Photographs belong to the person who pressed the shutter release. The actual format or medium of the photograph (digital, print, negative, whatever) is irrelevant to the copyright, which is created during the act of taking a photograph.
So remember: Next time you hand someone your camera to take a picture of you, that person effectively owns the copyright on that image. Including a monkey[0].
PS - Although I'm sure you have to give them a license to your copyrighted photo so that they can display it back to you on their website. It is standard industry practice. Doesn't mean they have redistribution rights or own the copyright however.
Is there theoretically anything preventing them from putting a line like this from insta's TOS in there?
"Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service's Privacy Policy..."
If you want Instagram to display your photograph back to you (or other users at your request) then you have to grant them a license like this.
Where terms get concerning is when they want a redistribution license, or they want to allow unnamed third party "partners" to be able to utilise your photograph royalty free. Neither of which appear in the snippet above.
Yeah, I probably could have found a better quote, but it's a random TOS and I'm at work haha. At the end of the day, I don't see a reason to believe why Kodak wouldn't make a play to control the images they scan/upload as much as possible. Or a reason to believe TOS wouldn't change to make that so once adoption of the new Super 8 is at an acceptable level to Kodak.
What amazes me is the lawyers haven't been able to come up with some legalese that allows companies to transfer your data around their internal systems for your own use without stating "we can do whatever we want with your content".
AWS: "We do not access or use customer content for any purpose other than as legally required and for maintaining the AWS services and providing them to our customers and their end users. We never use customer content or derive information from it for marketing or advertising."
SoftLayer: "As a Processor, SoftLayer will not access the Customer Content for any purpose beyond providing You with support as described above, and will not disclose it to any person or entity."
Copyright says you get to define that however you like. It's why we have so many options for code licensing. The problem here is that companies would much rather have the "we can do whatever we want with your content" option because it benefits them much more, and not enough users care enough to make them change it.
Photographs belong to the person who pressed the shutter release. The actual format or medium of the photograph (digital, print, negative, whatever) is irrelevant to the copyright, which is created during the act of taking a photograph.
So remember: Next time you hand someone your camera to take a picture of you, that person effectively owns the copyright on that image. Including a monkey[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie#Copyright_issues
PS - Although I'm sure you have to give them a license to your copyrighted photo so that they can display it back to you on their website. It is standard industry practice. Doesn't mean they have redistribution rights or own the copyright however.