Response to Instagram Policy Changes

Response to Instagram Policy Changes

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

First let me be clear; I don't use Instagram and I've never even had an account. However, it seems everyone I know does and it's a frequently used app among many. I think a lot of what sets me apart from this behavior is that I don't take a lot of pictures. Further, I think it's most important to create something rather than simply capture it. Unless of course the thing you are capturing is particularly unique. Sunsets, food and cats don't really satisfy my definition of 'unique'.

As of today, 15 people have posted the same link in my Facebook feed. Many of which are reacting by promising to delete their accounts. While on the surface this may sound like the correct course of action to protest the movement, however I believe many are forgetting one piece of the puzzle; the internet is forever. Once something is posted to the internet, it's always there.

Additionally, I found something else interestingly ironic. Many of the same people in an uproar about the changes are also people who advocate internet piracy. Indeed, one of the root issues that those combatting piracy bring up is that of ownership; using something as if it was your own. However, some manifestations require others to use things made by other people. For instance, a great many dancers do not make their own music. They use music someone else made in order to dance. When a dancer uploads a video of their craft to YouTube, it's often removed for violation of copyright. I understand the other side of the fence too. People want to be paid for the work they create. Prior to the digital age, this was easy. Now, the line drawn between what is used for business or pleasure is blurring.

The most important point to all of this is that Instagram is a free photo hosting service. Users are not paying for their photos to be hosted. If they wanted to do that, there are plenty of options for users to cough up some cash for their pictures to displayed on the internet in whatever manner they please, under their own conditions. Because we give Instagram these photos, we are allowing them to do as they please. They have to pay for the hosting somehow, and the new policy changes simply mean they want to use the content provided by its users in advertising. Bottom line: if you want to get paid for the content you produce, don't simply give it to someone else.

So before you run off to Flickr, Picasa or any other similar application. It will potentially be just the same, so expect a similar outcome in the future. Pay up, shut up or start watermarking everything.

As an aside, I use a number of free services to host my content (mostly through Google services like Blogger and Google Sites) and I'm aware that they can shut down or use the content I produce at any time. I use these methods for ease of access and usability, just like the users of Instagram do. And let's face it, if we can do it for free...