14 ms·

Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

502 points by ValentineC 14y ago

jscheel 14y ago
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.
stephenhuey 14y ago
Instagram-export service Instaport is returning 500 errors: http://instaport.me/ http://instaport.me/ 500 Internal Server Error nginx/0.7.67
- kmfrk 14y ago
  They're understandably under heavy load. It worked fine, when I tried it, though.
arondeparon 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
ForFreedom 14y ago
Let them sell one with your kid then you can sue their ass off.
- bhartzer 14y ago
  Just remember: If you don't pay for a product... you are the product.
Irishsteve 14y ago
Wow. Wonder if their users will be bothered to care
- sgdesign 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    > 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.
jmathai 14y ago
Unlike Facebook, I don't think Instagram can afford these antics.
- batiudrami 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    I bet celebrities will care when their picture unknowingly appears in some ad.
    - declan 14y ago
      Or on TMZ.com... (Put another way: the right of publicity will limit commercial use of Instagram photos, at least in the states that recognize it. But TMZ is editorial use, not commercial use.)
    - krichman 14y ago
      UIAM you can't publish an advertisement with someone in it until they sign a model release form.
      - nwh 14y ago
        You supposedly read and agreed to the TOS, aren't they effectively giving your permission?
        vidarh 14y ago
        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.
      - 14y ago
sgdesign 14y ago
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.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Smrchy 14y ago
  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.
  - artursapek 14y ago
    How smooth could FB move along if their investors trusted them like they trust Jeff Bezos and his very long-term view. I never looked at it that way. Great thought.
  - readme 14y ago
    You say it like they have a reason to!? Amazon had a solid plan. I think facebook could make quite a bit of money if they charged for their developer API.
  - wilfra 14y ago
    Trust is earned. Zuck hasn't earned it yet. Not in the eyes of Wall Street. Look what Bezos had to go through to get where he is today: http://i.imgur.com/2ie9t.png http://i.imgur.com/2ie9t.png
jiggy2011 14y ago
So, how big is the target market for over saturated photos of someone's dinner?
- biesnecker 14y ago
  A billion dollars?
polskibus 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        Yes, please do. Thanks.
        jrogers65 14y ago
        People are very predictable if you know enough about them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlates_of_crime 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-emotional-boost-world-poor.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/116449/religion-provides-emotiona... 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.
ritratt 14y ago
Wait don't we already do this and accuse proponents of SOPA etc. of curbing our freedom under the excuse of piracy?
- chris_wot 14y ago
  No.
callmeed 14y ago
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/ http://instagram.com/p/STxUVcrodv/ What's gonna happen when IG sells ads with those kind of images?
- mtgx 14y ago
  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.
  - slig 14y ago
    His target demographic is on Instagram and not on G+, I'd guess.
  - wilfra 14y ago
    It's a distribution channel - one where all the cool kids currently hang out. He could also be on G+ and Facebook and Twitter and Quora and Reddit and MySpace...and...and... The technology of each is basically irrelevant if there is an attractive audience, as all of us participating on this site clearly demonstrates.
  - eropple 14y ago
    Instagram is commonly used to upload pictures for linking on Twitter, which is a considerably wider social network than Google+. I expect that'll change pretty rapidly pretty soon.
  - untog 14y ago
    Because Instagram has a huge audience. Google+ might be a better place for the photos, but it doesn't have an audience.
mikeleeorg 14y ago
I wonder what this means for http://instaprints.com http://instaprints.com.
- Deestan 14y ago
  To my understanding, it means Instagram can do a direct deal with Instaprints and cut out the "sending profits to the artists" cost.
- Paul12345534 14y ago
  Just glancing at it, it seems the photos sold there are from users who signed up to have their photos sold there. Under the "Turn Your Instagram Photos Into a Profitable Online Business" at the bottom.
thinkling 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
- thinkling 14y ago
  Bingo! In Tuesday's blog post, Mr. Systrom sought to quell the mounting unrest and reassure users that the company would not be peddling photographs of children playing on the beach or friends partying in nightclubs to the highest bidder. "To be clear, it is not our intention to sell your photos," he said. http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/facebook-responds-to-anger-over-proposed-instagram-changes-307266 http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/facebook-responds-to-anger...
cookiecaper 14y ago
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.
- aptwebapps 14y ago
  I don't think you are correct. The old TOS did not allow them to resell your pics. Also note they are saying your private pics will now be fair game as well. You are correct that the old TOS seems pretty standard, but these changes are not trivial.
  - nwh 14y ago
    This is exactly why TOS should show a diff or revision history. Failing that, there really ought to be an external website documenting changes.
npguy 14y ago
Let us move away from these services, into a more distributed model: http://statspotting.com/2012/12/instagrams-policy-changes-is-it-time-to-move-everything-to-our-pockets/ http://statspotting.com/2012/12/instagrams-policy-changes-is...
ThePinion 14y ago
Anyone else completely see this coming at this exact point in time when first hearing the acquisition announcement?
CWIZO 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
jrogers65 14y ago
I'll just leave this here - http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creator-survives-ad-board-the/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creato...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mwill 14y ago
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.
wildranter 14y ago
So long Intagram, and thanks for all the fish.
spacestation 14y ago
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/ http://instagram.com/nikkojapan/ i made a quick pointless photograph just to upload http://instagram.com/p/K8bx_ZB59K/ 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/6d96aaa0a45611e1a9f71231382044a1_7.jpg http://distilleryimage6.instagram.com/6d96aaa0a45611e1a9f712...
- TeeWEE 14y ago
  Isn't that against their privacy policy?
  - spacestation 14y ago
    "privacy policy"...This is Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook we are talking about and a guy named Kevin Systrom that falling in line very subserviently.
- meerita 14y ago
  Deleting the photos doesn't work even?
  - spacestation 14y ago
    I would say no... I "deleted" these photographs back in May.. and they are still on AWS.
    - meerita 14y ago
      :/ then this thing is serious. I deleted my account, but I don't mind the photos in it (I had ~250). But some people has tons of photos and this may be a problem.
- 14y ago
dr_faustus 14y ago
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...
deanclatworthy 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
TeeWEE 14y ago
Since you cannot delete all photo's at once, i deleted my account.
- daimyoyo 14y ago
  Didn't help. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4936807 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4936807 [1]
- wib 14y ago
  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.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
planetjones 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
- Terretta 14y ago
  If you like Flickr's new app, you may love FlickStackr.
kanakiyajay 14y ago
This is totally unfair . Now shifting to Flickr
InstaByeBye 14y ago
InstaByeBye.com coming soon. 1 Click exports and online photo log. Stay Cool. 3 hours and counting. Live update = @instabyebye
- kmfrk 14y ago
  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.
MattBearman 14y ago
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.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  Personal call, I suppose, but if I take a picture of a friend of mine and then that photos hows up in a weight-loss ad on the subway, I am probably going to lose a friend.
- ScottWhigham 14y ago
  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 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 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...
- jonknee 14y ago
  It sounds crazy, but what if they let you pay for your use of Instagram? You pay them money, they give you a service and no one has to argue over IP.
- shardling 14y ago
  As pointed out elsewhere, it's more than a little weird that they could use pictures you took of your friends. Even if the chance is incredibly small, I'm not ok with that. And since it's not worth the hassle of constantly being mindful of what I'm uploading, I'm going to delete my account. Which is a pity, since Instagram's photo app seems to do a lot of nice automatic color balancing compared to the native Android app. :(
kmfrk 14y ago
Posted some related stories: * [Instagram's suicide note](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4934271 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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4932765) The last one may be more interesting than the usage rights for photos.
- bdcravens 14y ago
  Those are both the same HN URL - looks like you mistakenly copied the URL for the 2nd by the 1st. :-)
  - kmfrk 14y ago
    There we go, thanks. At least the most important one was the one that was copied. :)
chrisconnell 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 http://www.panoramio.com/api/widget/api.html#conditions-of-use http://www.panoramio.com/api/widget/api.html#conditions-of-u...
jnazario 14y ago
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-instagram-photos-a-few-good-tools/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/limyunghui/2012/12/18/export-ins...
hamoid 14y ago
I just found out about http://i-am-cc.org/ 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 14y ago
  > 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.
hieronymusN 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 http://db.tt/x1XoSUnE
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - untog 14y ago
    The downside of doing that is that storage is more expensive No, the downside is that there are zero social features when you put your photos on Dropbox. Flickr is better, but still not anywhere near Instagram.
    - bad_user 14y ago
      What's the problem with sharing from Dropbox instead of Instagram and how's that any different?
      - untog 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Osmium 14y ago
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 14y ago
  It seems that you can opt out by selecting to be a "private" user.
- SIULHT 14y ago
  Didn't the same thing happen with Scribd?
sailfast 14y ago
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 http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/content/13959.html
jakeonthemove 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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...
debacle 14y ago
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.
nakedrobot2 14y ago
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.
stalf 14y ago
Isn't it possible to use app.net to build an Instagram-like network without this whole monetizing problem?
HannibalLecter 14y ago
Fuck Facebook.
rwhitman 14y ago
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 14y ago
Didn't we expect that they'd need to find some way to make money off us?
edwardunknown 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
mosselman 14y ago
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?
vegas 14y ago
Hipsters begin losing interest in instagram at a reliable rate.
igorgue 14y ago
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 14y ago
  I've been living under a rock, then. Although, it's fairly ingenious.
  - igorgue 14y ago
    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!
dschiptsov 14y ago
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.
nphrk 14y ago
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 14y ago
  More than that -- how is Instagram getting model releases for everyone in the photos?
jaredcwhite 14y ago
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.)
mcguire 14y ago
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?
state 14y ago
Is there an open alternative that anyone would recommend?
ChuckMcM 14y ago
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.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
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.
mleeds 14y ago
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…
felipesabino 14y ago
Get ready for the biggest duck face/bathroom mirror stock photo sale of all time
dgurney 14y ago
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...
itsprofitbaron 14y ago
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/ http://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/updated/ [2] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html ==== NOTE: Also posted this at: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939663 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939663
InclinedPlane 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
dimmedwit 14y ago
I'm not sure how Instagram has obtained my photos, but I will not stand for this.
thekevinjones 14y ago
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 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.
reasondiscourse 14y ago
"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.

502 points by ValentineC 14y ago

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.

stephenhuey 14y ago

Instagram-export service Instaport is returning 500 errors: http://instaport.me/ http://instaport.me/ 500 Internal Server Error nginx/0.7.67

kmfrk 14y ago
They're understandably under heavy load. It worked fine, when I tried it, though.

arondeparon 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

ForFreedom 14y ago

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

bhartzer 14y ago
Just remember: If you don't pay for a product... you are the product.

Irishsteve 14y ago

Wow. Wonder if their users will be bothered to care

sgdesign 14y ago
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 14y ago
  > 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.

jmathai 14y ago

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

batiudrami 14y ago
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 14y ago
  I bet celebrities will care when their picture unknowingly appears in some ad.
  - declan 14y ago
    Or on TMZ.com... (Put another way: the right of publicity will limit commercial use of Instagram photos, at least in the states that recognize it. But TMZ is editorial use, not commercial use.)
  - krichman 14y ago
    UIAM you can't publish an advertisement with someone in it until they sign a model release form.
    - nwh 14y ago
      You supposedly read and agreed to the TOS, aren't they effectively giving your permission?
      - vidarh 14y ago
        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.
    - 14y ago

sgdesign 14y ago

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.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Smrchy 14y ago
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.
- artursapek 14y ago
  How smooth could FB move along if their investors trusted them like they trust Jeff Bezos and his very long-term view. I never looked at it that way. Great thought.
- readme 14y ago
  You say it like they have a reason to!? Amazon had a solid plan. I think facebook could make quite a bit of money if they charged for their developer API.
- wilfra 14y ago
  Trust is earned. Zuck hasn't earned it yet. Not in the eyes of Wall Street. Look what Bezos had to go through to get where he is today: http://i.imgur.com/2ie9t.png http://i.imgur.com/2ie9t.png

jiggy2011 14y ago

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

biesnecker 14y ago
A billion dollars?

polskibus 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      Yes, please do. Thanks.
      - jrogers65 14y ago
        People are very predictable if you know enough about them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlates_of_crime 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-emotional-boost-world-poor.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/116449/religion-provides-emotiona... 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.

ritratt 14y ago

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

chris_wot 14y ago
No.

callmeed 14y ago

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/ http://instagram.com/p/STxUVcrodv/ What's gonna happen when IG sells ads with those kind of images?

mtgx 14y ago
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.
- slig 14y ago
  His target demographic is on Instagram and not on G+, I'd guess.
- wilfra 14y ago
  It's a distribution channel - one where all the cool kids currently hang out. He could also be on G+ and Facebook and Twitter and Quora and Reddit and MySpace...and...and... The technology of each is basically irrelevant if there is an attractive audience, as all of us participating on this site clearly demonstrates.
- eropple 14y ago
  Instagram is commonly used to upload pictures for linking on Twitter, which is a considerably wider social network than Google+. I expect that'll change pretty rapidly pretty soon.
- untog 14y ago
  Because Instagram has a huge audience. Google+ might be a better place for the photos, but it doesn't have an audience.

mikeleeorg 14y ago

I wonder what this means for http://instaprints.com http://instaprints.com.

Deestan 14y ago
To my understanding, it means Instagram can do a direct deal with Instaprints and cut out the "sending profits to the artists" cost.
Paul12345534 14y ago
Just glancing at it, it seems the photos sold there are from users who signed up to have their photos sold there. Under the "Turn Your Instagram Photos Into a Profitable Online Business" at the bottom.

thinkling 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
thinkling 14y ago
Bingo! In Tuesday's blog post, Mr. Systrom sought to quell the mounting unrest and reassure users that the company would not be peddling photographs of children playing on the beach or friends partying in nightclubs to the highest bidder. "To be clear, it is not our intention to sell your photos," he said. http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/facebook-responds-to-anger-over-proposed-instagram-changes-307266 http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/facebook-responds-to-anger...

cookiecaper 14y ago

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.

aptwebapps 14y ago
I don't think you are correct. The old TOS did not allow them to resell your pics. Also note they are saying your private pics will now be fair game as well. You are correct that the old TOS seems pretty standard, but these changes are not trivial.
- nwh 14y ago
  This is exactly why TOS should show a diff or revision history. Failing that, there really ought to be an external website documenting changes.

npguy 14y ago

Let us move away from these services, into a more distributed model: http://statspotting.com/2012/12/instagrams-policy-changes-is-it-time-to-move-everything-to-our-pockets/ http://statspotting.com/2012/12/instagrams-policy-changes-is...

ThePinion 14y ago

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

CWIZO 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

jrogers65 14y ago

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

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mwill 14y ago

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.

wildranter 14y ago

So long Intagram, and thanks for all the fish.

spacestation 14y ago

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/ http://instagram.com/nikkojapan/ i made a quick pointless photograph just to upload http://instagram.com/p/K8bx_ZB59K/ 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/6d96aaa0a45611e1a9f71231382044a1_7.jpg http://distilleryimage6.instagram.com/6d96aaa0a45611e1a9f712...

TeeWEE 14y ago
Isn't that against their privacy policy?
- spacestation 14y ago
  "privacy policy"...This is Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook we are talking about and a guy named Kevin Systrom that falling in line very subserviently.
meerita 14y ago
Deleting the photos doesn't work even?
- spacestation 14y ago
  I would say no... I "deleted" these photographs back in May.. and they are still on AWS.
  - meerita 14y ago
    :/ then this thing is serious. I deleted my account, but I don't mind the photos in it (I had ~250). But some people has tons of photos and this may be a problem.
14y ago

dr_faustus 14y ago

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...

deanclatworthy 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

TeeWEE 14y ago

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

daimyoyo 14y ago
Didn't help. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4936807 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4936807 [1]
wib 14y ago
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.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

planetjones 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.
Terretta 14y ago
If you like Flickr's new app, you may love FlickStackr.

kanakiyajay 14y ago

This is totally unfair . Now shifting to Flickr

InstaByeBye 14y ago

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

kmfrk 14y ago
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.

MattBearman 14y ago

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.

pavel_lishin 14y ago
Personal call, I suppose, but if I take a picture of a friend of mine and then that photos hows up in a weight-loss ad on the subway, I am probably going to lose a friend.
ScottWhigham 14y ago
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 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 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...
jonknee 14y ago
It sounds crazy, but what if they let you pay for your use of Instagram? You pay them money, they give you a service and no one has to argue over IP.
shardling 14y ago
As pointed out elsewhere, it's more than a little weird that they could use pictures you took of your friends. Even if the chance is incredibly small, I'm not ok with that. And since it's not worth the hassle of constantly being mindful of what I'm uploading, I'm going to delete my account. Which is a pity, since Instagram's photo app seems to do a lot of nice automatic color balancing compared to the native Android app. :(

kmfrk 14y ago

Posted some related stories: * [Instagram's suicide note](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4934271 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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4932765) The last one may be more interesting than the usage rights for photos.

bdcravens 14y ago
Those are both the same HN URL - looks like you mistakenly copied the URL for the 2nd by the 1st. :-)
- kmfrk 14y ago
  There we go, thanks. At least the most important one was the one that was copied. :)

chrisconnell 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 http://www.panoramio.com/api/widget/api.html#conditions-of-use http://www.panoramio.com/api/widget/api.html#conditions-of-u...

jnazario 14y ago

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

hamoid 14y ago

I just found out about http://i-am-cc.org/ 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 14y ago
> 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.

hieronymusN 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 http://db.tt/x1XoSUnE
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- untog 14y ago
  The downside of doing that is that storage is more expensive No, the downside is that there are zero social features when you put your photos on Dropbox. Flickr is better, but still not anywhere near Instagram.
  - bad_user 14y ago
    What's the problem with sharing from Dropbox instead of Instagram and how's that any different?
    - untog 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Osmium 14y ago

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 14y ago
It seems that you can opt out by selecting to be a "private" user.
SIULHT 14y ago
Didn't the same thing happen with Scribd?

sailfast 14y ago

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 http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/content/13959.html

jakeonthemove 14y ago

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 14y ago
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...

debacle 14y ago

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.

nakedrobot2 14y ago

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.

stalf 14y ago

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

HannibalLecter 14y ago

Fuck Facebook.

rwhitman 14y ago

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 14y ago

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

edwardunknown 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

mosselman 14y ago

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?

vegas 14y ago

Hipsters begin losing interest in instagram at a reliable rate.

igorgue 14y ago

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 14y ago
I've been living under a rock, then. Although, it's fairly ingenious.
- igorgue 14y ago
  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!

dschiptsov 14y ago

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.

nphrk 14y ago

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 14y ago
More than that -- how is Instagram getting model releases for everyone in the photos?

jaredcwhite 14y ago

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.)

mcguire 14y ago

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?

state 14y ago

Is there an open alternative that anyone would recommend?

ChuckMcM 14y ago

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.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

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.

mleeds 14y ago

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…

felipesabino 14y ago

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

dgurney 14y ago

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...

itsprofitbaron 14y ago

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/ http://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/updated/ [2] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html ==== NOTE: Also posted this at: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939663 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939663

InclinedPlane 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

dimmedwit 14y ago

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

thekevinjones 14y ago

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 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.

reasondiscourse 14y ago

"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.