Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Blind Item #2

This A list reality star wants everyone to think she is on board with the way the world feels about the whole Instagram policy, but in reality, she is working out a deal to get paid by the company and won't be deleting her account anytime soon and instead will be promoting it every chance she gets.

47 comments:

Shit You Can't Buy said...

Kartrashian? There is Kash involved, so it must be one of those evil sisters..

Jolene Jolene said...

KIm Kardashian...tweet yesterday:

‏@KimKardashian
I really loved Instagram :-( I need to review this new policy. I don't think its fair.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite

Caitlin Costanzo said...

Rihanna, Kim K, or any of the other instawhores

Jolene Jolene said...

(I only know this because I googled it! I no do the Twitter.)

FSP said...

What is the Instagram policy?

Caitlin Costanzo said...

Nix Rihanna.. Didn't read the reality star part

Amber said...

@Jolene - her gig is up. She doesn't expect any of us to believe she actually reads, does she?!

DBZee said...

Dear Santa,

I've been mostly good this year and I tried really, really hard not to be snarky.

Could you please take the Kardashians away so I'm not tempted all the time? I'm sure you could use them at the North Pole, maybe cleaning out the reindeer stalls or tweeting elf toy-making updates.

Thank you and Merry Christmas!

Caitlin Costanzo said...

I'm not an instagramer but apparently they're going to start allowing companies to take any photo they want and use it without paying the person who took the picture and people are pissed.

seaward said...

@FSP They said starting in January, they will use people's photos for ads without compensating the users. I think the Instagram creator has since denied it, but they're owned by Facebook, so who knows.

Amber said...

@FSP - Instagram was purchased by Facebook, and obviously now FB wants it to be profitable. Instagram is now changing their TOS so that (in sum), your name and the pictures you post can be pulled into ads. Kind of like when you see those random ads about "THIS HOUSEWIFE FOUND A MIRACLE CURE USING VINEGAR AND LEMON JUICE! CLICK TO LEARN HER SECRET!"

Instagram has now back-pedaled on it and said that's NOT what they intended and apologize for the confusing language. You know...the confusing language that blatantly spelled it out. They got a lot of backlash, and Anonymous even started a campaign on Twitter. People are mad.

FSP said...

Thanks Caitlin and Seaward. And here I thought Instagram was used for taking pictures of the food you're about to eat. Silly me.

FSP said...

and Amber, too!

Vicki Cupper said...

Kuntrashian would sell her feces on QVC if she made money off it. Fucking trash.

Bluevelvet said...

Just to throw another name out there Cheryl Burke from Dancing With the Stars

LottaColada said...

So true Vicki, she's the worst person I can think of to endorse something. Everyone knows she just hops on the train with the most $ signs.

artemis said...

Lol @Vicki- What's really pathetic is that some sick idiot would pay their hard-earned money to buy it.

gossipmonger1 said...

I mean really? Is this that big of a deal?

Wen said...

There is a special place in hell for KockROACH. Right next to he Father.

parissucksliterally said...

hahahahha Vicki, I am sure she would.

Snarkarella said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jennifer hansen said...

instagram is so effing stupid. did they really think it would go through and there wouldn't be backlash? instagram went downhill when facebook bought it : (

Count Jerkula said...

Anyone else hoping that Kunt-trashian get the Hi-5 injected into her balloon knot by one of these black dudes that is on the down low?

Anastasia Walker said...

Vick's right, Kim's the worst person for endorsements, it seems like everyone hates her now except her true blue fans, I hope they got her on sale.

crila16 said...

Definitely the Kartrashians.

Jonathan Andrew Sheen said...

Instagram, a photo-hosting site, has changed its terms of service effective January 16th, and they include the following language:

“You agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, 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,”

After a huge amount of public outcry, with many users, including celebrities, saying they're quitting the service, Instagram released a statement saying, among other points:

"Ownership Rights Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period.

I always want you to feel comfortable sharing your photos on Instagram and we will always work hard to foster and respect our community and go out of our way to support its rights."


This doesn't actually undo what the Terms of Service say you agree to by using the service after 1/16/2013. Instagram says they're going to change that language, but I'd wait to see what the new version says before I'd trust it.

Anastasia Walker said...

Thanks for the rundown above J.A.S, it does still sound like they can use your photos for whatever they want without paying you." But we respect you and want you to keep using our site, we respect your art, blah blah." Sounds like a smarmy boyfriend trying to get in your pants. They will steal from you and profit from your creativity and content, period.

katsm0711 said...

Does it matter so much who "owns" the pics? All I can think of is you'd legally have a right to sue if you own the rights but only a small number of victims would actually go through with a lawsuit. So even if you get an (unlikely) windfall, the embarrassment of the leaked pic is done. So as long as people know how to take screenshots and repost like Chris Kataans dating profile, does it matter who "owns" the pics if sneaky people will anonymously steal pics?

Amber said...

I doubt a lot of artists could afford to put themselves through a lawsuit. And it does matter who owns the pics. Professional photographers are no different than professional painters, sculptors, etc. Their goal is to sell their work and make a living. By agreeing to Instagram's TOS, you are thereby giving up your rights. And part of the problem with it is that you can't opt out.

katsm0711 said...

Thanks @jon I hope there's a third statement because the 2nd one is so slimy. They tell us what we want to hear making us forget that the reason we were mad in the first place is them selling our pics!

katsm0711 said...

Right @amber, I'm just saying what good are your rights? I get what you mean about professional artists but am I wrong thinking that they are on a different level than a basic instagram user? I don't use instagram but I would think a pro uses his own website with his own disclaimer? It sucks that there doesn't seem to be a safe place to share media that all of your people can interact with together no matter how far away they are.

Ellen said...

Instagram came back at the end of the day yesterday and backed down from that original claim.

Amber said...

@kat - my bad; I misinterpreted your point. I'd quit facebook if I didn't have family in China and Australia. It's too hard to keep up with email chains, yanno?

Silly Girl said...

Something to consider...Instagram isn't selling your stuff, FB is! FB owns them, so Instagram is doing nothing but hosting. FB is selling them. I have no inside knowledge of anything and didn't read some of the above comments. Just a conspiracy theorist who loves a good conspiracy.

Jolene Jolene said...

@Amber--She obviously meant she'll have someone read it TO HER. Obvs! I don't expect that bitch to know how to read words and form a sentence on her own.

I am so sick of FB at this point! All the stupid sponsored ads and now alllll the fictitious stories spreading around that so many people "like" or "like if you care, ignore if you don't!" It's not fun anymore. And now instagram. Blurgh.

katsm0711 said...

Lol no I think it's MY bad @amber! I just realized I'm so groggy and not awake yet that I don't even know what I'm saying. I dont think I got anywhere near the point I wanted to make.

Since anyone can steal an Internet pic, and a real hacker would be untraceable, what's the point of having legal rights if you can't even pinpoint the person to sue if your an artist, or if it's a pic of a person in a compromising position, the embarrassment is done bc everyone already saw it. Someone like that would likely not be a person with the money or time to focus on a lawsuit. Is the only safe way to layer an annoying watermark on your pics?
Eww I think I just pulled a piece of pizza out of my hair but I haven't had pizza in a long time. I'm going to stop posting. More coffee.

Jazzy said...

That's exactly what it is though. This came about because they have been acquired by FB. Another reason I'm glad I got rid of my FB account. If they go through with this policy as it is and KK starts working with them, my intstagram will be the next to go.

Ari said...

that was the easiest blind on record

PugsterMom said...

LOL!!

Mango said...

People are quitting Instagram and jumping over to Flickr in droves.

I doubt a lot of artists could afford to put themselves through a lawsuit....

Exactly. And what about if the "theft" is international? This happened a few years ago, but check this out:

American family's web photo ends up as Czech advertisement

LC said...

Right?!? Have no fear, Kim is on the case!! ... I feel sick now

lake mchenry said...

Isn't it an oxymoron to say A list + reality star?

lake mchenry said...

Isn't it an oxymoron to say A list + reality star?

lilo723 said...

Kuntrashian for the win.

Zeeky_Boogy_Doog said...

Katsm said:
> "Since anyone can steal an Internet pic, and a real hacker would be untraceable, what's the point of having legal rights ... Someone like that would likely not be a person with the money or time to focus on a lawsuit."

There's different levels. For that stuff, it's true, there isn't a lot you can do, even if you found the guy who stole it, although people that have hacked celebrities have gotten into trouble.

The rights come in where everybody's making a bunch of money off your photo except you. One article noted it would turn Instagram into a massive stock photo agency. The rest of this reply is directed at the general question a bunch of people have had as to why this sucks:

Let's say we go to Paris. On your camera, I take a cool photo of you on the hotel balcony, and the Eiffel Tower is in the background. You e-mail me the photo and I upload it to Instagram so everyone can see.

Everyone! The hotelier sees the picture, loves it, and buys it from Instagram, puts it in their ad. You're now the face of Le Hotel!

Remember, you didn't put it on Instagram, I did. And let's say there were several different shots, all around the hotel. You're being cheated out of modeling fees, and one of us is getting cheated out of photographer's fees (I'm ignoring the question of which of us owned the pic in the first place for this example.) Le Hotel's last campaign used models and photogs who earned thousands, we earned zero.

Zeeky_Boogy_Doog said...

I want to talk about the other side a bit more, more of why Instagram's "language" blows!

Instagram as a massive stock photo agency. Photos would still sell, there would be money made off photography, but not by anyone actually involved in making those images.

The way it is now, a commercial photographer will sell photos to a stock agency, or get paid via commission if someone buys the image. They'll generally shoot these photos on their own time, i.e. not when shooting for a client. Stuff like scenery or general people scenes. The photog hires models, pays for them himself and has them sign a photo release that explains the model's rights.

So Le Hotel right now has two options: hire photographer to shoot the hotel; or buy photos from a stock photo agency. Either way, the photographer and models are compensated.

Instagram jumping in won't change Le Hotel's options, they're still paying. But Instagram would be earning money for nothing. I think it's a bit akin to if any of us going to work today, but your boss decides you're no longer going to get paid. You'll still go there, do the work, but getting to visit that office is now a PERK, they're providing you shelter, AC and heat, toilet access. And they're not charging you for it!

Then there's the whole question of: If Le Hotel can just go to Instagram and find all kinds of photos of the place, and keep looking until they find ones they like, why hire a commercial photographer at all? That's an argument for another day, but the end result would be way less pro-photogs.

katsm0711 said...

Thank you @zeegy! I guess I was thinking more about embarrassing pics getting shared and not how you described if a company uses the image to make $$. Even when I thought about artists, I was only thinking on a tiny scale which I now see isn't the big issue.