WHAT THE INSTAGRAM FLAP TEACHES US ABOUT COPYRIGHT & DISTRIBUTION

On December 17, 2012 Instagram announced a change to its terms of use that caused a widespread outcry from its user base. The controversial clause stated: "you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, and photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

The outcry from users was enormous, and Instagram began to back pedal with the following statement “Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear”

Of course, to me this all just sounds like doublespeak for “We honestly didn’t think you’d notice”.

But what I found significant about this incident is that for a brief moment a large swath of the world’s population suddenly knew what it meant to be a content creator. Instagram decided that their user’s content was fair game to distribute in any way they saw fit without the consent of the creator, and to profit it from it without compensating the creator (That means "You" the Instagram user).

Instagram users responded in an appropriate manner: They collectively held up their fists and were outraged. As well they should be. After all, your photos are yours. No one should have the right to decide how they are distributed but you.

And in case you aren't sure what the term "Distribute" means. Let me illustrate it for you by saying, that not only do I have no right to profit off of pictures that you took without your consent, but I have no right to appropriate and use them to promote a business, sell a product or support religious, or political view, without your permission first.

Do you agree with that?

Of course you do!

Who wouldn’t?

Your pictures are your content. You created it and therefore you should have the final word on how it is used.

So if you are one of the millions who agrees that Instagram has no right to decide how your pictures are distributed, then you by default have to agree that no other business entity or individual person has the right to decide how anyone else’s content should be distributed either.

This includes a little thing called music.

Right now there are website owners who feel that they have a right to take music that they did not create(and therefore do not own), and distribute it without the consent of the owner and profit from it without compensating the owner in the same way that Instagram wanted to distribute and profit from your pictures.

Grooveshark is a streaming music service company that is using music they did not create without the consent of those who created the music they are using. They are also charging subscription rates for their service and are not compensating the creators of the music that has made their service worth using......In other words they are stealing someone else's content.

...Just like Instagram wanted to do with your pictures.

Right now there are pirate sites that take music (not to mention movies too) that they did not create and make it available for free download without the consent of those who created it. In other words they are distributing it without the consent of the owner.

......Just like Instagram wanted to do with your pictures

I could also add that these same pirate sites are also profiting by collecting ad revenue from advertisers....None of whom would want to advertise on pirate sites if it wasn't for all the traffic generated by all that free content that is illegally being given away.

Do you get the idea?

What happened when millions of instagram users were angered by the possibility that instagram would distribute or profit from their pictures without consent or compensation?

They backpedaled (at least for now).

What has happened when a few lone musicians have expressed their outrage over the same thing happening to their music?

They have been told that they should be grateful for the exposure they are receiving. They have been asked "Haven't you made enough money already"? And they are told they are a bunch of greedy bastards.

Let's try using that same logic with Instagram users: Are you happy with the exposure I have given you by appropriating your pictures (without your consent) to promote my business and or religious or political beliefs. Don't you feel like a greedy bastard for wanting me to compensate you for using your pictures to sell my products and services?

The flap over instagram terms of service use has suddenly "put the shoe on the other foot". It has shown millions of people who previously did not know what it meant to be a content creator exactly what it feels like to have their content appropriated without consent or compensation.

To all those instagram users who protested those terms of service, I applaud you for standing up to a tech company and sticking up for creator’s rights. And to remember this the next time you think its ok for anyone to distribute, share, (or obtain) someone else's music or movies without the creators consent or compensation. I hope this lesson will stay with you the next time you think it's OK to take part in the theft of a movie or music that you did not create and the creator did not authorize to be on that bit torrent site that you are using.

And to those of you musicians who are still confused about the copyright issue - Remember the lesson that this incident created - NO ONE and NO COMPANY - has the right to distribute your work without your consent.

It's your right.....And now the rest of the public has (even if unknowingly) agreed with you.

TJR 2013