The "creations" that people are posting are low-res cellphone pics of food and random scenery with a faux-retro filter added. Why so serious?
Looks like the National Geographic is doing more with Instagram than just some filters and bad food photography.
Here is a hypothetical:
1. I post a photo of a dinner table at a restaurant that shows some fizzy drinks in glasses.
2. SodaStream wants to post an ad on Instagram, and my photo gets selected kinda like a stock-photo would be selected because it is drink/food related, and it gets shown somewhere on Instagram's website.
Result: my life is not negatively impacted by this in any way, and the world continues turning.
My reaction: If ever saw this happening, my reaction would be "Whoa cool, that's a picture I took! And now tons of people are seeing it, instead of just the 5 or 6 people that normally see my Instagram photos. I'm internet famous, haha!"
The blogo-sphere's reaction: "RAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEE!!!!!!!!!" I ask: "Seriously, what is the big deal here?" They respond: "Just shut up, and RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!!!"
For some people, its not cool. And, being unable to buy a controlling stock option in the company to make it obey their wishes, they used the lever of public dissent.
Looks like it worked, too.
The whole point is not about the majority of dinnertable photos - for those content producers who make quality photos that everybody (not just your friends) want to look at, the content rights are an important issue. And these few users do represent a lot of value, and their leaving would hurt both Instagram and the content consumers.
> Over a six-month period in 2011, Brown documented the face of battle in Libya using a camera phone, challenging the standard script for war reportage.
For example:
http://www.mcbphotos.com/#/the-libyan-revolution/vv163
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/nov/16/mobile-ph...
Just because the device is basic, doesn't make mobile phone photography worthless.
> The "creations" that people are posting are low-res cellphone pics of food and random scenery with a faux-retro filter added. Why so serious?
... I was just pointing out that some photos are art, not just "creations".
Here is one of my other responses on the matter, copy-pasted so hopefully you can explain to me why this is a big deal:
[ start copy-paste ]
I still do not understand the outrage over this. How would the new TOS actually negatively affect the users? What would ACTUALLY happen to them that is so horrible?
Here is a hypothetical:
1. I post a photo of a dinner table at a restaurant that shows some fizzy drinks in glasses.
2. SodaStream wants to post an ad on Instagram, and my photo gets selected kinda like a stock-photo would be selected because it is drink/food related, and it gets shown somewhere on Instagram's website.
Result: my life is not negatively impacted by this in any way, and the world continues turning.
My reaction: If ever saw this happening, my reaction would be "Whoa cool, that's a picture I took! And now tons of people are seeing it, instead of just the 5 or 6 people that normally see my Instagram photos. I'm internet famous, haha!"
The blogo-sphere's reaction: "RAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEE!!!!!!!!!" I ask: "Seriously, what is the big deal here?" They respond: "Just shut up, and RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE!!!!"
[ end copy-paste ]