Nauticam using images without consent

Excellent, please point out in the Instagram ToS where this is covered.

https://help.twitter.com/en/safety-and-security/public-and-protected-tweets

Note: If you have authorized a third-party application to access your account, that third-party application may be able to see your protected Tweets. Keep in mind that when you choose to share content on Twitter with others, this content may be downloaded or shared.

After much ado about nothing do you have the willingness to read Instagram ToS?

As long the platform gives you the possibility to share your content there's nothing to cry about.

You do not like it? Protect your posts as you do on FB.

Yawn

Note: If you have authorized a third-party application to access your account, that third-party application may be able to see your protected Tweets. Keep in mind that when you choose to share content on Twitter with others, this content may be downloaded or shared.

"If you have authorized a third-party application..." This is a key point, giving authorization.

You said "I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty confident it's something related to Instagram ToS and not nauticam." Then replied with the Twitter ToS.

"If you have authorized a third-party application..." This is a key point, giving authorization.

The key point is that sadly all these authorizations are opt-out aka by default your are giving them authorization.

You said "I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty confident it's something related to Instagram ToS and not nauticam." Then replied with the Twitter ToS.

I really do not get you. I cited Twitter just because I have a Twitter account while I do not have an Instragram account. BTW given that you opened this weird thread is up to you to read the Instagram ToS not me.

And I believe you should have read Instagram ToS before posting here.

Anyway given that it seem that your Google search doesn't work, here it is, even fully explained:

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/07/lawyer-digs-instagrams-terms-use/

From there:

The licensing section, though, is what I’d like to examine a little more closely. Particularly, this paragraph:

 

Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service’s Privacy Policy, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 (“Sharing of Your Information”), 4 (“How We Store Your Information”), and 5 (“Your Choices About Your Information”).

 

Crystal clear, right? No? OK, let’s break it down, piece by piece.

 

Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service.

 

You still own your photos (i.e., you own the copyright in your photos). Hey, that’s nice.

 

Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive,

“Non-exclusive” means that while Instagram is getting a license, you are still free to license the photo to others as well.

 

fully paid

 

This means Instagram doesn’t have to pay you anything in return for the license.

 

and royalty-free,

 

This means Instagram won’t have to pay you anything for it in the future.

 

transferable,

 

This means Instagram can give this license to anyone they want. Getting nervous yet?

 

sub-licensable,

 

This means Instagram can sell a sub-license to another party. And they don’t have to pay you for it, because remember, we agreed above that this license is “royalty-free.”

 

worldwide

Self-explanatory.

license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service’s Privacy Policy…

Are alarm bells going off in your head? I hope so. You’ve just granted Instagram the right to do anything at all with your photos, without ever paying you a dime for any of it.

 

Ryan used one of the bazillion social network web plugins out there. The plugin is feed with a stream of filtered content (in his case, Instragram photos tagged Nauticam). So it's perfectly legal and having an Instagram account you authorized this kind of use from the very first day. It's the same for all SN: Instagram, Twitter, FB, G+, you name it.

Don't you like it? Just share you photo with monks on Meteora Monastir.

Regarding your rumble the only gray territory I see is whether you specify some specific license for your photos (i.e. BY NC ND SA) and nauticam did not respect it. My Vimeo videos are tagged NC SA so I would pissed of fto see one of them in a commercial website.

Its' enough for me.

At the risk of being a devils advocate, I do struggle with the idea of these being professional images that people are expecting payment for, yet they are putting them on Insta. Surely people are aware that once it goes on Insta any real hope of it as a profitable image vanishes. Not only are you granted licensing rights to them to do pretty much anything they like, but most magazines that I deal with (this is mainly fashion granted) will not touch anything that has already been of social media outside of their accounts.

 

The key point is that sadly all these authorizations are opt-out aka by default your are giving them authorization.

 

 

 

I really do not get you. I cited Twitter just because I have a Twitter account while I do not have an Instragram account. BTW given that you opened this weird thread is up to you to read the Instagram ToS not me.

And I believe you should have read Instagram ToS before posting here.

Anyway given that it seem that your Google search doesn't work, here it is, even fully explained:

 

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/07/lawyer-digs-instagrams-terms-use/

 

From there:

 

 

 

Ryan used one of the bazillion social network web plugins out there. The plugin is feed with a stream of filtered content (in his case, Instragram photos tagged Nauticam). So it's perfectly legal and having an Instagram account you authorized this kind of use from the very first day. It's the same for all SN: Instagram, Twitter, FB, G+, you name it.

Don't you like it? Just share you photo with monks on Meteora Monastir.

 

Regarding your rumble the only gray territory I see is whether you specify some specific license for your photos (i.e. BY NC ND SA) and nauticam did not respect it. My Vimeo videos are tagged NC SA so I would pissed of fto see one of them in a commercial website.

 

Its' enough for me.

I didn't open this weird thread. I'm commenting on it just like you are.

The specific web plugin Nauticam used from the bazillion you say exist is a service from foursixty.com which can funnel IG images to a website and emails. Here's what foursixty.com says about rights:

"digital rights management.

With Foursixty's automated rights management system, you'll be able to request and secure the rights to your customer photos and videos with just a click. And, we’ll monitor content approvals as they come in so you can keep doing your thing."

Built into this service is a way to request a secure rights from the customer--the main sticking point with what Nauticam did, using photos without asking. This wasn't implemented, but it sounds like Ryan is going back to the drawing board to implement.

Further from the https://foursixty.comToS (relevant text in bold https://foursixty.com/460/terms_conditions):

5. YOUR LIMITED LICENSE OF YOUR USER CONTENT TO FOURSIXTY

We do not claim any ownership interest in your User Content, but we do need the right to use your User Content to the extent necessary to operate the Site and provide the Services, now and in the future.

Therefore, by posting or distributing User Content to or through the Services, you (a) grant Foursixty and its affiliates and subsidiaries a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable right to use, display, perform, reproduce, distribute, publish, modify, adapt, translate, and create derivative works from such User Content, in the manner in and for the purposes for which the Services from time to time use such User Content; (b) represent and warrant that (i) you own and control all of the rights to the User Content that you post or otherwise distribute, or you otherwise have the lawful right to post and distribute that User Content, to or through the Services; and (ii) the use and posting or other transmission of such User Content does not violate these Terms and will not violate any rights of or cause injury to any person or entity. In particular, if you provide User Content from another website, you represent and warrant that you are authorized to do so, and that doing so will not violate the terms of use of that website.

If your User Content is intended for the use of other Users, you also grant us and our affiliates and subsidiaries a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable right to sublicense such User Content to such Users for their use in connection with their use of the Services, as described in Section 6 of these Terms. For clarity, you acknowledge that the Services allow other Users of the Services to post, publish and distribute your User Content in the manner described on the Site, and that by entering into these Terms you expressly permit us to license to them your User Content for that purpose, and you acknowledge that we have no control over their usage of your User Content.

These licenses from you are non-exclusive because you have the right to use your User Content elsewhere. They are royalty-free because we are not required to pay you for the use of your User Content on the Services. And they are transferable because we need the right to transfer these licenses to any successor operator of the Services. Our rights to “modify, adapt, translate, and create derivative works from” are necessary because the normal operation of the Services does this to your User Content when it processes it for use in the Services.

At the risk of being a devils advocate, I do struggle with the idea of these being professional images that people are expecting payment for, yet they are putting them on Insta. Surely people are aware that once it goes on Insta any real hope of it as a profitable image vanishes. Not only are you granted licensing rights to them to do pretty much anything they like, but most magazines that I deal with (this is mainly fashion granted) will not touch anything that has already been of social media outside of their accounts.

I don't think anyone has made a claim about the images being professional. Mine was a screen grab from video and not high resolution. The main issue is the images being used commercially without notice. And apparently the software service has acquiring user permission built into it. It just wasn't used.

Nauticam acknowledged "unauthorized use" in their emails to those of us affected (that's what they called it). So regardless of whatever reasons you guys are dishing out to tell us we shouldn't have complained about it, Nauticam eventually acknowledged that they should have asked for permission. They didn't say "alleged unauthorized use" or "perceived unauthorized use" which is what a lawyer would insist on using, right? They plainly said it was unauthorized use.

So let's put it to rest. Both parties agree that it was unauthorized use.

Also, I'm an amateur / hobbyist. Never claimed to be a professional.

Here is my photo appropriated without permission and used to promote the GH5 housing on the Nauticam website. Be careful how you hashtag images from now on. Also notice the "FOURSIXTY" in the bottom right. This is the service nauticam used to access the photo. The ToS from FOURSIXTY says you have to have permission to use the content via their service. So, this is also a violation.

10/10 for that image it is superb.

Bump

If an image is used commercially then it should have a release from the photographer just like you need a release from a model. A company that sells professional level photographic equipment should know this and there's no excuse for doing it. They should work a deal with the photographers who's photos they used and give them a discount on future equipment or turn it into a competition where prizes are given to winners where they know the photos will be used commercially using a specific hashtag. NatGeo YourShot is a perfect example of this where people know they are submitting photos that may be used commercially and have no issues with this.

I've had someone want me to do professional photography for a weeklong retreat and told me that it wasn't paid but would give me publicity when there wasn't any one who would notice anyway. Nauticam should know better and their response of once you hashtag it's open season is bull. I know someone who was hired to shoot some photos for a high end clothing catalog for a single year. the next year he saw one of his images on the cover. Since he only gave permission for the last year he took them to court and they had to pay again for the image they used.

Bottom line is that if a photo is going to be used for profit they need a release and if they use one of my images without permission I'm going to have my lawyer contact them for payment rather than just ask to take it down.

At least it seems like they took everything down now and hopefully leaned their lesson and ask for permission from now on.