-
-
@MajorRage what is the third party was God? He might have a point.
-
@MajorRage said in Instagram:
This seems pretty poor by instagram.
I would assume this is an automated copyright strike. My guess is the photo agency has an algorithm that sends outs strikes when people steal their photos
They are probably more aggressive at RWC time
-
@MajorRage said in Instagram:
This seems pretty poor by instagram.
I would assume this is an automated copyright strike. My guess is the photo agency has an algorithm that sends outs strikes when people steal their photos
They are probably more aggressive at RWC time
Yeah, just read online that is what it is.
Brings up an interesting argument. If somebody takes a photo of you, do you have a right to publish it?
-
@MajorRage said in Instagram:
@MajorRage said in Instagram:
This seems pretty poor by instagram.
I would assume this is an automated copyright strike. My guess is the photo agency has an algorithm that sends outs strikes when people steal their photos
They are probably more aggressive at RWC time
Yeah, just read online that is what it is.
Brings up an interesting argument. If somebody takes a photo of you, do you have a right to publish it?
I asked my lawyer wife, not really her area but she said it can depend on the circumstances, but in this instance the photo agency would own the copyright to the photo so SBW cannot post it without their permission.
She said there’s been cases where celebrities have been taken to court for posting pictures that the paparazzi have taken of them in public.
-
@No-Quarter thanks for clarification.
That, is royally fucked (IMHO).
-
@MajorRage it takes work to take the photo, so why should anybody else profit from it?
I’m ok with them protecting their livelihood.
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
-
@MajorRage it takes work to take the photo, so why should anybody else profit from it?
I’m ok with them protecting their livelihood.
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
If you use a reposting app then all good though isn't it?
-
@MiketheSnow said in Instagram:
@MajorRage it takes work to take the photo, so why should anybody else profit from it?
I’m ok with them protecting their livelihood.
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
If you use a reposting app then all good though isn't it?
Instagram has ads in it.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Instagram:
@MajorRage it takes work to take the photo, so why should anybody else profit from it?
I’m ok with them protecting their livelihood.
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
If you use a reposting app then all good though isn't it?
Instagram has ads in it.
Sorry I don't understand
-
@MajorRage it takes work to take the photo, so why should anybody else profit from it?
I’m ok with them protecting their livelihood.
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
The work to take that photo, is nothing compared to the work SBW went through to get himself in that position. We can agree to disagree on that point.
My first instinct was that too, which I agree is a failing in myself and many other things on this planet at the present time.
-
@MiketheSnow posting photos taken by someone else on social media is profiting off their work.
-
@MajorRage said in Instagram:
@MajorRage it takes work to take the photo, so why should anybody else profit from it?
I’m ok with them protecting their livelihood.
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
The work to take that photo, is nothing compared to the work SBW went through to get himself in that position. We can agree to disagree on that point.
My first instinct was that too, which I agree is a failing in myself and many other things on this planet at the present time.
That doesn’t mean the photographers work has no value, or that SBW can post it
-
@MajorRage it takes work to take the photo, so why should anybody else profit from it?
I’m ok with them protecting their livelihood.
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
I kind of agree with both of you. Not being able to post a picture of yourself seems absurd, but at the same time being a photographer is a legitimate profession and selling the rights to their photos is their main source of income in today’s digital world, so the law makes sense.
-
@MajorRage said in Instagram:
@MajorRage it takes work to take the photo, so why should anybody else profit from it?
I’m ok with them protecting their livelihood.
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
The work to take that photo, is nothing compared to the work SBW went through to get himself in that position. We can agree to disagree on that point.
My first instinct was that too, which I agree is a failing in myself and many other things on this planet at the present time.
That doesn’t mean the photographers work has no value, or that SBW can post it
Yeah, I see your point and I agree with the first part, but not the second.
-
@MiketheSnow posting photos taken by someone else on social media is profiting off their work.
That's Instagram's MO though
What SBW did wrong was screenshot the image and post it as his own.
If he'd reposted it and credited it then it would have been all good no?
The photographer has already been paid.
Just posted as much on his Instagram post. Will see if I get a reply/response.
-
@MajorRage said in Instagram:
@MajorRage it takes work to take the photo, so why should anybody else profit from it?
I’m ok with them protecting their livelihood.
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
The work to take that photo, is nothing compared to the work SBW went through to get himself in that position. We can agree to disagree on that point.
My first instinct was that too, which I agree is a failing in myself and many other things on this planet at the present time.
SBW is well remunerated for that work.
-
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
are you saying it is sad that SBWs first instinct is discrimination or sad that people in general assume it is discrimination (which I thought it was of some kind) which unfortunately seems pretty normal in the current climate.
-
@taniwharugby said in Instagram:
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
are you saying it is sad that SBWs first instinct is discrimination or sad that people in general assume it is discrimination (which I thought it was of some kind) which unfortunately seems pretty normal in the current climate.
I thought it was poor from SBW to jump to that conclusion when the error was telling him it was a copyright strike
-
@taniwharugby said in Instagram:
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
are you saying it is sad that SBWs first instinct is discrimination or sad that people in general assume it is discrimination (which I thought it was of some kind) which unfortunately seems pretty normal in the current climate.
I thought it was poor from SBW to jump to that conclusion when the error was telling him it was a copyright strike
Same. Pretty poor and short sighted
-
SBW has apologised directly to the photographer so fair play. The photographer has got a fair bit of exposure out of it too.
-
@taniwharugby said in Instagram:
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
are you saying it is sad that SBWs first instinct is discrimination or sad that people in general assume it is discrimination (which I thought it was of some kind) which unfortunately seems pretty normal in the current climate.
I thought it was poor from SBW to jump to that conclusion when the error was telling him it was a copyright strike
What is posted above doesn't use the word copyright and the wording can be taken the wrong way. Possibly the click through details did and that is why he has apologised and chastised himself for jumping to the wrong conclusion without checking the detail.
From what I heard someone sent him the photo with the photographers name cropped off. -
@taniwharugby said in Instagram:
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
are you saying it is sad that SBWs first instinct is discrimination or sad that people in general assume it is discrimination (which I thought it was of some kind) which unfortunately seems pretty normal in the current climate.
I thought it was poor from SBW to jump to that conclusion when the error was telling him it was a copyright strike
What is posted above doesn't use the word copyright and the wording can be taken the wrong way. Possibly the click through details did and that is why he has apologised and chastised himself for jumping to the wrong conclusion without checking the detail.
From what I heard someone sent him the photo with the photographers name cropped off."Third party reported that the content infringes or otherwise violates their rights"
is a long way from his assertion that the photo was reported because of Muslims expressing their faith. Victim mentality.
-
@taniwharugby said in Instagram:
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
are you saying it is sad that SBWs first instinct is discrimination or sad that people in general assume it is discrimination (which I thought it was of some kind) which unfortunately seems pretty normal in the current climate.
I thought it was poor from SBW to jump to that conclusion when the error was telling him it was a copyright strike
What is posted above doesn't use the word copyright and the wording can be taken the wrong way. Possibly the click through details did and that is why he has apologised and chastised himself for jumping to the wrong conclusion without checking the detail.
From what I heard someone sent him the photo with the photographers name cropped off."Third party reported that the content infringes or otherwise violates their rights"
is a long way from his assertion that the photo was reported because of Muslims expressing their faith. Victim mentality.
Where did he assert that? Now who is jumping to conclusions? Works both ways.
He did assume that the removal was for someone taking offence though and has apologised. He admits taking the wording 'violates their rights' the wrong way.
Plain English would have stopped this in it's tracks. -
@taniwharugby said in Instagram:
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
are you saying it is sad that SBWs first instinct is discrimination or sad that people in general assume it is discrimination (which I thought it was of some kind) which unfortunately seems pretty normal in the current climate.
I thought it was poor from SBW to jump to that conclusion when the error was telling him it was a copyright strike
What is posted above doesn't use the word copyright and the wording can be taken the wrong way. Possibly the click through details did and that is why he has apologised and chastised himself for jumping to the wrong conclusion without checking the detail.
From what I heard someone sent him the photo with the photographers name cropped off."Third party reported that the content infringes or otherwise violates their rights"
is a long way from his assertion that the photo was reported because of Muslims expressing their faith. Victim mentality.
Where did he assert that? Now who is jumping to conclusions? Works both ways.
He did assume that the removal was for someone taking offence though and has apologised. He admits taking the wording 'violates their rights' the wrong way.
Plain English would have stopped this in it's tracks.Try looking in the first post of the thread, you’ll see SBWs instagram comment.
The alert Is plain English.
-
@taniwharugby said in Instagram:
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
are you saying it is sad that SBWs first instinct is discrimination or sad that people in general assume it is discrimination (which I thought it was of some kind) which unfortunately seems pretty normal in the current climate.
I thought it was poor from SBW to jump to that conclusion when the error was telling him it was a copyright strike
What is posted above doesn't use the word copyright and the wording can be taken the wrong way. Possibly the click through details did and that is why he has apologised and chastised himself for jumping to the wrong conclusion without checking the detail.
From what I heard someone sent him the photo with the photographers name cropped off."Third party reported that the content infringes or otherwise violates their rights"
is a long way from his assertion that the photo was reported because of Muslims expressing their faith. Victim mentality.
Where did he assert that? Now who is jumping to conclusions? Works both ways.
He did assume that the removal was for someone taking offence though and has apologised. He admits taking the wording 'violates their rights' the wrong way.
Plain English would have stopped this in it's tracks.Try looking in the first post of the thread, you’ll see SBWs instagram comment.
The alert Is plain English.
I have read it.
Nowhere does SBW assert "that the photo was reported because of Muslims expressing their faith"
Nowhere does the alert mention copyright.You have assumed the first through implication and he has failed to understand the second through jumping to a conclusion that someone had complained for some other reason.
He has been very quick to admit his failure and apologise. You seem reluctant to admit your assumption.
NB: I am being deliberately facetious here to make the point that he is being called out for interpreting something the way it first came to mind. Something we are all guilty of.
-
@No-Quarter said in Instagram:
SBW has apologised directly to the photographer so fair play. The photographer has got a fair bit of exposure out of it too.
Boom Tish!!! Nice Dad joke old man.
-
@taniwharugby said in Instagram:
It’s also interesting the first instinct he had was it must be discrimination. Sad.
are you saying it is sad that SBWs first instinct is discrimination or sad that people in general assume it is discrimination (which I thought it was of some kind) which unfortunately seems pretty normal in the current climate.
I thought it was poor from SBW to jump to that conclusion when the error was telling him it was a copyright strike
What is posted above doesn't use the word copyright and the wording can be taken the wrong way. Possibly the click through details did and that is why he has apologised and chastised himself for jumping to the wrong conclusion without checking the detail.
From what I heard someone sent him the photo with the photographers name cropped off."Third party reported that the content infringes or otherwise violates their rights"
is a long way from his assertion that the photo was reported because of Muslims expressing their faith. Victim mentality.
Where did he assert that? Now who is jumping to conclusions? Works both ways.
He did assume that the removal was for someone taking offence though and has apologised. He admits taking the wording 'violates their rights' the wrong way.
Plain English would have stopped this in it's tracks.Try looking in the first post of the thread, you’ll see SBWs instagram comment.
The alert Is plain English.
I have read it.
Nowhere does SBW assert "that the photo was reported because of Muslims expressing their faith"
Nowhere does the alert mention copyright.You have assumed the first through implication and he has failed to understand the second through jumping to a conclusion that someone had complained for some other reason.
He has been very quick to admit his failure and apologise. You seem reluctant to admit your assumption.
NB: I am being deliberately facetious here to make the point that he is being called out for interpreting something the way it first came to mind. Something we are all guilty of.
You are just having a reading fail, let me help you;
"I'm wondering why this was removed from mine and @TuungafasiO pages? Surely a simple picture of someone expressing their gratitude for what they've been blessed with is ok?"
A clear implication that it was taken down because it showed two Muslims praying. Obviously.
And he should apologise for jumping to that stupid implication. When next to the photo, in plain text, it was telling him what happened. It was just stupid victim mentality, like I've already said.
-
@Kirwan
Imply is different to assert. He didn’t assert anything about being targeted as a Muslim. (Which is what you stated)
You have applied your interpretation to what he wrote just as he applied his interpretation to the notice.
Difference is that he has quickly recognized that he was wrong -
@Kirwan
Imply is different to assert. He didn’t assert anything about being targeted as a Muslim. (Which is what you stated)
You have applied your interpretation to what he wrote just as he applied his interpretation to the notice.
Difference is that he has quickly recognized that he was wrongYour point is super weak if you have to hang your hat on the difference between assert and imply.
And my point was that he was wrong in the first place, which we both agree about.
-
@Kirwan
Imply is different to assert. He didn’t assert anything about being targeted as a Muslim. (Which is what you stated)
You have applied your interpretation to what he wrote just as he applied his interpretation to the notice.
Difference is that he has quickly recognized that he was wrongYour point is super weak if you have to hang your hat on the difference between assert and imply.
And my point was that he was wrong in the first place, which we both agree about.
The point is all about reading into something what you want to see rather than what is actually there.
You clearly stated after reading the post that he asserted the photo was reported because of his Muslim faith when he wrote no such thing. Those were your words.
To assert something is a clear statement. The fact that he made no such statement points to his actual words which were that he was wondering about the intentions of the removal. Any inference is left to the reader.
I just find it hypocritical for you to point the finger at him when you are doing exactly the same thing.
-
@Kirwan
Imply is different to assert. He didn’t assert anything about being targeted as a Muslim. (Which is what you stated)
You have applied your interpretation to what he wrote just as he applied his interpretation to the notice.
Difference is that he has quickly recognized that he was wrongYour point is super weak if you have to hang your hat on the difference between assert and imply.
And my point was that he was wrong in the first place, which we both agree about.
The point is all about reading into something what you want to see rather than what is actually there.
You clearly stated after reading the post that he asserted the photo was reported because of his Muslim faith when he wrote no such thing. Those were your words.
To assert something is a clear statement. The fact that he made no such statement points to his actual words which were that he was wondering about the intentions of the removal. Any inference is left to the reader.
I just find it hypocritical for you to point the finger at him when you are doing exactly the same thing.
Exactly the same thing you say? In that case, I'm sorry for posting a photo of myself engaged in prayer with Ofa at the world cup on Instagram without permission.
My bad.
-
-
I don’t think he has anything further to apologize for. He’s apologized to the photographer and deleted the post. He got it wrong and immediately rectified his mistake.
It’s nothing bigger than that, and those who think it is, are the ones with the problem. Not SBW.
-
@MajorRage agree, complete nothing burger. Definitely not worth making a thread about.
-
@No-Quarter I got it wrong too and have moved on. Already admitted it.
Instagram
