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?
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?
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.
The actual statement is something like "the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil."
It is unwise to ascribe motive
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.
Most sites that accept user content make them the property of the site (Slashdot being a notable exception).
Not quite. Most sites that accept user content do so under terms that grant the site an irrevocable, perpetual, transferable and sublicensable right to reuse the material. A classic example of this is Amazon's Conditions of Use, which state in part:
If you do post content or submit material, and unless we indicate otherwise, you grant Amazon a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media.
You retain the copyright, and may make additional grants to other parties, but you cannot revoke the grant you made to the initial site.
Whatever happened to providing a useful service and having your clients pay you for it?
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.
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
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.
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".
No, you just need an app to run on your pictures before you upload them that resizes them down to nearly unusable, and puts an obnoxious watermark with a copyright notice and contact information for viewers to purchase rights. Twitpic then has an irrevocable license to sell your advertising material.
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.