In Australia at least (maybe not in France or the USA?) as I understand there is no legal right of a person to their own physical image if taken in public, nor does it require consent. It may be polite and moral but I don’t think there is a law about it. For instance news organisations use people’s images without their consent all the time.

So consent to use a phyiscal image of a person (which is not required here in Oz) is different to the issue of ownership of copyright in a photo (whether of a landscape or of people as the subject).

I notice this summary online which is a bit dated but seems right http://www.kangraphotos.com/reference/p_and_c/nsw_photo_rights.pdf

As to retrospectively asserting the right to use copyright in photographs belong to users whether of landscapes or other people, by a mere change of use terms, wouldn’t that require a real and informed consent by the user? For instance, the law usually takes a dim view of fine print, and ambushes in matters of property. Is an email amongst hundreds or thousands of emails really notice? It could be misleading and deceptive conduct in business. Wouldn’t they need a positive opt in consent, rather than an opt out? Otherwise the conduct of apparent acquiesence, or more likely silence, after the terms of use change, might be equivocal and not amount to a genuine retrospective consent at all?

I really doubt silence amounts to consent.

Unlike the position suggested in the story, what the users/audience may well be giving Instagram is the right to bombard them with advertiser content, that is, to sell them as an audience to advertisers. Just as a free newspaper sells advertising to business to communicate to a definable audience. This is much less than consent to transfer copyright property of the audience to advertisers.

On the other hand if users are in fact well informed of the change of terms, and go along with it by using it, grumpily or grudgingly or otherwise, then their conduct might be evidence of consent. Again if a user writes to instigram and says I do not consent to selling/licensing (ie a partial transfer of the copyright property) of my content to others, Instigram may have to actively address that - cancel the account, or negotiate a deal. If I were instigram I would be concerned about exposure to a suit for breach of copyright for lack of positive consent to their unilateral change of terms.

The second is that the author comes over as an utter tool, and in my experience of the “it” crowd (and I have plenty of experience managing IT types, similar to herding kittens but not as enjoyable) he is not unique.

Sorry mate, but I wont waste my time on your condescension again.

The core lesson here is that services like Instagram aren’t free. You pay for them by licensing the operator to use your content and other data in various ways. If you don’t like that, well, pay for your goddam internet hosting yourself

Geez! Sprinkle a little extra smug on your cornflakes this morning?

And, when those photos involve children, perhaps some tragic ones

So, basically, “If you’re too young to enter this agreement, you agree to the term of this agreement that says that someone else who can enter an agreement agrees that you can enter this agreement”.

Am I right?