"I expect "the masses" to react this way, but not actual entities who should have legal counsel."
National Geographic has undoubtedly run the new TOS past legal council. Did yours advise you differently? If so, are they the firm of Dunning and Kruger?
Can't say undoubtedly that Nat Geo - or more likely, their social media grunts - ran it past legal. Possible because the response is open ended. On the other hand I'd expect an organization like that to have a more thought out and tempered reaction.
I did call my legal counsel (he is neither Dunning nor Kruger) about the TOS but I'm not protecting precious photographs here so the advice was a little different.
I am not a lawyer nor a professional photographer.
It is my understanding that the sort of rights one would grant a magazine such as National Geographic for a photograph would be limited to derivative works over which the magazine has editorial control, e.g. an advertisement for the magazine and other situations associated with their brand.
It is my understanding that typically, one does not grant rights which would allow the magazine to grant unlimited rights to third parties. In other words, National Geographic may allow the use of one's photograph of orangutangs by the Museum of Photography to promote a "Photos of National Geographic" exhibit. They may not grant rights to the photograph to The Orangutang Club and Dancehall.
Before a company like National Geographic puts any photographs on the web, the lawyers have to make sure that such use is consistent with their rights. I suspect it is quite possible that older photographs such as those from the 1960's might not have adequate rights, or that those from top photographers might also be more encumbered.
What National Geographic's decision appears to mean is that Instagram's new terms of service are possibly or likely to be incompatible with their rights to particular photographs.
I'm sure you're correct as far as the photography rights go. And I think we all know what their decision means. I just find it hard to believe that their legal counsel said "post a stern textgram photo with X-Pro II so they know we mean business."
It all seems less about rights and more about drama.
Comments
"I expect "the masses" to react this way, but not actual entities who should have legal counsel."
National Geographic has undoubtedly run the new TOS past legal council. Did yours advise you differently? If so, are they the firm of Dunning and Kruger?
Can't say undoubtedly that Nat Geo - or more likely, their social media grunts - ran it past legal. Possible because the response is open ended. On the other hand I'd expect an organization like that to have a more thought out and tempered reaction.
I did call my legal counsel (he is neither Dunning nor Kruger) about the TOS but I'm not protecting precious photographs here so the advice was a little different.
I am not a lawyer nor a professional photographer.
It is my understanding that the sort of rights one would grant a magazine such as National Geographic for a photograph would be limited to derivative works over which the magazine has editorial control, e.g. an advertisement for the magazine and other situations associated with their brand.
It is my understanding that typically, one does not grant rights which would allow the magazine to grant unlimited rights to third parties. In other words, National Geographic may allow the use of one's photograph of orangutangs by the Museum of Photography to promote a "Photos of National Geographic" exhibit. They may not grant rights to the photograph to The Orangutang Club and Dancehall.
Before a company like National Geographic puts any photographs on the web, the lawyers have to make sure that such use is consistent with their rights. I suspect it is quite possible that older photographs such as those from the 1960's might not have adequate rights, or that those from top photographers might also be more encumbered.
What National Geographic's decision appears to mean is that Instagram's new terms of service are possibly or likely to be incompatible with their rights to particular photographs.
I'm sure you're correct as far as the photography rights go. And I think we all know what their decision means. I just find it hard to believe that their legal counsel said "post a stern textgram photo with X-Pro II so they know we mean business."
It all seems less about rights and more about drama.