get bent out of shape by stuff that actually is happening, and is actually bad?
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
... you *** twits!
TwitPic founder Noah Everett claims that the move has been made to protect users of the service.
He's doing it for the protection of the users of the service. Do you want the users to go on unprotected? As I said, good for Mr. Everett.
I agree, TOTALLY rip off article.
I commented on the article, but I expect it'll get denied before it makes it.
I posted the following word for word:
“If you grant distribution rights to TwitPic then your copyright is worthless.”
That’s a pretty limited view of copyright. There’s a lot more to original material then distribution rights, under the agreement they have drafted the users of the image will still have to credit the author, who retains ownership of the image.
Viewing Copyright as “nothing more then the ability to control who is allowed to see/hear/use/have content is pretty narrow minded. It’s that thinking alone that has destroyed the face of copyright globally, and prevented anyone from seeing value in distribution channels.
You have to look at it in a more general scope. Twitpic is providing a service to it’s users, which costs them money. People use the output of the service for many different tasks, and nowhere along the line does the service make any money. (aside from advertising deals, which as we’ve all seen can’t alone support a site forever)
Personally: I’d like to see how they approach the credit issue, how exactly they expect the people that wish to buy+redistribute the images taken will properly credit the authors.
Seemingly altruistic social media site which performs a useful service to millions of users for free turns out to have business plan to profit from people's usage of the site, and does not in fact exist just to be free.
I'm disheartened to realize that there are still people who do not get this concept. Of course TwitPic is going to sell your photos and not cut you in on the deal. You agreed to it in the T&C. Even if it wasn't in the T&C, the clause of "oh hey we can change this at any time with no notice and you proactively agree to any changes" is probably in there. Why in the hell did you think they set up this service? Because they want to "connect people through social experiences"? Fuck no, they want to sell this shit to whomever will pay for it.
Same as Facebook. Same as LinkedIn. Same as every other site that does this for free.
You should just assume anything that you put online will be sold to the highest bidder and adjust your habits accordingly. If you don't what that photo of your dick to be on a porn site don't put it on TwitPic.
Schnapple
One of the deals is with WENN to sell celebrities' pictures, specifically. However, the adjusted ToS does indeed essentially mean they can sell Joe Schmoe's pictures just as well.
This was my submission with a few more links:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1575674/TwitPic-to-start-selling-users-pictures
That said... one part of TwitPic dude's blog statement rings very true. A lot of media are simply taking pictures and videos off the interwebs - be that TwitPic and YouTube or quasistevesdomain.com - and publish them in newspapers, in magazine articles, broadcast them on TV, etc.
If you're lucky they'll add a source:TwitPic / source:YouTube (which of course mean absolutely nothing as it doesn't identify the user at all) / source:quasistevesdomain.com .
I say "if you're lucky", because if you catch media doing this and try to point out that you retain the copyrights to that picture (not so on TwitPic anymore, not so for ages on YouTube, but certainly so on quasistevesdomain.com ) and would like to talk about their licensing the picture appropriately... oh boy. Unless you already have a lawyer ready that can spell things out for them directly, you're going to hear from their legal department on how you should be *glad* they used your picture/video, how it can bring you exposure, and how you should leverage that exposure to gain business. Just how that business should be gained when the next media company is also just going to use your picture/video is not entirely clear.
But, then again, I suppose that is very much in line with music / movie downloaders telling artists that they should be happy that they're downloading because it helps spread the word. Or something.
Whatever happened to providing a useful service and having your clients pay you for it?
So you're basically saying copyright only works for big companies?
Isn't this the exact argument that Slashdot usually uses when people talk about piracy? It's impossible to steal content, because the content producer still has their own content, and, by God, they should be happy that you're pirating their content, because now it's the dominant software or a popular song.
I'm pretty sure I'm saying it tends not to work for either big company or Joe Schmoe at large.
People will download movies, complaints / lawsuits or not.
Companies will use user content, complaints / lawsuits or not.
Of course big companies do have an advantage over an individual Joe Schmoe. A legal team, or even legal representatives through organizations such as the MPAA, versus an individual is not very balanced when compared to an individual versus a media outlet which also has a legal team / legal representatives.
It is doable as an individual to exercise your rights, but it's often just not worth it.
Here's a good example of the arrogance you can be met with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy#Court_proceedings
Choice quote:
True in one sense (which still makes them hypocrites).
What is often heard defended here is the freedom to use any information that is free, for personal enjoyment or helping others. I don't think I have seen anyone argue that you can make money directly off other people's information (in itself). There is no good reason why a person or company should get to make money off something another person created - but neither is there a reason not to allow people to enjoy those good.
Enjoyment of art, science, knowledge and any information is, just like the information itself, a non-scarce good.
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
I suppose that is very much in line with music / movie downloaders telling artists that they should be happy that they're downloading because it helps spread the word. Or something.
More like the RIAA telling the artists that they should be happy because they made them a superstar, while they cash in on their fame.
i've gotten lost some place. does this mean that a free to use picture posting service is claiming equal copy right ownership to pictures that are freely uploaded which then provides the pictures as proprietary content to proprietary content providers so said proprietary content providers can add the pictures to their proprietary content in order to profit without the freely usable posting service giving equal profits to the originator of the originally free content?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
So what if some user of TwitPic posts some GettyImages file to twitpic, and then TwitPic tries to selll that to someone else, and they reuse it. Not every image on TwitPic is created by the person who uploads it. How is twitpic going to guarantee they don't get in a load of trouble for selling pics that they don't have the rights to sell?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I'm guessing that's why they're partnering with WENN and limiting things to celebrity pictures, at least at this point in time as far as the public eye goes.
WENN have the infrastucture and know-how to handle image origins; at least when it comes to (potentially) notable (to some) subjects. Especially in the case of celebrities' pictures (pictures that celebrities upload, in case that was ambiguous), the celebrity in question - or their agent - can be contacted to verify the picture's origin.
There is no good reason why a person or company should get to make money off something another person created
As long as the arrangement is voluntary, I see no reason why someone should *not* be allowed to make money off of someone else's work. In fact, that's pretty much the point of having money in the first place, as a way of facilitating the exchange of goods and services, including creative goods and services.
Ah yes, the "it's only bad when someone else does it, but not when I do it" defense.
If you're really worried about it, then delete every picture in your account you're worried about, and then send them a certified, return-receipt notice to their copyright agent:
Attention: Noah Winecoff
Twitpic Inc
7736 Farr St Suite 907
Charleston, SC 29492
In your notice, tell them that you are revoking any and all licenses to your photographs that were previously granted or implied for all pictures you have deleted (or for all pictures period) effective the date of the notice (or the date you deleted pictures). Include your username and identifying information for them to confirm the letter and match to the correct account. You might even go a step further and tell them you're taking this action due to their TOS change.
IANAL - but it seems the best way to deal with this is to revoke the license you granted them by uploading the pictures. Deleting the pictures makes them not "viewable" but revoking their license to your pictures on a specific date means any distribution, sales, or otherwise made AFTER that date would be in violation of copyright law. Of course, enforcing any violations would be another matter altogether unless you had deep pockets.
Because if we do not allow it, then everyone will just be able to get what they want. Non-scarce good. That someone could make money of it, if we allowed it, is an argument that can equally be applied for a patent on breathing, the right to use gravity and protection rackets.
We do not need an incentive system, for people to want music, literature and other art. People already want it, and charging for it will not make them want it more (except if you put a lowercase "i" in front of it too).
But I was actually just arguing that without an agreement, there is no reason to allow it. I am for a very, very thin copyright where this is more or less the only thing you are not allowed to do.
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
I was not aware that "Slashdot" was a monolithic entity with a single opinion. I was under the impression it was a vast number of people with varying opinions. Forgive me if this is a radical concept for you but maybe, just maybe, different sets of people are expressing those contradictory opinions that seem to have you so flummoxed.
Unfortunately no Twitter client I use allows me to use a custom picture-hosting service. This twitpic nonsense has forced me to read the TOS for the other offered options (yfrog, plixi - or rather lockerz - etc etc). Turns out that all these services suck similarly. I just want a f'n service that acknowledges that I have the sole ownership of my photos and the sole right to extract profit from them (not that I likely ever would). Guess I need to learn PHP so I can run my own hosting service now, and deal with the annoyances of trying to use it from Android without writing a custom app.
Could be an issue. I can almost guarantee that the ToS explicitly says you grant them an "irrevocable worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free" license to the content. Key word bolded. They could sue you for breach of contract if you attempt to revoke their license without a material breach on their part first.
(Disclaimer, not a lawyer, but do read laws when bored or pissed off at businesses/the government).
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Because if we do not allow it, then everyone will just be able to get what they want. Non-scarce good. That someone could make money of it, if we allowed it, is an argument that can equally be applied for a patent on breathing, the right to use gravity and protection rackets.
Gravity and breathing aren't inventions or creative works.
We do not need an incentive system, for people to want music, literature and other art. People already want it, and charging for it will not make them want it more (except if you put a lowercase "i" in front of it too).
If someone wants to sell their art, I don't see why that should be a problem. It's their work, they should decide the terms it is shared with others. Do *you* work for free? Why should you force anyone else to? And it's a straw man to argue whether art requires an incentive system. It doesn't, but it definitely can and does benefit from one. For example, people will make movies, but they will not be able to make big budget films without the ability to make the money back, and pay everyone involved. Same goes for a lot of creative endeavors.
And there's also a lot of creative works that aren't pure art. For example, the design of the keyboard you typed your reply on. There's a certain amount of creativity involved in designing pretty much anything. Why shouldn't Logitech (for example) be able to make money selling the design of one of its employees?
But I was actually just arguing that without an agreement, there is no reason to allow it. I am for a very, very thin copyright where this is more or less the only thing you are not allowed to do.
That's not what you wrote, which is why I replied the way I did. You could have just started with this instead of defending something which you (I think) didn't exactly mean. I do agree that no one should be able to simply take other people's creative works and profit directly from them without some sort of legal framework. But even that has some sticky areas. For example, each building in a city is a creative work. Should I be unable to sell a photograph of a city without first getting permission from every architect (and everyone else involved in the creative side of the buildings)?
As for the legal framework with TwitPic, it's in the terms of service. No one is forced to agree to them, but voluntary usage of the web site is considered agreement to the terms. Otherwise, are you arguing that people should be able to use the site and completely ignore the terms its offered under? This isn't something absurd (like "if you use this site, you owe me one million dollars"). There's still a lot of uncertainty relating to terms of services and EULAs, etc., that have yet to be ironed out, but either way, this is something that the end user is ostensibly agreeing to, and it's a reasonable trade for usage of the site's services.
Yes, the TOS gives the right to redistribute. If you did not assign those rights, wouldn't that basically mean that they couldn't host your content at all?
Outside of that (I could easily be wrong in my interpretation, IANAL): yes, it's technically possible that they can sell your content. . But here's the thing - check the TOS for almost any major "social" service that accepts user generated content and you will find the same thing: YOU own the copyright, but the service provider can do what he damn well pleases. Up to and including distributing your work.
he entirety of this statement from TwitPic is intended to stave off the growing hate campaign from users who don’t like the idea of their copyright being gobbled up
Actually it's to stave of kneejerk reactions such as yours (and the countless people who immediately forwarded this kind of crap to all their twitter followers) -- those who jump to conclusions based on an understanding of terms that's somehow even hazier than mine, without providing any basis in fact. Suck it up, quit whining. If you don't like it, feel free to find another service that doesn't want rights to redistribute your work. Since you likely won't be able to, you may want to look into starting your own.
Ah, well. I hope your crappy ill-informed blog post got you some nice ad revenue from making slashdot's front page. Where's my cut of that revenue, BTW? After all, I'm one of the users who visited your site, giving you some of my valuable time to read your drivel. (Think about that for a minute.)
And it's a straw man to argue whether art requires an incentive system. It doesn't, but it definitely can and does benefit from one. For example, people will make movies, but they will not be able to make big budget films without the ability to make the money back, and pay everyone involved.
Well, let's see what such a benefit has brought us. Currently on theaters: Bridesmaids Jumping the Broom Something Borrowed Fast Five Prom Go For It! Scream 4 Rio Hobo With a Shotgun Too bad I didn't find Michael Bay's crap of the week. Still, I'd argue that the idea of ROI does not benefit art at all.
you the user retain all copyrights to your photos and videos, it’s your content. Our terms state by uploading content to Twitpic you allow us to distribute that content on twitpic.com and our affiliated partners.
What is the practical difference between allowing someone to distribute content without any limitations and granting them copyright? Apart from the fact that I as the creator am still allowed to use the content, which I am anyway.
If you delete a photo or video from Twitpic, that content is no longer viewable.
So it will then only be available to the affiliated partners? TFA is right, the word "viewable" looks extremely weaselly here.
It all about profiting or not from somebody else's work.
While a lot of /.ers think nothing of pirating music for personal use, you'll be hard-pressed to find one that condones breaking other people's copyright for profit.
It is thus perfectly possible to hold a position on copyright where one defends the right of people to freely copy ANY data for personal, non-profit used while being against people or companies using copyrighted material for profit without the authorisation of the copyright owners.
And then there's also the issue of how long should copyright last: I for one see not problem with republishing 10 year old (or older) pictures, wether for profit or not, without having go through the overhead of copyright compliance.
---
Because if we do not allow it, then everyone will just be able to get what they want. Non-scarce good. That someone could make money of it, if we allowed it, is an argument that can equally be applied for a patent on breathing, the right to use gravity and protection rackets.
Gravity and breathing aren't inventions or creative works.
This is beside the point. I was arguing that just because a system of ownership (or other system of privileges) will enable someone to make money, this does not mean that system is a good idea. Allowing ownership over the concept of zero (which was indeed quite the invention) would halt all progress or allow one guy to own basically everything. Not a good idea, even though money can be made. This was my point, in the above section.
We do not need an incentive system, for people to want music, literature and other art. People already want it, and charging for it will not make them want it more (except if you put a lowercase "i" in front of it too).
If someone wants to sell their art, I don't see why that should be a problem. It's their work, they should decide the terms it is shared with others.
I respectfully disagree. They can of course sell it all they want, but if they want to control what I and others do, and do with our computers and networks, they should be able to cite good reason.
Do *you* work for free?
And this is where your analogy breaks down. Because you are assuming already, that what is going on is work done for money. Under the current system, this is often true. Under a system where one cannot own knowldge, it is not (there, it is only a cultural exchange, done for enjoyment, etc.). It is really a matter of positive vs negative rights:
A painter has the absolute right to paint, and do with those paintings as he wishes. Sell, sell copies, whatever. Noone has any right to stop him try to make a living - he has a negative right to.
But, he does not have the positive right to be able to make money off it. If he cannot sell his originals for enough money, how is that a problem?
I cannot live off holding lectures in the street, but I am not asking to be subsidised with money or privileges.
Copyright is a privilege which increases the value of works, by stripping everyone else of the right to do something they otherwise would be allowed to. The artist (ie. record company) is given control over me, so they can sell me back that control piecemeal.
I do not work for free, but I do not ask that the worth of my work be increased by taking away other people's rights.
Re. the incentive system, then I am sorry if I misunderstood you. As an incentive system for creators, and not a natural right, copyright might have some justification. Not in its current form, and not with one type of copyright to rule over every vastly different type of work. I am pretty much in sync with Lessig on this one, albeit maybe a bit more radical... :-)
Now, looking back, I have been pretty unclear. What I meant was:
We should have a right to be the only one to make money off something. Not be the only one to decide who uses a given piece of information, but to commercialize it. This is why I responded, and what I originally meant by: "There is no good reason why a person or company should get to make money off something another person created - but neither is there a reason not to allow people to enjoy those goods."
The poster I responded to was pointing out something that looks hypocritical; that we do not want Sony to own music, but we want to own our photos. My "middle way" is that both Sony and me are allowed to own a "right to make money off a given piece of information". Only I can sell my picture to twitpic, only Sony can sell copies of the music they have the rights to. But I am free to listen to the radio, download, change and enjoy any music I
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
True in one sense (which still makes them hypocrites).
What is often heard defended here is the freedom to use any information that is free, for personal enjoyment or helping others. I don't think I have seen anyone argue that you can make money directly off other people's information (in itself). There is no good reason why a person or company should get to make money off something another person created - but neither is there a reason not to allow people to enjoy those good.
Enjoyment of art, science, knowledge and any information is, just like the information itself, a non-scarce good.
That is illogical. If the information can be copied at no loss to the owner, why shouldn't you then make money off it? If the owner has the right to stop you making money off it, why shouldn't he also have the right not to let you copy it at all?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
BBC reported on this as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13372982
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
- "That is illogical. If the information can be copied at no loss to the owner, why shouldn't you then make money off it? If the owner has the right to stop you making money off it, why shouldn't he also have the right not to let you copy it at all?"
In a nutshell: Because the money that can be made from a given piece of information is not non-scarce like the information itself. There is a finite amount of money to be made, but an infinite amount of copies.
Hence; it is ok to make copies, not money.
If a given work can bring in 1,000$, who should have them? The guy who made it? Anyone? The guy with the printer? Noone is being deprived of anything that is in any sense of the word "theirs" (or costless) if we give it all to the creator. So lets do that. (Print shops will have to sell at-cost, or make a deal with the creator).
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
I guess the "You said it is bad, now stop doing it" defense aplies better.
Rethinking email
you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." -Andrew Lewis (metafilter:blue_beetle) It's in my quote file for a reason.