Precisely my point - NatGeo is historically very conscientious of the IP surrounding their photography, but not this time.
Before the latest Instagram TOS controversy their TOS was already a travesty for photographers, where was NatGeo's objection prior to this? And why did they grant irrevocable, sublicensable, transferable licenses to a whole bunch of photographs already?
This seems like jumping on the bandwagon way too late. NatGeo should never have used Instagram with the copyright license as it was - the latest TOS changes simply made an already overreaching agreement even more egregious.
It is my understanding that historically, terms of service are derived from the fact that a service provider might host multiple copies of an image across different servers and transfer the image between servers, as well as generate and transmit many copies to user's browsers.
In other words, the basis of the TOS was what was necessary to provide the service and what was monetized was the service.
In contrast, my understanding of the new Instagram TOS is that it could readily allow for the direct monetization of the content outside of the service provided to the photographer. It requires the copyright holder to give up rights beyond what is strictly necessary to provide service to the user.
However, in a sense I agree with you. Google's new standard terms of service appears to allow the possibility of something similar in so far as the user grants usage rights to future Google services.
Comments
Precisely my point - NatGeo is historically very conscientious of the IP surrounding their photography, but not this time.
Before the latest Instagram TOS controversy their TOS was already a travesty for photographers, where was NatGeo's objection prior to this? And why did they grant irrevocable, sublicensable, transferable licenses to a whole bunch of photographs already?
This seems like jumping on the bandwagon way too late. NatGeo should never have used Instagram with the copyright license as it was - the latest TOS changes simply made an already overreaching agreement even more egregious.
It is my understanding that historically, terms of service are derived from the fact that a service provider might host multiple copies of an image across different servers and transfer the image between servers, as well as generate and transmit many copies to user's browsers.
In other words, the basis of the TOS was what was necessary to provide the service and what was monetized was the service.
In contrast, my understanding of the new Instagram TOS is that it could readily allow for the direct monetization of the content outside of the service provided to the photographer. It requires the copyright holder to give up rights beyond what is strictly necessary to provide service to the user.
However, in a sense I agree with you. Google's new standard terms of service appears to allow the possibility of something similar in so far as the user grants usage rights to future Google services.
I, of course, am not a lawyer.