
Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos - ValentineC
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/
======
sgdesign
I'm starting to realize that Instagram is not the service I thought it was. I
initially thought it was Flickr with social features, but more and more it's
turning into Facebook with photos.

There is zero content discoveries features, so you have no way to get new
followers or find new people to follow. And the top posters are all teenage
pop stars that I've never even heard about who post completely uninteresting
photos.

The more Instagram turns into Facebook, the more this opens up a spot for
another company to build an actual social network around photos. Whether this
will be 500px, Flickr (again), or somebody else entirely, I don't know.

~~~
Smrchy
As soon as i read that FB was buying Instagram i quit and deleted my Instagram
account. It was too predictable that something like this will happen.

Mark Zuckerberg is in a horrible position. I bet he would love to just build a
cool and useful product. Instead he is damned to roll out all these awful
money making features. And quick. Not only for his investors but also for the
staff that owns FB stock.

How smooth could FB move along if their investors trusted them like they trust
Jeff Bezos and his very long-term view.

~~~
kloncks
What's the alternative? A cool and useful product that makes revenues how? How
do you propose that Instagram actually make money?

Not attacking. Just wanted to hear more specific thoughts.

~~~
richardjs
Would it be viable to let users opt-in to selling their photos, with users and
Instagram splitting the money? That seems to be a system that would appeal to
both sides.

------
cookiecaper
This is not new. It seems that their new TOS explicitly lays out that your
photos may be used in advertising, possibly due to a new law somewhere
requiring specific notification and release, but my understanding is that
_you'd already given them this right_ based on this clause:

 _By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the
Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid
and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add
to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content,
including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media
formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly
("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services._

Yes, that's in the _old_ TOS, and it's pretty much boilerplate for any site
with user-generated content. That language certainly seems to me like it would
cover uses in advertising or even Instagram reselling your images as a "stock
photo" site. This kind of clause is required so that users can't attempt to
entrap the service provider by uploading content and then claiming that
Instagram didn't have a license to utilize it and therefore had violated
copyright, and also probably as a fallback policy in case a cranky user
spotted their image in a stream or feed or video or something (or,
alternately, that the server is hacked and db is leaked, and thousands of
claims of "unauthorized use" come flooding in).

IANAL but pretty much this is a non-story. They've simply decided to
_specifically_ inform you that a license to " non-exclusive, fully paid and
royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to,
publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content,
including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media
formats through any media channels" includes use in advertisement, as one
would reasonably believe it does.

~~~
declan
Agreed with aptwebapps. The old TOU, as you correctly say, is pretty standard.
Twitter's is similar, and any company with decent lawyers is going to protect
themselves with similar wording.

The new TOU, however, heads in a different direction. The phrase "limited
license" is gone. It's been replaced with the phrase "transferable, sub-
licensable" license. Also new is "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."

Transferable is a very important word. So is sub-licensable. Those were NOT in
the old terms of use.

~~~
cookiecaper
It really doesn't seem like a material change to me. Again, IANAL, so if there
is some reason to believe these things would be disallowed under the old TOS,
I'd like to know, but it sounds fairly straightforward. While Instagram may
have had a more difficult case under the old TOS, and may have had to be more
careful about the dispensation rather than just doing a blatant "stock
photo"-type interface, I could definitely see an attempt at the argument that
representation in "any media formats through any media channels" covers
Instagram in most cases of what would be considered "transferred sub-
licensing".

The clarifications, of course, are intended to clarify the consent they're
taking. I'd be interested to know their motives for this; as I speculated in
the parent, does a new law take effect in an important market with regard to
advertising? Are they just trying to play it safe? Are they going to make
aggressive moves into this kind of space (reselling user photos, using users'
profiles without consent in advertisements) and wanted to ensure that they
didn't have to deal with any lawsuits upon launch?

I will agree that the new TOS allows them to use your profile and likeness as
they see fit, which based on my simple layman's reading, isn't included in the
old TOS.

Just thinking out loud here, move along.

~~~
brigade
You granted _Instagram_ a license. Under the old ToS, an entity that wasn't
Instagram, say a nightclub, couldn't use your pictures on their own
promotional materials, advetising, or site without obtaining a separate
license from you, _period_. This changed.

~~~
cookiecaper
Right, I'm aware "that changed". I'm not sure that "an entity that wasn't
Instagram, say a nightclub, couldn't use your pictures on their own
promotional materials, advetising, or site without obtaining a separate
license from you" is really true, though. If a night club was working in clear
collaboration with Instagram and published your photos on its promotional
materials, that would seem to be covered by Instagram's license to replicate
your content in "any media formats through any media channels", as _Instagram_
exercised their license to place it there.

As I said, they'd probably have difficulty operating as a blatant competitor
to iStockPhoto, but I think if they'd structured things with a modicum of
cleverness, their old ToS would allow them to get away with most of what's
explicitly covered in the new ToS.

~~~
mcherm
There is a difference between a contract that "Joe can use this" and one that
says "Joe can let anyone use it". Sure, if Mary uses it Joe can say "She's
just using it for me", but UNLIKE code, the law is not completely decimated by
a single loophole. Judges and juries can see through blatant abuses and rule
that the contract did not cover that use. ("Can", not "will", but even the
chance is enough: a 1% chance of losing a 100-million dollar class-action
lawsuit is a million dollar cost, plus legal fees.)

~~~
jamesbritt
_Judges and juries can see through blatant abuses and rule that the contract
did not cover that use._

I've seen this observation mentioned a few times on HN and it seems quite
right. The letter of the law may say this or that, but ultimately it comes
down to some form of the giggle test. You have to imagine a judge saying, "You
didn't _really_ think that's what the law|contract meant, did you?"

For example, people trying to avoid penalties for unauthorized distribution of
copyrighted material by claiming they own the copyright on certain large
integers or are merely passing _numbers_ around, not movies or songs.

With the boilerplate TOS there may be all sorts of things that one could
imagine are allowed but I'm pretty sure Instagram's (i.e. Facebook's) lawyers
thought that the original phrasing would not be sufficient to clearly allow
them to do what they wanted to do, so it was changed.

------
Osmium
There's an ethical and an unethical way to do this.

Not being able to opt out, and changing the system wholesale overnight like
this, is deeply unethical.

On the scale of things they could do that would make this better:

* Best case: opt-in only, compensate users whose photos they use.

* Present a choice to users when they sign up, default to opt-out.

* At least present a choice to existing users whether they want this or not, and allow them to continued access to the service either way.

* Notify users and only change the rights when any new photos uploaded, and keep existing photos under the old terms.

* Give existing users the opportunity to deactivate/delete their account if they don't agree, and a chance to download their photos. Or "freeze" existing accounts until they acknowledge the changes, rather than automatically assuming consent.

They seem to have picked the absolute worst option available to them, and it's
troubling to say the least.

~~~
killahpriest
It seems that you can opt out by selecting to be a "private" user.

------
MattBearman
I was about to delete my Instagram account when I saw this, but having given
it a bit of thought, I'm actually ok with it.

Instagram needs to get money from somewhere, and as far as I'm concerned
selling my photos is preferable to filling the feeds with ads. However I can
see how for a lot of people they'd rather have ads then have their photos sold
(especially pro photographers) so it'll be interesting to see how many users
they loose over this.

Also it goes with out saying that if they do put adverts in, I'm out.

~~~
ScottWhigham
I don't understand why people have downvoted this yet far more inane comments
that are older haven't been downvoted as much (case in point:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4936978>). This is an "expressed opinion"
- it's not "inane banter" (like this one:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4936806>) - yet people have downvoted it
because they disagree. It doesn't express the hive mind thus the downvotes
rain in. So weird...

------
callmeed
This is going to get interesting.

I know several professional photographers who use Instagram regularly (and are
worth following). I suspect this will not sit well with some of them. I'm
especially curious if Instagram will let people leave _and_ remove their old
photos easily.

Some of them also post professional images they've imported from their
computer ( _not_ just phone images).

For example, here's an image taken by Jose Villa (high-end wedding
photographer) for Williams Sonoma's gift registry:
<http://instagram.com/p/STxUVcrodv/>

What's gonna happen when IG sells ads with those kind of images?

~~~
mtgx
Why is he even using Instagram? Doesn't seem like he used any filter there,
did he? Seems like he's just using it to promote his own DSLR-made photos.
Google+ might be a better target for that kind of community.

~~~
untog
Because Instagram has a huge audience. Google+ might be a better place for the
photos, but it doesn't have an audience.

~~~
jonknee
Google+ has a significantly larger audience than Instagram. G+ is more than
photos though and has a different audience.

~~~
untog
How do you figure that G+ has a larger audience? Larger _potential_ audience,
sure, given the number of Google users out there. But Instagram posts have
engagement (likes and comments) on a level I've never seen on Google+.

~~~
jonknee
G+ has more active users than Instagram based on the released data. They
purposefully don't release too much information, but the figures that have
been announced show G+ to be far larger than Instagram. Instagram claims more
than 100M signups, Google claims more than 500M. I don't see MAU for
Instagram, but Google+'s MAU is 135M which is more than all of Instagram's
signups.

Like any social network, what you see is dependent on who you are and how you
use the service. Instagram is much more wide open than G+ as well, people are
much more likely to share content to only a few people on G+ and thus you'll
never see that content (or any replies). From what I've heard from
photographers, G+ is definitely an active place to share photos.

~~~
lotso
What makes a user "active" on G+ exactly?

------
spacestation
deleting your account is futile, photographs will still remain on their AWS
account.

after deleting one of my accounts, I was suspicious that they would still keep
the photographs.

So to test this, I made a dummy account named after where i live; nikkojapan
<http://instagram.com/nikkojapan/>

i made a quick pointless photograph just to upload
<http://instagram.com/p/K8bx_ZB59K/>

Here is the link that still exists to the photograph of an account that was
deleted right after the Facebook acquisition announcement.
[http://distilleryimage6.instagram.com/6d96aaa0a45611e1a9f712...](http://distilleryimage6.instagram.com/6d96aaa0a45611e1a9f71231382044a1_7.jpg)

~~~
54mf
This is actually kind of a big deal. Have you sent this info to any tech
blogs?

~~~
spacestation
I have commented on blog posts of tech blogs about it using ...but, they
hasn't been noticed yet.

------
jiggy2011
So, how big is the target market for over saturated photos of someone's
dinner?

~~~
biesnecker
A billion dollars?

------
thinkling
So the claim that Instagram is establishing the right to sell your photos is
supported in the article with this language:

 _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."_

I read this as intended to say "when we display your photos (as part of our
own service), we may serve up ads to be displayed next to them and not give
you a cut of the proceeds".

I don't mean to argue that the language _can't_ be interpreted to let FB sell
the pictures but it doesn't look to me as _intended_ for that purpose.

In any case, the usual scenario of virtualized user outrage will be followed
by backpedaling by Instagram. 2% of the user base will vow to never use the
servie again, and then all will go on as before.

~~~
drucken
You glibly ignore the previous paragraph that references the section which
establishes the rights for Instagram/Facebook to do whatever it likes with the
Content.

And since when is "intent" ever part of US law (especially with regards to
IP)...

~~~
thinkling
You seem to argue (by the use of "glibly") that the presence of the
transferability clause leaves no other interpretation possible than that that
transfer will be for use of user content by third part in return for payment.
However, the clause may also be there to allow use of content on other
services owned by Instagram's parent.

I was quite explicit that I was giving my read of the intent, not my
assessment of what Instagram _could_ legally get away with. The
transferability clause does not change my reading of the intent.

------
planetjones
The new flickr app (albeit very late) looks a whole lot better proposition
then Instagram.

To value Instagram at a billion dollars (well less now I guess because of
Facebook's share price) is insane. They have a serious problem with spam -
every photo I upload is liked by many getM0refollowers<RandomNumber> and every
photo I upload is bombarded with spam comments. They seem incapable of getting
a grip on this problem.

The app also has bugs e.g. it says I have X followed but then displays X minus
Y when I try to view who they are.

Its popular photos are rubbish - so there is no way to discover interesting
photos other than searching for tags you're interested in. Photos with a 1000
likes appeal to the teenage market only i.e. they're not serious photos.

When you follow someone you get very large photos dominating your stream, so I
don't follow many people because of this.

I really hope flickr aggresively try and take back this market. Instagram is a
neat idea, but has very poor execution.

~~~
neilk
I don't really know what Instagram is really worth, but it might have been
worth a billion dollars to Facebook to keep Instagram away from Twitter.
Twitter + Instagram is starting to look like a viable Facebook competitor.

Although we know now that Twitter is choosing to become a walled garden with a
very limited kind of service, a year ago it seemed possible for them to become
a sort of internet infrastructure.

------
hieronymusN
I fully understand that with a free product, I am the product. I go into that
with eyes open, and happily used Instagram assuming they would eventually
start serving ads near the photos, promoting photos or similar. However, using
my photos as ads seems a bit of a stretch. So, I just happily gave Flickr $25
after deleting my Instagram account. Some things are worth paying for, because
sometimes I don't want to be the product.

~~~
bad_user
With Flickr you're still the product unfortunately, although Flickr is much
better than other similar services in this regard. Do you really think your
measly $25/year cover for their expenses with you?

Seriously, if you don't want to be the product, organize those photos in a
standard directory structure and synchronize it either with Dropbox or Google
Drive or SkyDrive.

The downside of doing that is that storage is more expensive, but that's
closer to the real price the service is worth and so that makes it
sustainable. Also, migrating between cloud storage solutions is much easier.

Shameless plug - try Dropbox by clicking the following link, and we'll both
get a small bonus: <http://db.tt/x1XoSUnE>

~~~
54mf
"Do you really think your measly $25/year cover for their expenses with you?"

Actually, yes. Hard drive space is incredibly cheap, especially at their
scale. My photos aren't terribly popular, so they aren't using much bandwidth
either. I probably cost them $5-10/year, tops. In fact, I'm probably one of
the majority, the ones who subsidize the heavy, uber-popular users with tens
of thousands of followers who upload hundreds of photos a year.

~~~
bad_user
> _Hard drive space is incredibly cheap_

Actually, no it isn't and at scale it makes it even more expensive, because
you need redundancy. We are talking about RAID and CDN, not to mention that at
scale hardware breaks a lot more often.

What actually makes it palatable for businesses such as Yahoo or Google is
that many people pay for this storage without using it, while heavy users that
share a lot help by marketing the product through their sharing to others.

On the other hand I've got 50 GB worth of data uploaded on Flickr. You can't
tell me that 50 GB of redundant on-demand storage is worth $25 / year, unless
you live in some kind of fairy land. I also have only a couple of photos
shared. So what value does Flickr get from me?

~~~
benbataille
>Actually, no it isn't and at scale it makes it even more expensive, because
you need redundancy. We are talking about RAID and CDN, not to mention that at
scale hardware breaks a lot more often.

That's related to reliability not scaling per see. Building a highly reliable
system is far cheaper when you reach the scale of Google or Amazon because you
can rationalize purchase. Actually, I bet price of hardware can totally be
neglected next to admin and bandwidth cost.

> On the other hand I've got 50 GB worth of data uploaded on Flickr. You can't
> tell me that 50 GB of redundant on-demand storage is worth $25 / year,
> unless you live in some kind of fairy land.

I must live in fairy land. :-) You can buy 4 decent 1TB for 400$ that will
allow you to cater for 20 users at 20$ per user. Conservatively you can expect
them to live 3 years on average which brings the cost to 7$ per user per year.
Add a 400$ server good enough to do software RAID. Let's say 5 years of life
expectancy it adds 5$. It's 12$ per user plus network cost on a lan.

Flickr uses better material and pay bandwidth and admin. But they have economy
of scale and can put far more than 20 50GB users on 1TB on average because a
lot of them don't use them fully. I think they are above break even point at
25$/year.

~~~
54mf
And that's assuming every user has 50GB worth of photos - which, for the
record, is _a lot_ of photos. Most are probably in the low hundreds-of-MB
range, which brings your cost per user down by an order of magnitude, at
least.

------
dr_faustus
Dont worry! The founders of instagram where afraid of this as well and they
devised a poison pill before they sold out! All you images have been made
useless for any commercial use by the application of shitty "lets make it look
like a polaroid left in the sun for 30 years"-filters...

------
jaredcwhite
I'm beginning to adopt a "I don't sign up for your service/social network if
you don't know how to make money other than sell me someday" mindset because
I'm sick of being burned. First the Twitter debacle, and now this. Instagram
should be inspired by App.net, not Twitter. Sorry guys, I'm canceling my
account. Flickr is starting to show signs of promise as a decent photo service
again, and I'll happily pay them money for a Pro account.

Buh bye Instagram. Hope that ad thing works out for you. (Not.)

------
kmfrk
Posted some related stories:

* [Instagram's suicide note](<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4934271>)

* [Instagram Will Share User Data With Facebook According To Its New Privacy Policy](<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4932765>)

The last one may be more interesting than the usage rights for photos.

~~~
bdcravens
Those are both the same HN URL - looks like you mistakenly copied the URL for
the 2nd by the 1st. :-)

~~~
kmfrk
There we go, thanks. At least the most important one was the one that was
copied. :)

------
polskibus
It doesn't matter who the target market is. This can create a precedence, and
make other "social" enterprises greedier. While I understand a contract can
specify almost anything and there's always "if you don't like it, don't use
it" way of looking at this, but there should be a basic sense of decency among
all that claim to be serving the wider public.

~~~
praptak
Sense of decency often loses against profit. That's why I think this quote
from RMS is relevant when it comes to the old "if you don't like it, don't use
it":

 _"All in all, I think it is a mistake to defend people's rights with one hand
tied behind our backs, using nothing except the individual option to say no to
a deal. We should use democracy to organize and together impose limits on what
the rich can do to the rest of us. That's what democracy was invented for!"_

~~~
ericHosick
From a much much more cynical view: Democracy was created so the rich could
convince a majority to tie the hands of a minority.

~~~
jrogers65
Just as laws have the effect of protecting the rich from the poor. I will
explain the rationale behind that argument if anyone asks.

~~~
slig
Yes, please do. Thanks.

~~~
jrogers65
People are very predictable if you know enough about them.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlates_of_crime> Criminality is essentially
a combination of low dopamine, low serotonin and low adrenaline levels. Stress
chemicals such as cortisol can rapidly deplete neurotransmitter levels. There
is also an inverse correlation between socioeconomic status and criminality.
Being poor means more stress and lower levels of those neurotransmitters.

The impulsivity caused by dopamine deficiency also causes more unwanted
pregnancies - another risk factor for criminality.

Poor people are also more likely to be religious -
[http://www.gallup.com/poll/116449/religion-provides-
emotiona...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/116449/religion-provides-emotional-
boost-world-poor.aspx) and being religious is correlated with criminality.

So there is clearly a strong correlation between the effects of being poor or
in poverty and criminality. Since the law is specifically designed to 'deal'
with criminality, it is a mechanism which is quite biased against the poor.
Hence, the law is there to protect the rich from the poor.

~~~
slig
Thank you!

------
arondeparon
What I am trying to figure out is: does this apply to 'private' accounts as
well? I see no statement that seems to exempt private accounts from these new
policies, but would definitely like to hear a conclusive statement regarding
this.

~~~
declan
I think it's fair to say that private accounts are probably not covered, but
it would be nice for Instagram to make it clear one way or another.

------
InstaByeBye
InstaByeBye.com coming soon. 1 Click exports and online photo log. Stay Cool.
3 hours and counting. Live update = @instabyebye

~~~
kmfrk
My main concern as a passive user is finding a way to export likes and
follows. I haven't really posted that many photos, but there is still
something to lose as a lurker.

------
reasondiscourse
"you acknowledge we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content,
and commercial communications"

Translation: You accept that we may try to trick you.

I'm an intellectual property lawyer and I think the intent behind the above
language is quite clear. It is not aimed at alleviating an undue burden of
identifying commercial content (as Instagram might suggest), it's about
reducing transparency to allow for marketing tactics that would not likely be
viewed favorably if they were obvious to the user. While under no legal
obligation to do so, Google has been identifying sponsored content for over a
decade. If we were to begin by looking at "standard practice" then we might
start there.

I think it's great that people are reading TOS from web companies and making
their concerns known. We might call this negotiation. If you accept that idea,
then I think users are in an excellent bargaining position. They can walk away
at any time. They can adapt and they can find new alternatives. These
companies however may not be able to find new audiences so easily. I believe
they will take the feedback very seriously and respond, with new language if
necessary.

I'm noticing some of my friends on Facebook who were using it extensively for
one purpose or another are now closing their accounts. Other friends of mine
cannot use Facebook because of their employers. It seems clear to me there are
both costs and benefits to using Facebook or Instagram and that sometimes the
costs may outweigh the benefits.

Keep reading TOS. It is good for the web.

------
debacle
While this isn't reddit, this would probably be a good time for that "That
escalated quickly" picture.

I'm surprised Facebook is moving so quickly to try and monetize Instagram. I
wonder if they're using it for experimentation of what their user base will
accept. Regardless, I think this is probably a step too far in the wrong
direction.

Will Facebook and Instagram be able to clamp down on users with the right
acrobatics to keep their userbase and increase their ARPU? Either way, these
seem like shady tactics.

------
itsprofitbaron
Instagram's new TOS[1] state:

    
    
      To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, 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.
    

In other words, they're trying to monetize Instagram a similar way Facebook is
- Sponsored Posts - your photos and associated data can be promoted by
companies without having to notify you about it.

Furthermore under Section 106: Exclusive rights in copyrighted works aka. 17
U.S.C. § 106[2] Instagram _cannot_ sell your photos and it _cannot_ use your
photos and alter them in any meaningful way.

Having said that Instagram could have communicated this better as this hasn't
helped the situation either.

[1] <http://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/updated/>

[2] <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html>

====

NOTE: Also posted this at: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939663>

------
jakeonthemove
I doubt this policy is going to last long - the biggest and most important
Instagram users as far as I can tell are celebrities (incl. professionals and
other popular persons), and they sure as hell will do something if Instagram
starts selling/licensing the photos to anyone who wants them.

Coupled with the other big mistake of separating themselves from Twitter, I'd
say Instagram is well on their way of becoming the next MySpace.

~~~
FireBeyond
I'd suspect that on the flip side, if Instagram does intend to do this sort of
thing, they will have a well-curated list of "who not to piss off".

That being said, said celebrities, professionals and popular persons also
agreed to the same TOS...

------
mcguire
If we assume that the good folks at Instagram (or at least their lawyers and
public relations people) are not complete idiots, then they have no intention
of actually following through with this change. Here's a prediction: it will
be dropped due to "user feedback" or some such in a week or so and everyone
will have a warm, fuzzy feeling.

The question is, what do they actually want to accomplish by floating this
trial balloon?

------
chrisconnell
Instagram isn't about to become iStockphoto. There's no way they're going to
let people buy pictures of other people to do what they want with them. More
likely they want the option to use photos to help advertise. For example
showing photos taken at a hotel on the hotels website or on the hotels
facebook page without users moaning that they're being used without
permission.

~~~
Paul12345534
Those sorts of uses are exactly what some more professional photographers
would want to prevent. It's exactly why I never uploaded any of my tens of
thousands of scenic photos to Panoramio. People can use their API to display
photos on their sites.

<http://www.panoramio.com/api/widget/api.html>

[http://www.panoramio.com/api/widget/api.html#conditions-
of-u...](http://www.panoramio.com/api/widget/api.html#conditions-of-use)

------
Irishsteve
Wow. Wonder if their users will be bothered to care

~~~
sgdesign
I wouldn't much care about my Facebook statuses somehow being used as
advertising, or even my tweets for that matter. They're just things I've said
publicly and social networks have trained me not to expect any control over
them anymore.

On the other hand, photos are much more personal: they're works of art, at
their own level.

So I think whether you care or not depends not only on your stance regarding
privacy and all that, but also how you frame your use of Instagram: is it a
way to post status updates disguised as photos, or photos disguised as status
updates?

~~~
znowi
> social networks have trained me not to expect any control over them anymore

I think this is the major issue that will define the internet landscape in the
long term. People indeed got _trained_ not to care about privacy and just like
with "war on terror", they gradually give up their rights and freedom for the
sake of "security" and "better user experience".

Soon enough anyone who speaks out of user rights or privacy will be seen as a
mad man akin to RMS these days. 10 years back, a site, which required a scan
of your government issued ID in order to change your name would be deemed
insane. Now it's a common practice.

Welcome to the Matrix, gentlemen.

------
CWIZO
What a wonderfully missed opportunity. Had they decided to share profits from
content with authors they could attract more professional photographers to
their service. I can't imagine any pro author will publish beautiful photos on
Instagram now, and I suspect the service will just be flooded with amateur
photos. And who is going to pay them for that?

~~~
devcpp
Yep, make that an opt-in feature, add some light ads, and you have a full
business model.

I believe they may have just wanted to spare themselves the headache of a
money system and of people who would reupload other people's pictures or
copyrighted works for their own profit.

------
mwill
I hope casual and regular Instagram users riot over this change (doubt it,
really), honestly, not for their sake, or to spite Facebook or Instagram, but
simply because I'd really hate it if they started doing this, and it turns out
to be an awesome money maker. I don't look forward to a web where that
precedent is set.

------
ThePinion
Anyone else completely see this coming at this exact point in time when first
hearing the acquisition announcement?

------
stalf
Isn't it possible to use app.net to build an Instagram-like network without
this whole monetizing problem?

------
thekevinjones
You can easily move your instagram photos to Flickr with this web app we
created today if you don't like their policies.

<http://freethephotos.com>

We wanted to move ours, so we built this handy thing and decided to release
it. Let us know if you run into any issues.

------
mikeleeorg
I wonder what this means for <http://instaprints.com>.

~~~
Deestan
To my understanding, it means Instagram can do a direct deal with Instaprints
and cut out the "sending profits to the artists" cost.

------
sailfast
I noticed awhile back that Instagram branding was appearing in television
commercials, such as recent Taco Bell ads about Doritos Locos. If companies
are using Instagram content for branding it makes sense to try to change the
license agreement to capitalize if you're focused on monetizing an acqusition.
As we've seen, however, it will certainly anger a solid chunk of the user
base.

Nick Tran, social media lead for Taco Bell talks a bit about the campaign in
the below article:
"<http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/content/13959.html>

------
jscheel
Guess I'll have to continue not using Instagram. All joking aside, this was
the worst possible time for them to do this, considering Twitter and Flickr
both attacking their space more and more now.

------
TeeWEE
Since you cannot delete all photo's at once, i deleted my account.

~~~
wib
I'm having a real hard time deleting my account, because I used plus
addressing in the email when I signed up for Instagram. This is making it
impossible for me to log in to the web version of Instagram which is as far as
I can tell the only way to delete an account… Suppose I'll have to write
support, if there is such a thing.

------
jmathai
Unlike Facebook, I don't think Instagram can afford these antics.

~~~
batiudrami
Instagram's target market doesn't care. These aren't professional
photographers, or even amateur ones like flickr, they're teens and
20-somethings with camera phones who want to be able to take and share cool
photos with their friends.

~~~
ryanhuff
I bet celebrities will care when their picture unknowingly appears in some ad.

~~~
krichman
UIAM you can't publish an advertisement with someone in it until they sign a
model release form.

~~~
nwh
You supposedly read and agreed to the TOS, aren't they effectively giving your
permission?

~~~
vidarh
The person reading and agreeing to the TOS is not necessarily the same person
as the one(s) appearing in the photos. It is the latter that needs to sign a
model release.

------
vegas
Hipsters begin losing interest in instagram at a reliable rate.

------
nakedrobot2
As infuriating as I find this, I am afraid that many people won't care.

Worse, I feel that FB/Instagram will backtrack from this, and nearly everyone
will forgive them. Not me. They have shown their true colors. I'm out. I won't
let them sell me down the river.

Classic negotiating tactic - ask for WAY too much, then backtrack a bit, and
you get more than people would have possibly let you have, had you asked only
for that in the first place.

------
mosselman
I am shocked. Weren't social media platforms to be our friends and respect our
privacy, pay for servers and programmers without anything in return?

------
mleeds
The hardest thing about legalese: trying to convey intent and write something
specific at the same time. The intent may be in the category of “don’t be
evil”, but the user never knows. And while it is easy to say “well, just stop
using the service”, the impact of networks is that it makes it less realistic
to use another service. Just another signal that we live in a “Caveat User”
world…

------
InclinedPlane
Is there a lawyer around? How legal is this?

It's one thing if instagram uses a picture of you for advertising purposes,
since you have agreed to their ToS. However, how do they know which pictures
are of you and which are of other people? They shouldn't have any legal right
to use pictures of other people for advertising purposes, as far as I
understand, because there is no contract involved.

~~~
darkarmani
I think you are right. There are two rights involved with this: copyright and
model releases. Only the person in the photograph can sign away the rights to
their likeness. I'm not sure how they'd be able to use these photos in a
commercial manner without model release for each person in the photos.

------
hamoid
I just found out about <http://i-am-cc.org/> They propose releasing your
Instagram images as CC. What I don't understand is what effect, if any, will
that have on Instagram using your images for creating ads or for other uses.
How would a CC license affect in this situation?

~~~
mseebach
> How would a CC license affect in this situation?

Not at all. When you upload your photos to Instagram, you grant them a non-
exclusive license to use them in accordance with their TOS. Licensing them
under CC is just issuing another non-exclusive license to another party.

------
jnazario
for those of your jumping ship, here's three tools that can help you grab your
instagram photos as a ZIP or migrate them to another service:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/limyunghui/2012/12/18/export-
ins...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/limyunghui/2012/12/18/export-instagram-
photos-a-few-good-tools/)

------
dgurney
This is a phenomenally dumb move. Instagram is (was) cool because of the
absence of ads or any other monetization features. It was free, simple, clean,
and fun. Now it begins the slow march towards a crowded, busy, ad-littered
experience. And this is really bad press.

In my opinion, the decline starts now...

------
npguy
Let us move away from these services, into a more distributed model:

[http://statspotting.com/2012/12/instagrams-policy-changes-
is...](http://statspotting.com/2012/12/instagrams-policy-changes-is-it-time-
to-move-everything-to-our-pockets/)

------
nphrk
The copyright issue can be a bit tricky. Assuming that Instagram goes on and
sells users' pictures - who's liable if somebody uploads a picture which
he/she doesn't own, and then Instagram goes on and sells that to a third
party?

~~~
darkarmani
More than that -- how is Instagram getting model releases for everyone in the
photos?

------
ChuckMcM
Wow, that was not entirely unexpected, but rather poorly executed. I would
have hoped there would be a grace period were you could either remove material
or mark it in such a way that it wasn't tagged with this right.

------
deanclatworthy
Presumably Instagram would not have the right to sell photos from people that
restrict the viewing of their photos in public. I have my profile set up so
only those people I "approve" to follow me can see them.

~~~
pdonis
The language in the TOS says "you can control who can view certain of your
Content and activities on the Service". Note that key qualifier: _on the
Service_. It does _not_ say that you can control who can view your Content by
other means; so if they sold your photos to someone else who made them
viewable through some other means, you can't control that. At least, that's
the way I read it; IANAL.

------
jrogers65
I'll just leave this here -
[http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-
creato...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creator-
survives-ad-board-the/)

------
rwhitman
Isn't this how YouTube policy works as well? As I recall YouTube is always the
rights holder - if a YouTube video is played on TV the TV program pays
royalties to YouTube and the user gets nothing.

------
tibbon
Didn't we expect that they'd need to find some way to make money off us?

------
stephenhuey
Instagram-export service Instaport is returning 500 errors:

<http://instaport.me/>

500 Internal Server Error

nginx/0.7.67

~~~
kmfrk
They're understandably under heavy load. It worked fine, when I tried it,
though.

------
dimmedwit
I'm not sure how Instagram has obtained my photos, but I will not stand for
this.

------
felipesabino
Get ready for the biggest duck face/bathroom mirror stock photo sale of all
time

------
state
Is there an open alternative that anyone would recommend?

------
kanakiyajay
This is totally unfair . Now shifting to Flickr

------
ritratt
Wait don't we already do this and accuse proponents of SOPA etc. of curbing
our freedom under the excuse of piracy?

~~~
chris_wot
No.

------
ForFreedom
Let them sell one with your kid then you can sue their ass off.

------
edwardunknown
So if I repurpose a photo I found on Instagram and it becomes the next Obama
"Hope" poster I have to pay the photographer _and_ Instagram? That would be
lolled out of court.

Same thing with selling people's personal pics as stock photos, it doesn't
matter what the user agreement says, that ain't gonna fly in front of a judge.

It would be like putting a sticker on the back of a picture frame that says
whatever you put in here now belongs to Frames incorporated, NAL but it seems
to me however legally binding it claims to be it wouldn't pass the smell test
in court.

~~~
JeremyBanks
In no case does this require you to pay the photographer _and_ Instagram. It
would be legally possible for you to pay the photographer _or_ Instagram.

This change means that Instagram could license photos published through their
service to you without compensating the photographer. You always have the
option of licensing the photos directly from the photographer, in which case
Instagram isn't involved at all.

------
igorgue
Question, with these new rules, can you still sell your pictures?

Unless you live under a rock, you know that many "Instagram girls" sell their
posts to clothing stores to promote them, it's actually hugely successful!

~~~
joshbert
I've been living under a rock, then. Although, it's fairly ingenious.

~~~
igorgue
Maybe because I have friends doing fashion, I know it goes from 500 bucks a
pop. A girl with about 100K followers. And she would say something like this:

"Awesome glasses I got them from example.com use code EXAMPLE50 for %50 off on
all their inventory"

I wonder if that's still legal. Or maybe Instagram can automate that!

------
drivebyacct2
If only Android let you one-click share to any social network you wanted and
included all of the photo manipulation and filter features of Instagram. Oh
wait.

------
dschiptsov
People still wondering that someone not just paying the bills, but making
money in the first place, and that all these "free" services are about _making
money_ by aggregating and selling user-generated content, logs and statistics?

There is no other _working_ model, btw.

------
wildranter
So long Intagram, and thanks for all the fish.

