I have to say I love my ASUS TF300 tablet that I bought myself on Black Friday. It's my first Android experience. I can see why people say that iOS is still better, but I really like the flexibility and customizability. With that said, there is a slight price to pay in terms of stability/smoothness, though it is not really a big factor at all. It is definitely making me reconsider whether my next phone will be from Apple.

 

Someone needs to explain to me what exactly rooting is and why I would want to do that.

 

You want more smoothness and stability eh? Then you need to root and unlock your bootloader. Install CyanogenMod or AOKP on the tablet and then you have even more customization options, most likely better battery life depending on what kernel you flash, and possibility of overclocking if need be. Not to mention you can get software updates long before Asus decides to release it. I believe AOKP and CM support Android 4.1 on the TF300.

Magazines aren't RESELLING the picture for advertising purposes, Instagram is attempting to say they can.

 

Tom Cruise drinking a cup of starbucks on a magazine isn't the same as Instagram popping up a picture of Tom Cruise drinking starbucks that says "Tom Cruise Loves Starbucks...so should you!"

 

But Instagram's new TOS isn't limited to your weird scenario, it's just giving them the ability to sell your photos to whomever they want. So they could sell that pic you snapped of Tom Cruise to People the same as a freelance photographer could.

And this is why I say "its a fact based question" and "its hard to answer without a specific fact pattern", because if the case is what you just said, then obviously Instagram would have potential liability.

 

I thought you were talking about the following:

 

I take a picture of my friends and I out on a lake.

I post the picture on Instagram.

Instagram sells my picture to random company Y.

Random company Y puts my picture (unedited) on a website to show people having a good time.

 

No, I was trying to go more into the situation I posted just now...that I took a pic of Cruise sipping Starbucks, and now Instagram sells it as advertising for Starbucks as if Cruise endorsed them...because I uploaded a photo of it there.

But Instagram's new TOS isn't limited to your weird scenario, it's just giving them the ability to sell your photos to whomever they want. So they could sell that pic you snapped of Tom Cruise to People the same as a freelance photographer could.

 

Or lets say you took a really amazing picture of the Sears Tower that did not have any people in it. As Sears Tower is a building that functions there is no copyright that protects its reproduction, thus Instagram could sell your Sears Tower picture.

 

Im pretty sure that Instagram will have a few attorneys reviewing this before they do anything. Id hope that they are smarter than me about this.

who cares about that scenario, it doesn't really have anything to do with Instagram's TOS. That's a problem with Starbucks' use of the pic that they could have gotten from anywhere, not with Instagram's TOS.

But Instagram's new TOS isn't limited to your weird scenario, it's just giving them the ability to sell your photos to whomever they want. So they could sell that pic you snapped of Tom Cruise to People the same as a freelance photographer could.

 

Wasn't my point that it's limited to that scenario...I'm saying it's saying the CAN do that scenario, and I don't think they can.

Or lets say you took a really amazing picture of the Sears Tower that did not have any people in it. As Sears Tower is a building that functions there is no copyright that protects its reproduction, thus Instagram could sell your Sears Tower picture.

 

Im pretty sure that Instagram will have a few attorneys reviewing this before they do anything. Id hope that they are smarter than me about this.

 

Right, it essentially gives Instagram a huge catalog of "stock photographs" to sell to ad agencies. It doesn't have to be celebrities.

No, I was trying to go more into the situation I posted just now...that I took a pic of Cruise sipping Starbucks, and now Instagram sells it as advertising for Starbucks as if Cruise endorsed them...because I uploaded a photo of it there.

 

Instagram would likely have potential liability to Tom Cruise (unless Tom Cruise was a member of instagram and the tos of instagram states that by being a member you allow us to do anything with your likeness.)

 

You cant bind someone who doesnt have privity of contract. Thats just basic contract law.

Wasn't my point that it's limited to that scenario...I'm saying it's saying the CAN do that scenario, and I don't think they can.

 

Instagram's TOS has nothing to do with what Starbucks does with a photo in an ad.

Wasn't my point that it's limited to that scenario...I'm saying it's saying the CAN do that scenario, and I don't think they can.

 

Well they are right. You can do anything. You just may have liability for doing it.

Instagram would likely have potential liability to Tom Cruise (unless Tom Cruise was a member of instagram and the tos of instagram states that by being a member you allow us to do anything with your likeness.)

 

You cant bind someone who doesnt have privity of contract. Thats just basic contract law.

But doesn't that fall under whatever statutes cover being outdoors in public places? The statute which, I believe, was settled in the "Girls Gone Wild" supreme court case, where if you have no expectation of privacy in a place and someone takes a photo/video of you, then you don't have control over that image?

Instagram would likely have potential liability to Tom Cruise (unless Tom Cruise was a member of instagram and the tos of instagram states that by being a member you allow us to do anything with your likeness.)

 

You cant bind someone who doesnt have privity of contract. Thats just basic contract law.

 

Instagram could sell whatever photos they want of Tom Cruise to Starbucks' ad agency. What Starbucks' ad agency does with them isn't really relevant to who sold those pictures or where they came from in the first place, which is why the scenario doesn't seem relevant.

Well they are right. You can do anything. You just may have liability for doing it.

 

This makes more sense to me than the convoluted answers everyone else is trying to give me.

I said likely have "POTENTIAL" liability.

 

It would depend on the facts. Starbucks isnt going to buy that photo from Instagram without an indemnification statement. That would just be stupid.

 

I was assuming we were talking about the real world where corporations like Starbucks have lawyers and they dont buy anything unless the seller warrants and represents good title.

Right now Tom Cruise is viewing this thread, contemplating suing Soxtalk for discussing him without his permission

I said likely have "POTENTIAL" liability.

 

It would depend on the facts. Starbucks isnt going to buy that photo from Instagram without an indemnification statement. That would just be stupid.

 

I was assuming we were talking about the real world where corporations like Starbucks have lawyers and they dont buy anything unless the seller warrants and represents good title.

 

But there's something different between publishing a photo of Tom Cruise doing something in public, which any tabloid can do legally, and some company claiming endorsement of a product. That's where this example is getting really convoluted.

Right now Tom Cruise is viewing this thread, contemplating suing Soxtalk for discussing him without his permission

He's a gay!

He's a gay!

 

But I am sure he acknowledges that his brand name association with soxtalk is the worst kind of defamation

So this for me, is episode 400 of internet freakout over original "cool startup" trying to monetize itself in the face of it's childish and conspiracy-theoried users.

 

It's amusing. For one, they are basically getting the right to advertise themselves, and do the same promoted crap that facebook does. But what does everyone assume? That instagram is going to make money by selling off their pictures of s***ty spaghetti they made to advertising companies and magazines.

 

It's a wonderful mix of narcissism and stupidity.

I ordered a HD Kindle for my daughter for Christmas, looking forward to playing around with it.

 

So, those Kindle HDs are good for porn?

So, those Kindle HDs are good for porn?

 

we shall see

So this for me, is episode 400 of internet freakout over original "cool startup" trying to monetize itself in the face of it's childish and conspiracy-theoried users.

 

It's amusing. For one, they are basically getting the right to advertise themselves, and do the same promoted crap that facebook does. But what does everyone assume? That instagram is going to make money by selling off their pictures of s***ty spaghetti they made to advertising companies and magazines.

 

It's a wonderful mix of narcissism and stupidity.

 

...and Instagram just backed out of this. So maybe there was more too it than you and others were willing to admit.

Edited December 18, 201213 yr by Y2HH

...and Instagram just backed out of this. So maybe there was more too it than you and others were willing to admit.

Or, they responded to the freakout after realizing it was bad press.

Or, they responded to the freakout after realizing it was bad press.

 

Nah, that's not something Facebook does...who happens to own Instagram. Last public backlash against Facebook resulted in nothing.

 

Big names started revoking their Instagram accounts, like National Geographic, because their lawyers said the new TOS went too far and were unacceptable.

How much money could someone honestly make selling instagram photos to ad companies. That sounds like the dumbest business model i've ever heard.