Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TwitPic Will Sell Your Photos, But No Cash For You

Posted by timothy on from the click-no-to-agree dept.

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."

9 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Non-story by x*yy*x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Non-story by Rurik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they're securing the rights to do so, then they have plans to do so.

    2. Re:Non-story by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We've partnered with organizations to help us combat this and to distribute newsworthy content in the appropriate manner."

      What plausible interpretation of this sentence can you give that doesn't involve selling content?

    3. Re:Non-story by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A few months back I had photographed a subway fire here in Boston, and tweeted it. It showed up on a few news organization's websites, with proper attribution. It didn't occur to me to be outraged about it or anything, as it was a newsworthy photo. And if you're putting something up on Twitter it's not like you're intending to horde it. They used it well, in context of the story, and actually attributed it. Good on them.

      The thing is, by partnering with certain organizations (aka getting paid), this implies that Twitpic now plans to stop others from doing this. I.E. by posting to Twitter via Twitpic, they now plan on stopping the dissemination of the photographs to people who don't pay. They're reducing the possible distribution of newsworthy images. Which to me, reduces my value of uploading it. Further, it adds situations where things aren't attributed, or are used entirely out of context (photos of my children being used to sell Viagra would be totally legal).

      It's strange. This takes things from basically the situation an end user would want... Things intended to be disseminated get disseminated, while bad uses can be sued to be stopped... into one where the good uses are cut back and the bad uses are suddenly AOK.

      Does anyone know which twitter clients use twitpic for hosting?

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    4. Re:Non-story by similar_name · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      My personal TOS says that by sending files to my computer websites agree that I take sole ownership of said files. They all seem to agree since every time I get on the web, sites are constantly sending me files.

  2. BREAKING NEWS!!! by Schnapple · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  3. Re: Of course they sell - WENN news agency anyone? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Industry standard practice by ZipK · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re: Of course they sell - WENN news agency anyone? by Elbereth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.