I don't think you hold the copyright to images posted on instagram. That they're uploaded as fair use. (I haven't looked into instagram's policies though.)
I don't know if it's still like this but it was when I looked into it a few years ago. This is why I don't use IG.
ETA: That is to say that you grant IG a license to use the photos for whatever the heck they want. I don't remember if the license extends to randoms.
This was a HUGE thing. I used to live just up the road from one of the places that did it. You could bring in your DVD (ETA: or VHS tape, because it was the 90's), list which scenes you wanted cut, and they'd do it within a few business days. My AP European History teacher used them to edit her copy of Queen Margot so we could watch it in class.
My HS went with either the cover the screen with a folder method or the awkward pounce on the fast forward & stand in front of the TV method. We didn't have editing movies money.
Um, Doe Deere has been stealing images and designs for her make-up line for years, so I just consider this karma for her. OF COURSE she isn't going to sue him. Of course.
To everyone who is saying, "I don't get why this is fair use because xyz," it all boils down to the platform where the image is hosted. In this case Instagram, who has recently changed their TOU so that the artists/people who use it have more rights to their images. However, its still... hinky... for lack of a better term, unless you have your account set to private.
Photobucket was the same way. If you hosted your pictures there they could be used for anything anyone wanted to. Porn? Sure thing. Advertisement? I hope they have me eating mac & cheese. As soon as your photo hit their server, it became up for grabs. UNLESS you set your account to private.
Tinypic, which is (was?) owned by Photobucket, had the same agreement. Any image you loaded through there you lost all rights too.
The caveat to all this is that yeah, you could fight it if you ever found that it happened. IIRC some people won and some people lost.
Um, Doe Deere has been stealing images and designs for her make-up line for years, so I just consider this karma for her. OF COURSE she isn't going to sue him. Of course.
I wonder if the other images are of people who, likewise, have issues with stealing images.
If so, it becomes more... interesting. Curated? Meaningful?
MUB related - Doe Deere is the CEO of Lime Crime. I went down the rabbit hole of that link, and there is a lot of... hinky business... in the mu world.
So does this mean if a pro photographer posts their work on social media, anyone can do anything with it under fair use? Or that I can resell their work as long as I put a comment with it? That doesn't seem right.
This is why my current pro-photographer won't let her clients post her work on social media without a watermark. So I get them without watermarks to print but if I want to post them online I have to use the watermarked ones. Not sure if it is because of resale issues, but because she doesn't want her work being used in other ways and if I post it, it can be.