Instagram to sell your photos

.Longshanks.

Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

In its first big policy shift since Facebook bought the photo-sharing site, Instagram claims the right to sell users' photos without payment or notification. Oh, and there's no way to opt out.

by Declan McCullagh December 17, 2012 9:54 PM PST
Instagram said 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 its acquisition of the popular photo-sharing site. Unless Instagram users delete their accounts before the January deadline, they cannot opt out.

Under the new policy, 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 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, 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.
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 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 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 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 the policy change "Instagram's suicide note." The PopPhoto.com photography site summarized 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."

Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom speaks at the LeWeb conference in Paris. Click for larger image.
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)
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 that say advertisements should be listed as advertisements.
Such sweeping intellectual property language has been invoked before: In 1999, Yahoo claimed 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 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 for social networks. He added: "Hopefully at some point we'll get greater clarity from Facebook and Instagram."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/

DaireQuinlan

No real surprise. They have to start paying back that ONE BILLION DOLLAR investment somehow What's funny is that once this started doing the rounds people started touting instaport.me as a good method of downloading your entire instagram stream to local storage. instaport.me probably could have done with some warning as it appears to have given up the ghost in the interim ...

smash

you can use instacanvas to sell your own photos... get there before they do

Splinters

I can see it now, thousands of advertising agencies in crazed rush to buy up low resolution images of what some hipsters are having for lunch.

sineadw

The issue is more Facebook using images in its streams, attached to ads. As they do on Facebook already (although there's an opt out there). These are low quality images, snap shots. I have no desire to see images of me, my friends or family selling god knows what. It's not about money for me, it's about control.

And before the hordes descend, I'm fully aware that putting images on the web means losing control of them. I'm not going to agree to it though. You make compromises and draw your own lines.

ronanc15

http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening

Yesterday we introduced a new version of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that will take effect in thirty days. These two documents help communicate as clearly as possible our relationship with the users of Instagram so you understand how your data will be used, and the rules that govern the thriving and active Instagram community. Since making these changes, we’ve heard loud and clear that many users are confused and upset about what the changes mean. I’m writing this today to let you know we’re listening and to commit to you that we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion. 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. Legal documents are easy to misinterpret. So I’d like to address specific concerns we’ve heard from everyone:

Advertising on Instagram 
From the start, Instagram was created to become a business. Advertising is one of many ways that Instagram can become a self-sustaining business, but not the only one. Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear. To provide context, we envision a future where both users and brands alike may promote their photos & accounts to increase engagement and to build a more meaningful following. Let’s say a business wanted to promote their account to gain more followers and Instagram was able to feature them in some way. In order to help make a more relevant and useful promotion, it would be helpful to see which of the people you follow also follow this business. In this way, some of the data you produce — like the actions you take (eg, following the account) and your profile photo — might show up if you are following this business. The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. Our main goal is to avoid things like advertising banners you see in other apps that would hurt the Instagram user experience. Instead, we want to create meaningful ways to help you discover new and interesting accounts and content while building a self-sustaining business at the same time.

Ownership Rights 
Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period. I always want you to feel comfortable sharing your photos on Instagram and we will always work hard to foster and respect our community and go out of our way to support its rights.

Privacy Settings 
Nothing has changed about the control you have over who can see your photos. If you set your photos to private, Instagram only shares your photos with the people you’ve approved to follow you. We hope that this simple control makes it easy for everyone to decide what level of privacy makes sense. I am grateful to everyone for their feedback and that we have a community that cares so much. We need to be clear about changes we make — this is our responsibility to you. One of the main reasons these documents don’t take effect immediately, but instead 30 days from now, is that we wanted to make sure you had an opportunity to raise any concerns. You’ve done that and are doing that, and that will help us provide the clarity you deserve.

Thank you for your help in making sure that Instagram continues to thrive and be a community that we’re all proud of. Please stay tuned for updates coming soon. Sincerely, Kevin Systrom co-founder, Instagram

sineadw

So we're putting in a clause that says we can use your photo in ads just like featured stories on our parent site, but we don't *actually* mean that at all. No no. You're just too thick to understand our legal language, which spells it out quite clearly.

Uh huh..

Sar_Bear

Yeah I don't think I'll be rushing to close my Instagram account. Who the hell would pay money for pictures of my dog, coffees and self portraits?!

Solair

Hmm, not to happy with that, just closed my account.

It's just the fact that it contains personal photos of family/friends/myself etc. and I don't want to see them used anywhere else.

CrinkElite

http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/privacy-protests-cause-instagram-rethink-changes-121812 :rolleyes:

OldGoat

I got bored with Instagram and stopped using it ages ago.
/Fickle

splashthecash

That blog reply seems to clear up this issue for me....I was on the verge of closing down my account as I don't use Instagram loads, but I do like what you can do to photos in it.

DaireQuinlan

splashthecash wrote: »

That blog reply seems to clear up this issue for me....I was on the verge of closing down my account as I don't use Instagram loads, but I do like what you can do to photos in it.

"terribly sorry for the misunderstanding we should have phrased it a little differently we'll be sure to change it in .... LOOK !! HERE ARE SOME SHINY NEW FILTERS !!!"

Solair

There are also alternatives to instagram like EyeEm who promise never to do that.

I'm getting a bit sick of Facebook though. I'd say ultimately people will just get fed up with these kinds of stunts being pulled and it will fade out of popularity.

I've pretty much stopped using Facebook in an active way and certainly don't put anything private on it.

splashthecash

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

"terribly sorry for the misunderstanding we should have phrased it a little differently we'll be sure to change it in .... LOOK !! HERE ARE SOME SHINY NEW FILTERS !!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMRTa5srNxw

Effects

"File sharing: you don't mind when it's some musician's song or designer's game. When it's your ****ty Instagram photos it all changes, eh?"

smash

sineadw wrote: »

I have no desire to see images of me, my friends or family selling god knows what.

"Are you suffering from hairloss or erectile dysfunction?"

SunDog

Best line to come out of this - If there's no price for a product, you are the product.

DaireQuinlan

XKCD:

magicbastarder

Effects wrote: »

"File sharing: you don't mind when it's some musician's song or designer's game. When it's your ****ty Instagram photos it all changes, eh?"

at least you put quotes around that...

Splinters

SunDog wrote: »

Best line to come out of this - If there's no price for a product, you are the product.

Im totally stealing that.

smash

Splinters wrote: »

Im totally stealing that.

That's ok. SunDog stole it too

SunDog

Merely shared it, not claim it.

Effects

magicbastarder wrote: »

at least you put quotes around that...

How else would people know it was a quote?