Your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90k

Nah, there's a pretty big difference (mentally) between SO and Instagram.

You put your code on SO with the intention of giving it to someone else, potentially many others. That's the entire point in SO and it's pretty clear from the start that that's what you're doing there.

You put your photos on Instagram so you can show them to your friends. Instagram is a storage space for your photos. When someone looks at your photo, the intention is that you're showing them the photo, rather than giving them the photo. (Un)Fortunately, when computers are concerned, showing and giving are the same thing.

The fact that people think of showing and giving as different, but their smart devices treat them the same, results in a lot of friction. The entire DRM industry and respective legislation is concerned with aligning computer behaviour with (some) human expectations.

So yes, I agree that Instagram works the same as Stack Overflow, but that's not what people's instinctive expectation is.

Based on stack overflow's terms of use and instagram's they are not the same. Stack overflow's terms say you give stack overflow and others the right to copy and use the content. Instagram's terms say you only give permission to Instagram. And well this makes sense as the purpose of these sites differ. If you want to share photos that people can use elsewhere go to a site like flicker were you can easily attach a Creative Commons license.

The legal crux seems to rely on if a significant amount of the original work has changed or been put into different context that sets it apart from the original work.

Examples being Vanilla Ice vs Bowie & Queen, and Girltalk/Illegal Art [1]

[1] http://illegal-art.net/girltalk

I don't think it's quite accurate to call the participants charlatans / fools. The pieces are presented as clearly ripped off of Instagram, the last bit of the comment thread preserved along with one of the artist's. The people buying the prints know exactly what they are, it's difficult to maintain the position that they're getting ripped off.

Art's a weird world. White canvases have sold for many millions:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-14/why-pay-15-...

What you're actually buying when you purchase a piece of art is bound to be subjective, as the enjoyment of visual art is much more individual than, say, a video game. There are games that blur the lines of what makes up a game, and people still buy them, play them, and enjoy them.

Also, there's plenty of ways to enjoy a game without ever playing it. When I was a kid, I would buy strategy guides for games I never played or owned. I'll watch people playing games that I would never play myself. If someone like John Romero or Sid Meier made something like a Pac-Man clone, I might buy it.

So it's easy for me to see why someone would buy these Instagram shots. There's something about the curation and attention being given to them by the artist that makes it a more interesting experience to look at than if you just took a screenshot and saved it in a folder or printed it out. The artist isn't just producing visuals, he's also applying a more cultivated taste to 'what' he's producing. He's only got so much time to make things, what he chooses to make tells as much of a story as the skills he used to make it.

I think it does come down to money too--like everything? I think if Richard Prince downloaded an image of Mickey Mouse, and did his "artistic" magic to the image, and sold prints in a gallery; his Lawyer would be very busy?

I, personally, don't give websites very many pictures. The few pictures I post are images I am giving away. Companies, Artists, and webscrapers are free to do whatever they want with the pictures I give up.

I don't give companies like Instagram any images--period. Facebook gets a picture of the back of my head, and I still use a pseudonym.

Even in high school, and college I never sat for a school picture. I don't like people taking my picture without my permission. I don't like companies whom take, and keep my picture--even for security, and identify purposes. I don't like public cams. I don't like marketing trend of taking employees picture for marketing purposes(Whole Foods, etc), or even employee of the month pictures.

What I am trying to say is I wish people were more concerned about their Images? I'll admit my my concern over the protection of my image, and the images I take borders on an obsession. I sometimes wonder if I'm missing out on opportunities in life by being so private?

I know companies will start running campaigns, and marketing ploys if Not posting becomes a trend. I can see it now, "Don't miss out on life--post more images!" "Don't miss out on networking opportunities--post more images!" "Don't miss out on love--post more images!"

People here know once image is posted it can be copied, manipulated, used without your consent, and sent around the world. The people I am close to don't quite realize once they upload in image it's essentially not their's anymore in any practical sense.

There's an important extension that isn't clearly visible, which is the commodity aspect. When there's an established market for an artist, the financial success (see headline) is a necessary signal that the artist's market is healthy.

Everything else is more or less secondary, both to the market and to the artist as product and manufacturer. In other words, a lost/settled/won lawsuit is not a liability for him.

What if I bought the DVD, got it signed by you and sold it for $100? Replace DVD with guitars, T-Shirts etc, definitely seen that happening.

Unlike you, he has won a lawsuit to that effect. Also, he has sold similar appropriations for far more money, so there's a framing effect as to what they're worth.

He put some emojis on it, that's why.

More info: the specific DMCA provision that allows for this is called "Safe Harbor."

but my point is, what if instagram sold a pint before they got the DMCA?