Instagram Plans To Sell Users' Photos, Later Says It Was Misinterpreted

[DKT27]

Instagram is planning on changing its privacy and sharing policies to reflect its right to sell users photographs without offering any notification or payment, also stating that the change in policy cannot be opted out of.

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:

"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" explain the new Terms of Service

This means, not only your photos, but your name, location and comments could be sold by Facebook to third-parties.

The updated terms of service also state the company will "not be liable for any use or disclosure of any content you provide" - a sentence which seems designed to immunise Facebook from any legal proceedings, such as class action lawsuits.

Users cannot opt out of having their pictures sold, unless that is they delete their accounts ahead of the new terms of service coming into effect next month.

Filter

Instagram is a app for iOS and Android which allows users to add filters and effects to pictures taken on their smartphones. It was seen by many as a way for Facebook to bolster its mobile efforts - an area that is considered something of a weak spot for the company.

Instagram recently passed Twitter in terms of daily mobile users, with 7.3 million people using the service every day, compared to Twitter's 6.9 million. According to Mark Zuckerberg, the service has a user base of 100 million.

Google's policies for Picasa and Google state that the company does not have the right to sell your photographs, explaining that "the rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our services."

Yahoo's Flickr service has similar policies over user's photos, saying the company can only use the photographs "solely for the purpose for which such content was submitted or made available."

CNET's Declan McCullagh gives an example of how this new policy will affect Instagram user's photographs, explaining how a hotel or restaurant could contact Facebook and purchase pictures taken of its premises without obtaining the photographer's consent. Those pictures could then be used to promote the hotel or restaurant's website.

Unspecified future

"It's asking people to agree to unspecified future commercial use of their photos," explained senior attorney at the Electronic Founder Foundation Kurt Opsahl. "That makes it challenging for someone to give informed consent to that deal."

Twitter users have already responded to the new Terms of Service, with many people threatening to stop using Instagram if the privacy policy changes go ahead.

One Twitter user, @CrystalDKarl, wrote "I will be deleting my account before January. Seriously Facebook and Instagram, why would you go and do that?"

While many are angered by the new terms of service, others point out that Instagram is a free service and is therefore under no obligation to prioritise users privacy.

Instagram recently pulled support for Twitter Cards, meaning its photos no longer show up within people's Twitter feeds. Twitter responded by launching its own photo filter feature, meaning you can add filters to any photo directly within the various Twitter apps.

Flickr is also looking to reinvigorate its mobile photo-sharing credentials by launching a revamped iPhone app last week

:view: View: Original Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instagram denies having right to sell users' photos

Facebook's photo-sharing service Instagram has moved to deny that it has changed its privacy policy to give it the right to sell users' photos to advertisers without notification.

It said instead that users had incorrectly interpreted its revised terms of serviced, which it blamed on its "confusing" choice of language.

Instagram's clarification follows much user opposition to the believed change.

"To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos," it said.

Instagram chief executive Kevin Systrom said in a blog posting: "It is our mistake that this language is confusing.

"We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear."

Compulsory changes to Instagram's terms of service are due to come into effect on 16 January,

The originally proposed new wording that caused the controversy included: "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."

The terms also stated that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

Following Instagram's denial, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a US pressure group that campaigns for consumer rights on websites and in social media, told the BBC that "there appeared to be a little bit of a word game at play here".

"It clearly looked like Instagram was indeed drabbing the extra rights," added spokesman Parker Higgins.

"It is hard to evaluate the damage this may cause to the company at this early stage, but any social network risks losing the trust of its users. And social networks depend on users being willing to share information, on users seeing them in good terms."

Facebook bought Instagram for $1bn (£616m; 758m euros) in April of this year.

Instagram now has 100 million users.

:view: View: Original Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Silly social networking stuff... -_-

[calguyhunk]

Silly social networking stuff... -_-

My point exactly. This is precisely why I don't use "Apps" for anything tbh. Don't use the phone much for net anyways, but when I do, I use picsay or potolab to edit my photos and upload them one by one to the sites I want to. And use Andromedia and Vidtrim for my videos ;)

For the love of God, I still don't get why you'd need apps for websites yet. Would it kill you to just go to the site and surf like you do on your Lappy/Desky? Why would anyone on the planet need an "App" for Amazon or CNN? (Flipkart or NDTV for us Desis :P ) or what have you :o

They use your location, almost all use your IEMI and most your IMSI. If you're ready to part with your privacy so easily, be my guest. I'm sticking to the old fashioned way, thank you. No creepy "Apps" for me. :mad2:

[Sonar]

i actually just posted this in another section of the forum ah!

[DKT27]

For the love of God, I still don't get why you'd need apps for websites yet. Would it kill you to just go to the site and surf like you do on your Lappy/Desky? Why would anyone on the planet need an "App" for Amazon or CNN? (Flipkart or NDTV for us Desis :P ) or what have you :o

They use your location, almost all use your IEMI and most your IMSI. If you're ready to part with your privacy so easily, be my guest. I'm sticking to the old fashioned way, thank you. No creepy "Apps" for me. :mad2:

Well, that's odd. Just 15 mins ago I downloaded Flipkart and Justdial app. :P Thinking that hey, what if these guys have an app for it. Anyway, it all ends up to how well the site is designed for mobiles. I don't want to zoom hundred times and try clicking on things in hard to navigate places, to do simple stuff. Apps on the other side, generally solve this problem.

I didn't think about that. :mellow: However, if those apps do so, they would be mentioning in the accept this page.

i actually just posted this in another section of the forum ah!

Closed the thread. ;)

[calguyhunk]

I don't want to zoom hundred times and try clicking on things in hard to navigate places, to do simple stuff. Apps on the other side, generally solve this problem.

The other side of the argument will be, that if I'm ordering something and spending my money on it, I'll prolly wanna research it for a long time on a big screen monitor (rather than a 3.2 inch one in my case :P ) and take a long hard look at the competing products (on other sites as well) in the same price range before spending my hard earned cash :think: :)

[DKT27]

The other side of the argument will be, that if I'm ordering something and spending my money on it, I'll prolly wanna research it for a long time on a big screen monitor (rather than a 3.2 inch one in my case :P ) and take a long hard look at the competing products (on other sites as well) in the same price range before spending my hard earned cash :think: :)

I for one only check it to get the idea. :P