The information that accompanies the photos is brief. It is really about the photos. They do not support the message, but rather the other way around. Moreover, there are more photos than necessary. There is no question of a quote here. There is also nothing changed in a funny way in the photos, so it has not become a parody.
Dutch example: Low maintenance
Onderhoudsarmoe is a well-known account that collects images about the “de-greening” of the Netherlands. You mainly see photos of gardens with grass and plants that make way for tiles. The content comes from everywhere, such as Facebook.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CQES0HmlZyF/
Again, there is little added context. Since sometimes the screenshot shows who originally published it, you could say that attribution is sometimes still done here. But attribution alone is not enough for a quote. Furthermore, nothing funny is changed or added to it to be seen as a parody.
In some cases, in addition to copyright as a problem, you could even say that there is a violation of honor and good name. Most photos are not commented on in a very friendly way. That sometimes goes further than the limits of freedom of expression.
Dutch example: HEMA
HEMA has an account where they publish both their own content and content from customers. I noticed that they mention the name of the creator for user generated content . I couldn't figure out how they get this content. In any case, their bio doesn't say that they appropriate content when a certain hashtag is used. I decided to ask them.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CQoJd3FNThj/
Hema has three hashtags that they monitor, if they are used in combination with HEMA. They may post that content on their own account. If it concerns children or babies, they ask for extra permission. They then find it 'nice to ask permission'.
They used to do this for all content, but they no longer do that: 'it has not proven necessary.' People are almost always happy when their post is taken over by HEMA and they are mentioned in it. And, says HEMA, 'our community is well aware that we may include their post in our feed.' If people are not happy with it, they remove the post again.
Is that how it should be? No. Because it could also be that there are customers who are not active in the HEMA community and therefore are not aware of this, but still use the hashtags because of the reach of the hashtag. HEMA has only chosen to no longer explicitly ask permission for non-privacy-sensitive content, because they always got permission when asked and people are positive about the posts. They accept the few who are not positive about it and that is how they solve it.
Example: Insta repeat
This account isn't very active, but what it mainly does is share collages of similar photos posted on Instagram. The idea: you're really not as original as you think.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CMFxQiVHIcO/
The idea of the photo may not always be original, but an idea or a style is not subject to copyright. It is subject to its execution. Most photos are therefore subject to copyright. The more generic the photo, the lower the protection. But that mainly ensures that others are allowed to take a similar photo, without it infringing on copyright. It is never a reason to be allowed to use the photos in a collage.
Here too, the names of all the creators are always missing and there is too little context for a quote. There is no addition in such a way that we can speak of a parody.
If you look at the last post you will see the similarities: canoe, feet, view. But the view is always different, the feet and their position are always different, always a different canoe, different light and editing and always a slightly different crop. Each photo is therefore subject to its own copyright. By publishing it in this way it is an infringement of copyright.
Many of these 'problems' can of course be solved by getting permission. Many people find that too time buy bulk sms service -consuming, so they don't do it. Or they find it annoying that they sometimes don't get permission or simply don't hear anything anymore.
Permission always requires personal contact. So you don't have permission yet:
Because a certain hashtag was used
If you give people the opportunity to contact us to have the content removed
And no objection ≠ permission
For example, Interieur Love seems to only repost images if prior arrangements have been made via DM or email. In doing so, they are asking for permission in the right way and are therefore allowed to share the content.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CN914RglVSL/
Besides asking people to contact you, you can of course apply all sorts of things to be able to see the nice content at all. So definitely use that hashtag, so that people use that hashtag, but don't see it as permission yet. Do you want to use the content that you found with the hashtag or that in your opinion has been 'submitted' via the hashtag? Then contact via DM to confirm the permission. Preferably save that conversation, so that you can prove later that you have received the permission, even if the DM is deleted.