Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Instagram Wants To Sell Users' Photos Without Notice

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the oh-and-by-the-way dept.

Facebook 313

DavidGilbert99 writes "Many Instagram users have reacted angrily to a proposed change to the apps terms of service by owner Facebook, which would give the social network 'perpetual' rights to all photos on Instagram, allowing it to sell the photos to advertisers without notice — or payment to the user. The new policy will come into effect on 16 January, just four months after Facebook completed its $1bn acquisition of Instagram. It states that Facebook has a right to distribute any content posted on Instagram without paying the user royalties:" Also worth reading Declan McCullagh's take on it.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Instagram Bubble (5, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42324683)

Instagram bubble
Like your photos are stubble
That they'll just whisk away
And save you the trouble.
Burma Shave

Re:Instagram Bubble (5, Funny)

pinfall (2430412) | about 2 years ago | (#42324813)

So long, and thanks for all the pics!

Re:Instagram Bubble (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42324847)

Your Hitchhiker's Guide reference is appreciated, Mr. Pesce.

Re:Instagram Bubble (1)

Dr. Tom (23206) | about 2 years ago | (#42324901)

Something smells like fish.

Re:Instagram Bubble (1)

lexa1979 (2020026) | about 2 years ago | (#42325055)

Instagram's the fisher price of the internet...

Re:Instagram Bubble (4, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#42325281)

Something smells like fish.

Why do you guys keep reminding me of old jokes, which I'm then compelled to share?

The snake tempts Eve, who shares the apple with Adam before having wild, passionate sex. A while later God walks up and Adam's wearing an apron made of fig leaves.

"You ate the apple, didn't you?" God asks accusingly.

"Uh, yeah, we... uh, well, she kinda talked me into it."

"Ok, where is she?"

"She's down at the river washing up."

God says "Damn, I'll never get the smell out of all those fish!"

Re:Instagram Bubble (5, Interesting)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 2 years ago | (#42324885)

Tis is the death of instant ram. No way any celebrities will allow Facebook to profit from their likenesses. Without Bieber, Selena Gomez, and even Playboy Bunnies [] (link is sfw), there will be nobody driving the service from the top, and the twihards etc will follow their idols to a new platform. Twitter pics for example? Classic Facebook blunder.

Re:Instagram Bubble (2)

noh8rz9 (2716595) | about 2 years ago | (#42324941)

Although FB will make a bundle if they get the URL Btw instant ram s.b. instagram. Autocorrect fail!

Re:Instagram Bubble (4, Funny)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42324953)

are you kidding?

celebs using twitter or instagram is a direct connection to fans. unlike 30 years ago when the only connection was a fan club you had to pay for or the trade magazines

unlike most geeks, celebs aren't crazy like my dad and don't care if someone makes money off them in a symbiotic business relationship.

Re:Instagram Bubble (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#42325003)

"celebs aren't crazy"

+1 funny

Re:Instagram Bubble (2)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#42325195)

I am sure you would like to see your face endorsing any products in exchange of a service worth almost nothing...

Re:Instagram Bubble (5, Insightful)

Spamalope (91802) | about 2 years ago | (#42325203)

Coming soon:

Take a good picture eating out with friends at an Italian restaurant? FB's marketing dept. will call the owner selling a FB marketing campaign based on your image. Later, FB ads with your picture will say 'Smitty loves Tony's Italian restaurant, you will too.'

The process will be automated using geo-tags in the images and the popularity of images posted.

Thank you for further crowd sourcing the last of the marketing materials we used to pay for...

If they use facial recognition to identify and use only pictures of instagram users, doesn't that free them from any worries about model releases given these contract terms?

Re:Instagram Bubble (4, Interesting)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about 2 years ago | (#42325287)

Scarier yet, once this is all automated the advertisement might show up within minutes after taking the picture, while you're still at the restaurant.

Out of Dodge (4, Insightful)

Jetra (2622687) | about 2 years ago | (#42324707)

Never had instagram. Now I never will get one.

Re:Out of Dodge (4, Informative)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#42324891)

If there's one service online I had to pick that's one of the least respectable and most satired with the doucheyest users, it would be Instagram so you're not missing much. Basically the 2 jokes are "Oh, you used an instagram filter. You must be a professional photographer" and "Can you eat a meal without instagramming it?"

Re:Out of Dodge (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about 2 years ago | (#42325247)

I use photobucket mostly. It works and it's free.

Stockphotos (4, Funny)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about 2 years ago | (#42324743)

There is going to a lot of food images up for grabs...

Re:Stockphotos (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#42324903)

That gives me an idea. Everyone should take a break from Instagramming their dinner and take a picture of nothing but flowers. Stock photography services are sooooo sick of flowers!

Re:Stockphotos (2)

boristdog (133725) | about 2 years ago | (#42325017)

I'm thinking wieners, but flowers works.

Re:Stockphotos (2)

dintech (998802) | about 2 years ago | (#42324911)

But most of that food depicted went bad about 30 or 40 years ago.

Re:Stockphotos (4, Interesting)

stephanruby (542433) | about 2 years ago | (#42324973)

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.

This reminds me of the Judge Judy case where a promoter used a young woman's semi-provocative facebook pictures on flyers to advertise a new strip joint.

Re:Stockphotos (5, Insightful)

TheBogBrushZone (975846) | about 2 years ago | (#42325155)

Odd that everyone is complaining about their land-grab of photographs and very few are mentioning their permitted use of your username and likeness which seems a lot more objectionable to me. Facebook is full of invasive and misleading ads for dating sites that would just love a cache of readily available real names and profile photos to attach to their fake users. I'd much rather they nicked my spur-of-the-moment snaps than used me to defraud lonely and desperate people.

You need their service! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324749)

It's not like there's any real competitors to Instagram. I mean, we never uploaded pictures to the internet before them, right?

Re:You need their service! (5, Funny)

Assmasher (456699) | about 2 years ago | (#42324849)

Who needs the internet, I've got Facebook!

Re:You need their service! (2)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42324859)

you can always run your own web server from home with your pictures

i'm sure thousands of people will be looking at them

Re:You need their service! (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | about 2 years ago | (#42324887)

Serious question, what about imagur (I think that's how it is spelled) ?

Re:You need their service! (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42324995)

I've never seen it used for anything other than /r/gonewild ... does it have a life beyond homemade pr0n for reddit users? Or is there any popular, real, wide spread (ha ha) demand for photo sharing other than homemade pr0n? Remember 100K fanatic users is only like one sixty-thousandth the world population, by popular I mean FB or google sized popularity, or at least WoW sized.

And suddenly (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324753)

Just when I thought I could never want to use Instagram less, this happens.

Whatever will the world do (3, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 2 years ago | (#42324761)

They want to sell shitty pictures, taken by shitty camera phones, that have shitty filters applied to them? Great business model there.

Re:Whatever will the world do (1)

sirber (891722) | about 2 years ago | (#42324845)

in 640x480, excellent for print.

Re:Whatever will the world do (4, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | about 2 years ago | (#42324863)

They want to sell shitty pictures, taken by shitty camera phones, that have shitty filters applied to them? Great business model there.

This is nothing about using them for general advertising. This is about using them to
1) Work out where you've been, what you've done, and where you're likely to go for targetted adverts
2) Using your pictures in adverts targeted to you and your friends. "Hay Bob, Dave just got back from Rome (with photo of Dave in the Colosseum), click here to book a flight!"

Re:Whatever will the world do (5, Interesting)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#42325057)

They can already do 1) and 2) is not going to happen, its just too loaded with pitfalls. Dave was going for his mother's funeral, whoops, lawsuit. I don't think people appreciate the demand for even low quality stock photos out there.

Instagram has apparently a billion odd photos uploaded. Lets say that optimistically 1% of those are saleable at all. That's 10 million photos, now lets say 10% of those earn a dollar a month in sales between them, that's a million bucks a month. Not too shabby, and quite possible, one photo in a thousand earning a dollar a month. That they'd have to do it for around a century just to break even is beside the point, I've no idea what the hell they were thinking spending that much money on a photo upload service in the first place.

Still, its an all round scummy move by facebook and probably illegal too. Maybe if they offered an opt-in profit sharing system instead, or something, that might be good.

They want to sell them to your friends/enemies (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324955)

Except loss making Internet scam Facebook, has the details of who your close friends, not so close friends, relatives and enemies are. Of those, you may only have Instagram'd your photo to your close friends, but the rest would pay to see it, particularly your unfrienermies.

Facebook recently stopped letting Instagram photos be posted around freely, starting with Twitter. So it's only a matter of time before they sell access to your photos. The only people interested are friends, former friends and stalkers who didn't receive it. Since most people have their privacy rights changed by Facebook without them knowing it, they don't know Facebook has probably already given themselves the rights to show those photos outside your account, unless you press button Z twice on page broken link.

Facebook recently started selling 'adverts', so if you have money and want to send information to your following friends, you need to pay or they won't see it. In effect it is selling you the relationship you made and it broke. This is the flip side of that.

You see that it's not about selling photos to random people, because random people aren't interested in how drunk you were at a bar last night. Your boss on the other hand.. Your wife... Your angry ex-unfriended girlfriend. Or even for that matter your mum, who you decided didn't really need to see that, but FB knows she wants to look anyway.

Guess What App I am Deleting on the Train Home (2)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | about 2 years ago | (#42324769)

I played around with instagram for a few days, but I never really saw the point of it. I can take and post pictures with the camera that came with my phone. If I want to play around with the picture I have other apps for that, and they do not send the picture back to a mother ship.

Re:Guess What App I am Deleting on the Train Home (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#42324965)

Ageeed, Instagram has succumbed to the social disease that is Facebook. Just never trust any app or cloud service with your personal files, be they your photos, docs, mp3s, text/rmails etc. If you forever lose them because you didn't back them up on multiple hard/flash drives you have noone to blame but yourself.

BTW, does Instagram give user's a cut of their profits???

Re:Guess What App I am Deleting on the Train Home (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | about 2 years ago | (#42325245)

No - I believe that you are explicitly denied any compensation for them using your photos.

One has to wonder. . . (5, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 2 years ago | (#42324773)

at what point is enough, enough. When are people going to quit Facebook/Instagram/whatever en masse as these deliberate and calculated abuses continue?

These are your pictures. You own them. No corporation has the right to use them without your permission just because they are holding them.

Sure, one can always not put up pictures, but that defeats the whole point of Instagram, doesn't it?

There are options. One could always upload the picture with a big watermark on it or plaster a copyright symbol and your name on it, but knowing these shysters, they would just remove those things and still claim it's theirs.

Just another reason why I don't use any of these "services".

Re:One has to wonder. . . (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42324877)

most people don't care, like me

once in a while i'll take a decent photo. if instagram uses it i'll be happy and will probably upload more

Re:One has to wonder. . . (4, Interesting)

Splab (574204) | about 2 years ago | (#42324957)

Better make sure you have permission from subjects in the picture, else you could very well find yourself on the wrong side of a lawsuit, since it's your responsibility to make sure your models are paid for published work.

Re:One has to wonder. . . (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 2 years ago | (#42325067)

But shouldn't they sue the people who actually PUBLISHED the picture?

Re:One has to wonder. . . (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#42325129)

I"m guessing they consider the photographer to be the publisher since he published the photo on instagram under the terms that allowed the image to be sold for commercial use.

Re:One has to wonder. . . (3, Informative)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | about 2 years ago | (#42325145)

Putting pictures on the Internet are publishing them. By uploading the picture on instagram or facebook you are in essence publishing the pictures.

So then it's your fault.

Re:One has to wonder. . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325275)

But shouldn't they sue the people who actually PUBLISHED the picture?

The people who published it point to Instagram and say: "We bought the rights to publish this from those guys there, go after them."

Then, Instagram points at you and says: "That guy there told us that he has every single right for that photo that a guy with a photo can have under the sun and that he would give those rights to us. Go after him."

Then you say: "Wait a minute, I didn't do anything like that!"

"You did click that 'I Agree' button, didn't you?"

Re:One has to wonder. . . (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42325271)

i'll ask the sun's or the apartment building's permission next time

lots of things to take photos of except people

Re:One has to wonder. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325049)

Would you be ok if they used a picture of you as a spokesperson for a herpes awareness campaign?

Re:One has to wonder. . . (3, Informative)

isorox (205688) | about 2 years ago | (#42324881)

These are your pictures. You own them. No corporation has the right to use them without your permission just because they are holding them.

Yes they do, you agreed to it in the terms-of-service

Re:One has to wonder. . . (4, Interesting)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 2 years ago | (#42325011)

No, they won't own them.
In the EU terms of services like this are void.
And I would guess also in the US such terms would contradict copyright laws ...
In the EU an author needs to be compensated for his work. General terms like that are void.

Re:One has to wonder. . . (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 2 years ago | (#42324931)

These are your pictures. You own them. No corporation has the right to use them without your permission just because they are holding them.

Their point would be that you *did* agree to give them permission when you agreed to their terms and conditions.

Not entirely sure if I'm playing devil's advocate or not here, because while I have nothing but contempt for this move by Facebook (or any similar "land grab"), people *do* have the choice whether or not to use their shitty, worthless service and did agree to terms and conditions, supposedly.

The question is to what extent people are made aware of these terms and to what extent they can truly be expected to have "agreed" to this clause, especially in cases where they've been changed. I suspect that it might or might not stand up in court- but it's certainly not as clear-cut as you imply.

Re:One has to wonder. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324979)

Yeah, yeah. We've already heard your life story. []

Re:One has to wonder. . . (1)

lipanitech (2620815) | about 2 years ago | (#42325005)

Lets take a picture with 3 or 5 mega pixel camera lay a video filter over it. What a stupid app I used it one and never again so dumb.

Re:One has to wonder. . . (1)

Chewbacon (797801) | about 2 years ago | (#42325187)

Geocities did something like this a long time ago. There was a mass exodus which, before it really went anywhere, caused them to backpedal. Lets all start taking pictures of our dicks and seeing what we can get for them.

Re:One has to wonder. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325307)

You, and many others like you (though comparatively few in total), have ultimately no clue how people even slightly outside your very small social circle work, do you? You seriously are just baffled as to how people can have no concern over your narrowly-defined interests, right?

Surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324781)

I think not. They've got to be looking for any revenue stream they can and this is just another commoditization of their user base. Nothing is free after all.


Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324791)

All the morons need do is read to what they agree and the world would be a better place, for me, and you !! So shine a little love !! and give InstaGram your vote of APPROVAL !!

Eh.. (1)

niix (839104) | about 2 years ago | (#42324793)

I feel like Instagram is grasping for straws as it is and this sort of move seals their fate.

Any specific reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324807)

... those angry users uploaded the photos to Instagram? Why post your personal photos to some website in the first place?

Get over it already (4, Informative)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 2 years ago | (#42324821)

Yes, this is a shitty thing to do. So don't use Instagram or Facebook or any of the other "services" that are constantly trying to screw you for their profit. We got along just fine for a very long time without Facebook or Instagram. Time to grow up and move on.

Bait... (2, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#42324827)

....aaaaaaaaaaaaand switch.

Privacy matters after 13. (1)

Delusion_ (56114) | about 2 years ago | (#42324831)

For all that parents get up in arms about digital services abusing the privacy rights of their children (resulting in support of laws such as the US's COPPA), they continue to volunteer for services which violate their own privacy rights.

Adults have more to lose in this battle than children.

This is a HUGE rights grab. (5, Interesting)

yakovlev (210738) | about 2 years ago | (#42324837)

I saw this yesterday, and was shocked. This is effectively stealing all users' photos that have been uploaded thus far, and a pretty sleazy thing to do even for new users. If I was an instagram user, my first action after seeing this would be to delete my account. There is almost nothing instagram could offer me that would be worth giving them this kind of free control over all of my photos.

The privacy implications for photos containing people is even more staggering. I doubt most people on instagram have current model releases for their photographs, so using these commercially could get any number of people sued, but based on the instagram policy, it very well could be the user who took them initially, then "gave instagram permission to use them commercially."

I would expect this policy to change, but if it doesn't by January 5 or so, I would suggest all instagram users delete their accounts. Also, if it doesn't change by then, watch out for Facebook's terms to change to something similar.

Re:This is a HUGE rights grab. (1)

garcia (6573) | about 2 years ago | (#42325131)

Shocked? Really? Facebook owns them and does similar stuff with your photos there. Why would this shock you? On top of that, 99.999% of IG's users will never have their shitty photo used in this manner.

But, if you're really all that concerned (and you're not because you probably haven't quit FB for the same things) you'd use [] to download all of your photos and move to Flickr with their new Marissa Mayer Themed App which does the same things IG did for $24.95/year.

Please note: I am an avid IG user with nearly 700 photos on the service and I have a Flickr Pro account as well.

Re:This is a HUGE rights grab. (3, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 2 years ago | (#42325169)

For the record, does Instagram's TOS have the usual "we can change this policy at our discretion without notice at any time" famous clause? Because this strikes me as a huge Contract Law grab. Last I knew from when Contract Law almost made sense, EULA/TOS type agreements are supposedly agreements between both vendor and the user, and being generous enough to say the user actually read the legalese.

However a policy change like this then becomes something our user *specifically did not agree to*. In particular, our hypothetical careful user probably looked at the original policy, decided it was okay, and then posted his pictures. No rational user can expect to use a service allowing for *unlimited* unilateral policy changes that may occur at random points in the future. You might as well say "we have the right to come to your house and take additional pictures of you to verify your Instagram identity with the police" or some nonsense.

Re:This is a HUGE rights grab. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325175)

What I'm puzzled by is...

If the terms of conditions at the time existing images were uploaded didn't allow Instagram/Facebook to do this, then surely the user has never given them the right to do this?

Doing so surely requires a renegotiation of the contract between them - Instagram/Facebook cannot rewrite the terms of that contract without the agreement of the user?

Re:This is a HUGE rights grab. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325209)

I'm only shocked that it took them this long. Facebook tried this on their main site about 2 years ago but backed down when the product, I mean users, got mad. FB wanted to use a picture of yourself in an ad to your friends to get their attention. As a guy I don't want my picture shown to my friends with the words "I use Tampax" written underneath when I prefer Kotex.

Re:This is a HUGE rights grab. (2, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42325285)

I doubt most people on instagram have current model releases for their photographs, so using these commercially could get any number of people sued, but based on the instagram policy, it very well could be the user who took them initially, then "gave instagram permission to use them commercially."

from the new policy:

you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your ... photos

I grew up in a semi-pro photography household and learning by osmosis I can tell you this is a horrifying legal minefield for anyone who doesn't have well documented model releases.

Its exactly like a photo processor reserving the right to sell your photos to anyone they want if you develop film there, or a word processor author demanding the right to sell anything you type into the word processor to anyone they want. Crazy talk.

I recognize you're using language so as not to be convicted of practicing law without a license, and I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems very obvious that you'd be absolutely insane to upload a pic of any human being other than yourself unless you've got signed model releases for unlimited unrestricted distribution.

Its an interesting display of how technology sometimes creates minefields. If it cost my dad $1K or whatever worth of film and processing to make a file cabinet full of railroad industry stock footage photos, his adjacent filing cabinet full of model releases (mostly RR employees, some railfans, some museum visitors) and MOUs signed by corporate officers, etc, etc were worth at least $1K because they are what made his $1K of film stock worth $2K+ in the adjacent 3rd filing cabinet full of contracts to RR and model RR marketing/PR depts selling individual stock railroad photos. Now, with new technology you can make the equivalent of $1K worth of stock photos for "free" and you don't even need the fireproof film negative cabinet to store them, but rather than making it easier to be a semi-pro photographer all you're really going to do is get yourself sued into bankruptcy after not earning a penny of revenue. I don't think that's genuine progress and it seems the inevitable result of the new policy.

Usage license != model release (4, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | about 2 years ago | (#42325309)

Just because you've granted a license (through TOS, etc) to a third party, so they can use material for which you still retain the copyrights ... does NOT mean that the subjects in the photos have waived their privacy rights. Third parties looking to use the images commercially (NOT the photographer!) are the ones responsible for having that signed model release in hand, and are the targets for a suit in case of mis-using someone's likeness. Doesn't mean the pissed off subject won't also sue the photographer (because you can sue the proverbial ham sandwich, if you want), but the law is very clear in this area. The party that puts the image to commercial use is the one that needs the release in hand. It's not the photographer's responsibility to obtain it, keep it, or provide it to anyone (unless they've signed a contract with a third party that calls for them to do so ... but that's very specific, professional circumstances).

There's no free lunch? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324839)

Why can't someone else just host my pictures for free, forever at their expense for me? This isn't what I signed up for. I demand a free lunch! Don't give me all of that "business" crap. We all know that money pours out of the Internet for free just like energy, storage, and labor does.

so? don't use it (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42324851)

facebook/instagram is a free service. you don't have to use it
no one is forcing you to upload photos into it
most people don't care about your photos either

Nothing new here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324867)

This should not surprise anyone, as facebook does this already. Nothing to see here, move along!

EULAs and online contracts (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324869)

Contracts between online service vendors and consumers need to be regulated by law. There has to be some kind of way to define some bare minimums that these contracts adhere to. Such as, the terms of contract changes, ownership of data, etc.

Either that, or online contracts should simply be invalid. In this case I suppose that the owners of the data (pictures) would own them.

Re:EULAs and online contracts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325063)

The main problem with the creators of the images "owning" them is that copyright law is sufficiently borked, that Facebook can't legally display images without having permission from the copyright holder to do so. Thus they require you give them that permission when you make an account.

Now since Facebook wants to be able to do things like: show your pictures to third parties they think will like them, and charge advertisers for the right to appear next to your pictures, they need to ask for rights to redistribute for commercial purposes at their sole discretion (it's not practical for you to approve every use given the timescales involved).

Once you run that through a lawyer you get the usual scope creep, and general ass-hattery that lawyers always add, and bam: they're asking for full, non revocable rights and your first 3 children.

Re:EULAs and online contracts (2)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#42325139)

Contracts between online service vendors and consumers need to be regulated by law. There has to be some kind of way to define some bare minimums that these contracts adhere to. Such as, the terms of contract changes, ownership of data, etc.

Either that, or online contracts should simply be invalid. In this case I suppose that the owners of the data (pictures) would own them.

In the EU you cannot simply sign away most of your rights and futhermore, if the law is in contradiction with the EULA its a case of 'too bad for the EULA', as in: its uneforcable. (you cannot legally enforce contract terms that are in contradiction of the law) So it is already regulated by law, atleast around here and the people enforcing it usually have no qualms about going about punishing a company that cant cant keep its tendrils within boundries of the law.

Clarity? (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about 2 years ago | (#42324871)

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."

Could they be any more clear? "We own everything, bwaa-haa-haa"?
I'm sure this is just a polite way of saying, "What the f*ck do you think you are doing? Stop this sh*t now!".

Deleted (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324905)

Deleted app from iPhone and iPads.

I'm sure (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#42324907)

"The new policy will come into effect on 16 January, just four months after Facebook completed its $1bn acquisition of Instagram"
I'm sure the timing is a coincidence though.

paid-privacy model-$5/month (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324917)

they need to have a $5/month keep-my-crap private mode.

Just uninstall it and delete your account (1)

lsolano (398432) | about 2 years ago | (#42324933)

I dont know what is the great thing about instagram. It's just an app to apply some filters used mostly to apply a vintage effect in a photo of a meal. I know people here on /. don't need someone -me- to help you how to find an app to replace instagram, but please let your friends know about EyeEm [] or Snapseed [] . Anyway, results are almost the same.


Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324937)

My photos are copyrighted by me and if they do that, there will be an official takedown notice of Instagram and or facebook

Model rights (5, Informative)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 2 years ago | (#42324967)

This is despicable of course. And Instagram/Facebook needs to clearly and loudly (e.g. a click through notice when you login, and every day later until the 16th) explains this change in the ToS, and explains what it means (in plain English, not lawyer speak). But I bet they don't.

Anyway, any pictures with identifiable images of people in them could be a problem for whichever company purchases the image. Because of model rights you know? If an ad is run which has a person who is clearly identifiable, then in most places a model release is required. And I bet you that Instragram doesn't require that photographers have people sign model releases...

Oh, and the blog post [] :

Our community has grown a lot since we wrote our original terms of service. To get things up to date for the millions of people now using Instagram, we’re bringing you new versions of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Here are a few key updates:

  • Nothing has changed about your photos’ ownership or who can see them.
  • Our updated privacy policy helps Instagram function more easily as part of Facebook by being able to share info between the two groups. This means we can do things like fight spam more effectively, detect system and reliability problems more quickly, and build better features for everyone by understanding how Instagram is used.
  • Our updated terms of service help protect you, and prevent spam and abuse as we grow.

This is just a small preview. Our new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service will be effective on January 16, 2013.

We know these documents are a little dry, but they’re very important. Please take a moment to read through them so you keep feeling comfortable sharing your beautiful photos on Instagram.

A bit of a lie really. The key point from the various articles is:

Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, 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, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service's Privacy Policy, available here: [] .
Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. 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. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf. []

You can express your disapproval of these changes by emailing [mailto] .

Re:Model rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325223)

transferable, sub-licensable

I guess this is the worst part. Transferable might just cover if Instagram was bought, but sub-licensable really is not necessary unless they're planning to do what they're talking about now.

A good day for the lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324981)

Whatever fb will do with the pictures, if there is a company that already does similar stuff, it can sue fb for abusing their monopoly in the social network market to dominate other markets.

Will read all terms and conditions properly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324997)

This makes me rethink before simply accepting terms and conditions without reading on any online website.

Standard Facebook 4 Steps Forward 1 Step back (1)

2phar (137027) | about 2 years ago | (#42325015)

approach to eliminating personal privacy. It creates another big bru-ha-ha in the media (useful for brand awareness) which then dies down after a few weeks, and then it's business as usual. How far has facebook twisted its own 'privacy' policy by now compared to how it started? It's just amazing how easy they are getting away with slowly boiling the lobster.


Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325029)

Sell if you can !!

But - but but... (3, Funny)

Progman3K (515744) | about 2 years ago | (#42325031)

But I posted that disclaimer on Facebook expressly forbidding them to do that

Licensing minefield? (5, Insightful)

Miamicanes (730264) | about 2 years ago | (#42325039)

How can Instagram casually assume that the uploader even HAS the right to assign republishing rights to them? OK, fine... the TOS requires that uploaders have the rights. We all know that a certain percentage won't comply. How many times does Instagram really want to spin the roulette wheel and risk getting nailed by a lawsuit from someone who owns the copyright on a wrongly-uploaded photo... in a strict-liability jurisdiction with joint and several liability? In English, that means Jim might, under Instagram TOS, be 100% liable for infringement if he uploads a photo and gets Instagram sued when they republish it, but at the end of the day, Jim isn't going to pay that million-dollar lawsuit... Instagram will, because Jim is likely to be judgment-proof, and any halfway-competent attorney could get the judgment to adhere to Instagram regardless of what they might claim.

Not to mention, model releases. If Jim posts pictures taken at a birthday party his child attends, Instagram would legally need releases from every person (or their legal guardian) recognizable in the picture (with a few exceptions, but it's still a minefield).

Did I mention the legal suicide mission of using pics that have anything to DO with kids from Europe? I think in Germany, it's not even legal to use kids in an advertisement for anything, period... consent from fame-whoring parents or not. Or for that matter, the fact that fucked up French copyright law allows you to copyright the image of buildings and structures, even structures that dominate the horizon and are visible from literally miles away (like the Eiffel Tower and the Millau Viaduct), and (in legal theory, at least) make it almost impossible to publish photos taken almost anywhere in Paris (due to the large number of "historically and/or architecturally-significant structures") if they show a complete building facade of one or more buildings in the background? Granted, the French situation is slightly unique, and is used mainly by the French government as a tool for censorship of unflattering and politically-sensitive images, but that's just one country out of hundreds.

There's a reason why big corporations get all of their public photos from companies like Getty Images -- it lets their management and lawyers sleep at night knowing that the copyright clearances and model releases have all been taken care of, and the image vendor itself is big enough to pay any lawsuit that might arise from the photo's licensed use. It's also why some people have had so much fun showing the same clip-art models really getting around, and showing up in everything from ads to "happy employee" photos to patients at STD clinics.

Re:Licensing minefield? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325331)

I was just in Germany. They can definitely use kids in advertising. That is all.

McCullagh's wife works for Google with options (2, Informative)

cornicefire (610241) | about 2 years ago | (#42325069)

He shouldn't be writing about this without disclosing his conflict of interest. Heck, she shouldn't be writing about this. Google does its own evil things with users' content.

is this the usual british media sensationalism ? (1)

dan_in_dublin (833271) | about 2 years ago | (#42325101)

facebook needs the right to distribute photos in order to let people access them in a news feed. i havent read the instagram terms and conditions but google docs contains a similar right to distribute. however google explicitly say they use this right only to support the functionality of google docs, they dont seek to own your content

Communist, social nitwits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325109)

Not surprised by this, once someone makes money stealing others, web sites. It is almost a guarantee they will buy out technology, (thinking it is worth something) then butt fuck anyone else out of there say.

Taking there examples from Asshole (Apple), and MicroShit...

damn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325113)

Now we'll have to find a new boobwatch site.

Flickr now has iPhone app and always had privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325163)

So you could take pics and upload from iphone and then share on facebook or wherever, and control your pics better.

The consumer's ONE right: Use your feet. (1)

benro03 (153441) | about 2 years ago | (#42325167)

If you don't like what a business has done to you (or not done), the one thing you can do to show them your displeasure is to vote with your feet. And then tell everyone you did and why. It's a hard fact that 95% of customers that receive bad service never complain to the vendor, they just leave and tell everyone what happened. That means that for every one of us complaining to Instagram and Facebook, there are 19 others that are leaving and telling their friends about the crappy service they got.

I deleted my Instagram account yesterday since I hardly used it and I wasn't about to let any of my pictures be used by ANYONE without my permission. I've also curtailed my Facebook use drastically, deleting them from my Mac and phone since I realized all the "appointments" that were cropping up on my WORK calendar were coming from them.

Beginning of the end.... (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about 2 years ago | (#42325235)

These so called "social" websites are a fraud. Nobody reads these terms of service and they know it. They don't have any legitimate way of making money so they steal what you upload and sell it. Nice business model. Just because they give me a few megs of space on their server should not mean that they retain full ownership rights to my pictures. If that's their terms of service fine, but I'm not playing that game.

Conundrum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325237)

So what happens if you upload someone else's photo to the service, then that photo is sold and re-used without the original artist's permission. I would presume that Instagram would be at fault, since they sold the content.

Does Slashdot sell our comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325253)

hello world.

Instagram is worth how much? (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | about 2 years ago | (#42325269)

I never understood why Instagram is supposedly worth so much

Could someone explain this to me?

I can see why FB are trying to claw that back by douchebag moves like this.

So glad I never used this (1)

assertation (1255714) | about 2 years ago | (#42325293)

I'm so glad I never got around to using that service.

I'll stick with my privately hosted blog where I control all of the material.

Human Cendipede... (5, Funny)

tekrat (242117) | about 2 years ago | (#42325323)

If you read a little further down in the EULA, it also says they have the right to perform medical experiments on you, including making you part of a human centipede...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?