I-I--Instagram? why!

[andrewvid]

Gosh oh gosh. what on earth is instagram thinking. not sure if it's a well known app around here but it certainly has been causing some stirs the last 2 days.

(i'm a teen and a mild addict of instagram!) i use this quite often to show my photos.. not the ones i take with my DSLR but just nature pics with my iPhone. Though, i have posted a few pics that are some of my best.. but.. think all that is about to backfire on many professional photographers that are users on there.

Instagram's so called new 'privacy' policy is nothing but RIDICULOUS!!! as of the 6th of jan.. they will be changing the rules so that not only will there be advertising (will be a pain in the gluteus maximus) but they now say that they have the right to take any of our pictures or comments to be used commercially and for money without any consent from the owner. uh.. isn't this what you call.. stealing?

I'm lost in what they are thinking. this puts many of my images and not to mention the thousands of other users images in risk.
worst to think if they start claiming the pics as theirs and putting the shame on the rightful owners. that, i fear.

What are your takes on such a move? what are your views of these types of apps?
i'm obviously from a younger generation.. so i like instagram oh wait..

[Kym]

Advertising? no problems as its a free service.
Stealing your images ©? very naughty!!

[ricktas]

Easy solution, delete your account and uninstall the app.

[ricktas]

http://instagram.com/about/legal/privacy/updated/

[arthurking83]

......

Instagram's so called new 'privacy' policy is nothing but RIDICULOUS!!! as of the 6th of jan.. they will be changing the rules so that not only will there be advertising (will be a pain in the gluteus maximus) but they now say that they have the right to take any of our pictures or comments to be used commercially and for money without any consent from the owner. uh.. isn't this what you call.. stealing?

.....


Actually! ... it's called sharing! :p

Like Rick said .. uninstall!
I'm sure there are many similar apps out there that don't steal your images!

[Ezookiel]

The following article is from CNET.
Note that at the end of the article it says that instagram have tweeted "We've heard you that the updates to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Service are raising a lot of questions. We'll have more to share very soon." So it looks like they may either not go ahead with the change, or adjust the changes.
But it is an interesting read, and I'll delete my never used account just in protest if it does go ahead. Looks like competitors are loving it and promoting their less Draconian terms as a reason to change over.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/
Instagram said (http://blog.instagram.com/post/38143346554/privacy-and-terms-of-service-changes-on-instagram) today that it has the perpetual right to sell users' photographs without payment or notification, a dramatic policy shift that quickly sparked a public outcry.

The new intellectual property policy, which takes effect on January 16, comes three months after Facebook completed (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57507465-93/facebook-closes-instagram-deal-welcomes-its-5b-shared-photos/) its acquisition of the popular photo-sharing site. Unless Instagram users delete their accounts (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57559810-285/how-to-back-up-your-instagram-photos-and-delete-your-account/) before the January deadline, they cannot opt out.

Under the new policy (http://blog.instagram.com/post/38143346554/privacy-and-terms-of-service-changes-on-instagram), Facebook claims the perpetual right to license all public Instagram photos to companies or any other organization, including for advertising purposes, which would effectively transform the Web site into the world's largest stock photo agency. One irked Twitter user quipped (https://twitter.com/dj100proof/status/280842188437471232) that "Instagram is now the new iStockPhoto, except they won't have to pay you anything to use your images."

"It's asking people to agree to unspecified future commercial use of their photos," says Kurt Opsahl (https://www.eff.org/about/staff/kurt-opsahl), a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "That makes it challenging for someone to give informed consent to that deal."
That means that a hotel in Hawaii, for instance, could write a check to Facebook to license photos taken at its resort and use them on its Web site, in TV ads, in glossy brochures, and so on -- without paying any money to the Instagram user who took the photo. The language would include not only photos of picturesque sunsets on Waikiki, but also images of young children frolicking on the beach, a result that parents might not expect, and which could trigger state privacy laws (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/what-instagrams-new-terms-of-service-mean-for-you/).
Facebook did not respond to repeated queries from CNET this afternoon. We'll update the article if we receive a response.

Another policy pitfall: If Instagram users continue to upload photos after January 16, 2013, and subsequently delete their account after the deadline, they may have granted Facebook an irrevocable right to sell those images in perpetuity. There's no obvious language that says deleting an account terminates Facebook's rights, EFF's Opsahl said.

Facebook's new rights to sell Instagram users' photos come from two additions to its terms of use policy. One section deletes the current phrase "limited license" and, by inserting the words "transferable" and "sub-licensable," allows Facebook to license users' photos to any other organization.

A second section allows Facebook to charge money. It says that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you." That language does not exist in the current terms of use.

Google's policy, by contrast, is far narrower and does not permit the company to sell photographs uploaded through Picasa or Google+. Its policy (http://www.google.com/policies/terms/) generally tracks the soon-to-be-replaced Instagram policy by saying: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our services." Yahoo's policies (http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html) service for Flickr are similar, saying the company can use the images "solely for the purpose for which such content was submitted or made available."
Reginald Braithwaite, an author and software developer, posted (http://raganwald.posterous.com/translation-from-legalese-and-pr-speak-to-eng) a tongue-in-cheek "translation" of the new Instagram policy today: "You are not our customers, you are the cattle we drive to market and auction off to the highest bidder. Enjoy your feed and keep producing the milk."
One Instagram user dubbed (http://instagram.com/p/TWPsv6JXga/) the policy change "Instagram's suicide note." The PopPhoto.com photography site summarized (http://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/12/instagrams-new-terms-service-make-lame-filters-least-user-worries) the situation by saying: "The service itself is still a fun one, but that's a lot of red marks that have shown up over the past couple weeks. Many shooters -- even the casual ones -- probably aren't that excited to have a giant corporation out there selling their photos without being paid or even notified about it."

Another unusual addition to Instagram's new policy appears to immunize it from liability, such as class action lawsuits, if it makes supposedly private photos public. The language stresses, twice in the same paragraph, that "we will not be liable for any use or disclosure of content" and "Instagram will not be liable for any use or disclosure of any content you provide." Yet another addition says "you acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such." That appears to conflict with the Federal Trade Commission's guidelines (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm) that say advertisements should be listed as advertisements.
Such sweeping intellectual property language has been invoked before: In 1999, Yahoo claimed (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/06/20472) all rights to Geocities using language strikingly similar to Facebook's wording today, including the "non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right" to do what it wanted with its users' text and photos. But in the face of widespread protest -- and competitors advertising that their own products were free from such Draconian terms -- Yahoo backed down (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/1999/07/20639) about a week later.
It's true, of course, that Facebook may not intend to monetize the photos taken by Instagram users, and that lawyers often draft overly broad language to permit future business opportunities that may never arise. But on the other hand, there's no obvious language that would prohibit Facebook from taking those steps, and the company's silence in the face of questions today hasn't helped.
EFF's Opsahl says the new policy runs afoul of his group's voluntary best practices (https://www.eff.org/wp/osp) for social networks. He added: "Hopefully at some point we'll get greater clarity from Facebook and Instagram."
Update Tuesday 12:35 p.m. PT: Flickr, Blipfoto, and other Instagram competitors are pouncing on the controversy Facebook created and are trying to lure away Instagram users (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559859-38/instagram-rivals-try-to-lure-users-away-after-photo-rights-flap/) by promising better treatment. And Instagram said on Twitter (https://twitter.com/instagram/status/281133360833773568) a few minutes ago that: "We've heard you that the updates to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Service are raising a lot of questions. We'll have more to share very soon."

[Kym]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/techknow/instagram-denies-it-will-sell-users-photos-after-backlash-against-new-terms-of-service/story-fnda1lbo-1226540237164


INSTAGRAM has back-pedalled on its plans to sell people's photos for advertising campaigns following a massive online celebrity-led campaign to desert the photo sharing app.

Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom this morning said the controversial terms would be revised following media stories that revealed how the terms allowed the photo app sell off people's images without compensation or their permission.

"As we review your feedback and stories in the press, we're going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos," Systrom said.

Yesterday, Instagram posted new terms of service to come into effect on January 16 that said: ''You agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.''

[Ezookiel]

I'm no lawyer, but doesn't that cut down to ''... a business or other entity may pay us to display your ... photos .... without any compensation to you.'' and therefore not end up all that different?
It sounds much the same except for the restriction "...in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions..." which really wouldn't impose all that great a restriction the way I see it.

[andrewvid]

oh that's probably what i will do. looking at alternatives, though none has an interface as good as intagram. but hey, if it involves 'stealing' stuff that!

just today they've release 'thank you, we're listening' and saying stuff about how it was all misinterpreted etc..

i don't know, deactivation seems only right. will see how they go with the suposed 'new privacy policy' after this new one.

[ricktas]

oh that's probably what i will do. looking at alternatives, though none has an interface as good as intagram. but hey, if it involves 'stealing' stuff that!

just today they've release 'thank you, we're listening' and saying stuff about how it was all misinterpreted etc..

i don't know, deactivation seems only right. will see how they go with the suposed 'new privacy policy' after this new one.

Twitter now allows photo uploads for sharing.

[andrewvid]

That seems like a good option

[Mark L]

Well they're just catching up with FBook and Linkedin. Plenty of people seem to use them!

[andrewvid]

indeed, just the 'stealing' part

[frithnow]

Instagram's new ToS were published yesterday, read them here (http://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/updated/).

There is still cause for concern in my opinion; "... 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, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 ("Sharing of Your Information"), 4 ("How We Store Your Information"), and 5 ("Your Choices About Your Information"). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy."

The privacy policy is a vague, deliberately referring to "information". In the ToS it's clear they regard photos as information. They had an opportunity to clear the air but have chosen to further muddy the waters.

[andrewvid]

Yep, got an email from them telling about their new ToS. I totally agree with you, they had their chance to make things final and make it clear. Instead they continue to make people wonder about what is really going on.

[swifty]

I wonder whether they're allowed to modify or change your photo (including cropping).
If not, just stick a watermark/signature on every photo you wanna showcase on insta.
It should act as a bit of a deterrent or if they still use it, at least you get the credits.
But I'm sure there's a fine print in the T's and C's that allow them to manipulate your photo too.

[andrewvid]

I most certainly will be putting larger water makrs on my pictures now.. or even just post my everyday scrambling type pics instead of the proper ones. It is a shame that they must change like this. it was perfect the way it was 6 months ago.