Twitter's new Aviary-powered filters

Instagram and Twitter's current spat is worse than squabbling children. 'Instagram doesn't want to play!' 'But Twitter started it!' 'Well, ner, we'll just play by ourselves then!' 'Fine, we'll find some new toys, too!' I feel like putting them on the naughty step and asking them to explain themselves when they're ready.

This round really kicked off late last week, when Instagram's CEO, Kevin Systrom, confirmed that Instagram will no longer be offering card support on Twitter. That means instead of Instagram pictures appearing directly in a tweet, you'll have to follow a link taking you to Instagram's site.

From Instagram's perspective, this is 'The right thing to do' because it is building on their own social network. Systrom did state that this was in no way a direct result of Instagram's acquisition by Facebook. It is, however, easy to interpret this as Facebook pulling strings and fostering the sort of social networking that prompted the buy-out. Facebook snapped up Instagram because it needed a route into mobile, photographic social networking. By burning bridges with Twitter, it's encouraging its users to stay within its own network, not share the love across them. So really, it isn't so much about being globally socialable, but more about being a global social hegemony.

From Twitter's perspective there are short-term and long-term implications. In the short-term, it's not that big a deal. That people's Instagram images don't appear directly in tweets is an irritation for some, but Twitter is about so much more than Instagram that it's just that: an irritation. It isn't a fundamental failing. The long-term implications need a bit more thought, though.

From Twitter's perspective, is this that big a deal? I'm inclined to say not really, for now. Twitter is about a great deal more than Instagram. Yes, that people's Instagram images don't appear directly in tweets is an irritation for some, but it's just that: an irritation. Whilst Instagram is a component of Twitter's functionality, Twitter doesn't rely on it for survival. It is, though, a warning signal to Twitter that will need to think about maintaining its attraction to users, because Facebook is gunning for it.

Yesterday, Twitter announced that it has partnered with Aviary–the company that provides image editing services on Flickr and in MailChimp, amongst others–to provide its own photo filters. The timing fits neatly with Instagram's card-retraction move, but isn't a direct result of that. If anything, it's more likely to have been the other way about with Instagram withdrawing cards knowing that Twitter was about to offer its own filters. These filters have thought to have been in the pipeline since Instagram's takeover in April. So Twitter is thinking in terms of its longevity.

As for the in-Twitter editing options, they're available for both iOS and Android, there's a choice of eight filters, all of them can be previewed simultaneously using a grid view, you can crop and zoom, and there's a magic wand to enable auto-correction. It's not nearly as diverse as Instagram's offerings, but it's a start.

Indeed, Instagram made their offerings even more diverse yesterday, too. There was a camera update for iOS users, a new filter called Willow, and some improvements to the tilt-shift effect. The camera update should make it easier to Instagram-ify previously taken photos as well as providing an optional grid when you're taking photos and a permanent grid when you're cropping. That, then, would be a small reminder to its users about the sorts of functionality (barring lack of Twitter integration) that it offers.

Twitter has managed to upset plenty of developers with its stringent API requirements and Instagram seems intent on developing its own (and by extension, Facebook's) network as opposed to playing nicely with others. They might see this as good for their businesses, but the reality is that the users lose out. And it's the users who make these social networks social.

What then for the users? If you're on Instagram for the followers, then you'll have to stick with it, or at least stick with it until you've grown a new network elsewhere. If you use Instagram for its filters and for the purposes of being social, then there are plenty of other ways of doing that.

It's irritating that these big kids can't play nicely and that it has the potential to all end in tears. There really are enough relationships and enough photographs to go around. We don't need to be forced into a social networking hegemony.

You can check out Instagram's update on its blog, and Twitter's update on its blog.

It’s a bit of a convoluted title, I know. But after Ian Hargreaves published his review of what should be done about intellectual property, copyright, and encouraging innovation, the Government penned a response, saying what it agreed with, what it didn’t, and what it was planning to do about it. Now of course, any interested parties are responding to what the Government has said. There are a lot of replies flying about here. From the photographers’ perspective, the Association of Photographers has issued a response to the Government. Here’s what they had to say:

Broadly speaking, the Government has agreed with pretty much all of the recommendations set out by Hargreaves. This embraces some positives but disturbingly, a great many areas which concern us are not addressed.

We have the opportunity to be involved, and are already, at a level of policy-making which can direct the change in the structure of the IP framework over the next few years. We have the opportunity to make our voice heard. Our perspective is set out below;

Firstly, we welcome the Government’s commitment to providing a fast track small claims route for copyright infringement through the County Court system. However, we are concerned to see that the caveat of ‘value for money’ has been attached to this. This crucial reform of the court system must be implemented as soon as possible and the current proposed ceiling of £5000 for claims should be raised to £10,000.

We agree that the proposed limited private copying exception makes sense and would de-criminalise a huge sector of the population without affecting the revenues of those creators. We feel that a carefully drafted exception for parody may be appropriate too but in both cases this must be done in such a way as to not prejudice creators. We note that the Government has said it will consult widely on this (and other points) and insist that creators are involved in that process.

We approve of the proposal that any Digital Copyright Exchange (DCE) would work as an independent marketplace where rights holders can set their own rates and that participation should be free to both creators and users with open standards so that access to such a database can be automated through software solutions. We agree that participation should be voluntary and therefore not in contravention of the Berne Convention. We have a great many concerns regarding any DCE, but as no firm proposals for such a body exist yet, we will wait to hear what the Government has to say by the end of this year as they have stated.

We agree with and welcome the statement that any proposals for the use of orphan works should be subject to satisfactory safeguards to prevent unfair competition from any licensing of such orphans. We agree that any proposals for Extended Collective Licensing (ECL) should be adoptive rather than enforced on any sectors in the industry.

We are very concerned by the proposal that licensing of orphan works could extend to commercial uses, something we, and others, have been against from the start as it undermines the creators’ marketplace and makes a mockery of existing licensing arrangements. We are also alarmed that the Government has made no mention of Moral Rights, which although outside the remit of Hargreaves’ review, are vital to the development of better IP legislation. It is nonsense to talk about licensing orphan works when we still do not have unwaivable Moral Rights, in particular, the right to be identified.

We note that the Government proposes to move forward on the basis of “open and transparent” evidence and are alarmed that whilst they acknowledge that SMEs find it very difficult to provide empirical evidence, there is little suggestion that other ways of engaging with those businesses will be sought.

We are dismayed to see that the Government has not taken the opportunity to provide appropriate education and protection for consumers regarding enforcement, but has placed the burden of such activity on rights-holders and creators. We have little enough time and money as it is to engage in such action.

In conclusion, we accept that there seem to be some areas that the Government wishes to address for the benefit of creators and welcome the opportunity to be involved in discussions around this but we are dismayed that the Government has seemingly missed an opportunity to really strengthen the creative industries in the UK and ensure their survival and future growth.

The Association of Photographers

8th August 2011