6 ms·

For those of you who don't think this is a big deal. Instagram is explicitly stating that they're going to sell the use of your pictures to third parties. They'

by imgabe 14y ago

For those of you who don't think this is a big deal. Instagram is explicitly stating that they're going to sell the use of your pictures to third parties. They're also going to start showing ads in their news stream. I know the pictures are of too low quality to be plastered on a billboard. That's not the point. What I expect they want to happen is something like this: I post a picture of me drinking a Coke to Instagram. I expect to share this with my friends, and maybe the people who follow me on Twitter. I know it's publicly available, but the chances of anyone beyond my circle of friends seeing it are slim to none. But now, Instagram notices that I posted this picture and sells it to Coke. Now, when Coke starts buying ads on Instagram, my photo shows on total stranger's news streams saying something like "Hey Enjoy a Coke, like this guy here!" So, what's wrong with that? Well, for one thing, I never agreed to be in an ad campaign for Coke. Maybe I don't even like Coke. Maybe MY caption was something like "Ugh, out of Pepsi". For another thing, generally, when you appear in an advertisement for a product, you get paid. Your likeness in the context of a commercial ad campaign has value, and when a company says "Yeah, I'm just gonna go ahead and take that and not pay you anything" the appropriate response is "hell no".

hkmurakami 14y ago
It'd be even more effective (read: messed up) if they take your coke-drinking-photo and show this in your own friends' feeds as an advertisement, with the kind of caption you mentioned. I experienced the effectiveness of seeing a friend's face on an ad first hand a few years ago, when a friend of mine put up a job-posting ad on facebook with his face on it. My engagement with that ad was ridiculously high and it lead me to go proactively research what his company was about.
- grinich 14y ago
  Why is it "messed up" if it makes advertising more engaging? Facebook essentially does what you describe, by showing your friends the posts/ads of pages you have liked. I think it's just a spectrum where ads can become a service. What if Netflix could show me movies that friends have recently watched? Or TV ads rendered client-side to have personal details (adapting to the demographics)? What if I was emailed early about new concerts happening in my area, based on what I listen to on Spotify? And then was encouraged to post to FB when I bought tickets. The last one is a real (Songkick) and is actually one my my favorite services. Though, is it an ad company? They certainly get a referral from Ticketmaster. What if they sold my preferences to Ticketmaster so they could know how to optimize a lineup with listener preferences? What I'm getting at is that people seem really afraid of customization and personalization. Somehow it's "messed up" if ads capitalize on the network they have built; our reaction is that these free services are taking advantage us. It's important to remember, if you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold. This is why Google gives away a browser, why Facebook and Twitter remain free, and why Instagram was worth $1B. That number certainly didn't correspond to an iPhone app and a relatively simple backend tech stack -- it bought their growth, user engagement, and stickiness. And that's exactly what they're going to capitalize on to make back the investment.
  - hkmurakami 14y ago
    But this isn't even "your data" that's being used. It's "you" whose likeliness is being leveraged to attain higher ad engagement. While the use of our data for advertisement is covert in nature, the possible scenario I suggest where "we" ourselves become the advertisement seems very overt to me. I agree that this is similar to facebook likes and shares. However, facebook likes are voluntary actions by me. That is very different from my personal photos (which are even stronger impressions that likes or shares) being used in their original form as advertisements without my knowledge or consent (well I guess I do consent to it if I use the service under the new TOS). Maybe this will be accepted by society in the coming years, but right here and now, it evokes an eerie "evil-mustache universe" type reaction in me, where my "normal universe personal photos" become mirrored as "evil-mustache universe advertisement photos".
  - pretoriusB 14y ago
    >Why is it "messed up" if it makes advertising more engaging? You do understand that "making advertising more engaging" does not preclude something being messed up, right? If anything, it's the opposite. Killing people on camera would also make for engaging advertising. Wouldn't you find it "messed up" for that reason?
webwright 14y ago
There are tons of stock photography models who live with this risk for a bit of compensation. So they make (say) $100 to be in a photo and have a 0.01% chance of being in an ad they find objectionable. I get a free/fun app instead of $100. Instead of a .01% chance, I have a .00000001% of appearing in an objectionable ad (my photos just aren't as good as pros, and I'm just not that pretty). Add to that-- if this happens, I certainly won't be the first one it happens to and will almost certainly have an opportunity to delete my account when I start hearing about this happening in the wild. Even if I don't delete it, the chance of my crappy photos getting found/used out of the MANY BILLIONS on instagram also seems laughably small. Statistically, this could bite me-- but I have to figure that the chance is so close to 0% that the (small) reward of using Instagram is worth the (trivial) risk. I also tend to dismiss concerns around lightning, sharks, and hijackers.
- postit 14y ago
  What about the risk of your image being attached with a company/idea that disagree with your believes nor doesn't reflect your ideas?
- jellicle 14y ago
  > Add to that-- if this happens, I certainly won't be the first one it happens to and will almost certainly have an opportunity to delete my account when I start hearing about this happening in the wild. Even if I don't delete it, the chance of my crappy photos getting found/used out of the MANY BILLIONS on instagram also seems laughably small. You don't understand the situation. When you delete your account, it won't delete the ads in circulation - there won't be anything you can do about that. And your photo won't be used for a general Coke advertising campaign. It will be used to sell Coke to YOUR FRIENDS, on Facebook and elsewhere across the web. Everywhere your friends go on the intertubez, they'll see a picture of you drinking Coke, with the caption "Drink Coke, just like your good buddy Webwright does!" And that will stay as long as Coke feels like it.
  - webwright 14y ago
    "You don't understand the situation." I sure do. My point was-- the first time this happens, there will be an outcry that makes this one seem small. At that point, I can delete my account. Maybe the poor sucker who was the first victim can't, but I can. MAYBE Instagram at this point is so malevolent that they give me the finger and retain my photos, but that seems kinda unlikely. Edit: And I couldn't give a single damn about whether my friends see my visage next to a coke logo if I was willing to photograph myself enjoying a coke. It doesn't inconvenience me or my friends one single bit. Even if they throw my photo into a cigarette ad, I'd probably send them an annoyed note, nuke my account, shrug and move on with my life.
drewcrawford 14y ago
> For another thing, generally, when you appear in an advertisement for a product, you get paid. Your likeness in the context of a commercial ad campaign has value I don't think this is going to be a popular opinion, but keep in mind that Instagram has untold engineers and UI people, all of whom are fairly expensive, and this advertising clause is really in lieu of a licensing fee, not something consumers provide "for free". I'm not really in favor of the business model, but in a world where apps are licensed at 99c I think models like this are to be expected. To fix this problem, we would have to return to a system where the costs to develop software are paid by the people who use it.
- imgabe 14y ago
  I agree. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more for software in return for more control over how my information is used, but I'm probably in the minority. I just assume everything I post Facebook, Twitter, etc, is available for public consumption regardless of what privacy controls they have. The thing about this model is it extracts a large cost from a very small proportion of the users and the rest get a free ride. If they'd included it as an opt-in service and shared some of the revenue with the users whose photos they sold, it would probably be very popular.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  There's nothing wrong with setting up a business model like this, as long as people know what they are opting into it from the very start. Luring people into using your service then yanking the rug out from under them by changing your business model is just plain not cool.
  - jonknee 14y ago
    Not only that, but pulling the rug out after the founders made away with a billion dollars is what's normally called fraud.
edwardunknown 14y ago
You have no imagination, a better idea would be to sell the photos and all the data Facebook and Instagram have on you to Coke so in a couple of years when you're pumping gas a little camera recognizes your face and the gas pump says "Hi Imgabe! You like Coke! You can't fool us! Press yes to buy a Coke! Your mom's birthday is next Tuesday but since she's a diabetic would you like to buy her a Diet Coke? STOP TRYING TO HIDE YOUR FACE AND PRESS YES TO BUY YOUR DIABETIC MOM A DIET COKE IMGABE. It's coming.
courtneypowell 14y ago
We started a complaint to ask Instagram to reconsider. http://www.publikdemand.com/s/dXpDf7/ http://www.publikdemand.com/s/dXpDf7/
fusiongyro 14y ago
"Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos." -- http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-wer...
ohwp 14y ago
"I know the pictures are of too low quality to be plastered on a billboard." Don't be too sure about that. Billboard pictures are very lowres (sometimes even 10ppi) because most of the time they are viewed from a large distance.
return0 14y ago
I think it boils down to economics: Why give away your chance to become a poster child and the money that goes with it? Taking your photos elsewhere will kill that chance, and the accompanying unfairness. I wonder why instagram didn't opt for the revenue sharing model with its users.
theklub 14y ago
You are close, I think their plan is to use your photos with people you know. AKA you drinking the coke is now coke's ad on your friend's pages.

by imgabe 14y ago

hkmurakami 14y ago

It'd be even more effective (read: messed up) if they take your coke-drinking-photo and show this in your own friends' feeds as an advertisement, with the kind of caption you mentioned. I experienced the effectiveness of seeing a friend's face on an ad first hand a few years ago, when a friend of mine put up a job-posting ad on facebook with his face on it. My engagement with that ad was ridiculously high and it lead me to go proactively research what his company was about.

grinich 14y ago
Why is it "messed up" if it makes advertising more engaging? Facebook essentially does what you describe, by showing your friends the posts/ads of pages you have liked. I think it's just a spectrum where ads can become a service. What if Netflix could show me movies that friends have recently watched? Or TV ads rendered client-side to have personal details (adapting to the demographics)? What if I was emailed early about new concerts happening in my area, based on what I listen to on Spotify? And then was encouraged to post to FB when I bought tickets. The last one is a real (Songkick) and is actually one my my favorite services. Though, is it an ad company? They certainly get a referral from Ticketmaster. What if they sold my preferences to Ticketmaster so they could know how to optimize a lineup with listener preferences? What I'm getting at is that people seem really afraid of customization and personalization. Somehow it's "messed up" if ads capitalize on the network they have built; our reaction is that these free services are taking advantage us. It's important to remember, if you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold. This is why Google gives away a browser, why Facebook and Twitter remain free, and why Instagram was worth $1B. That number certainly didn't correspond to an iPhone app and a relatively simple backend tech stack -- it bought their growth, user engagement, and stickiness. And that's exactly what they're going to capitalize on to make back the investment.
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  But this isn't even "your data" that's being used. It's "you" whose likeliness is being leveraged to attain higher ad engagement. While the use of our data for advertisement is covert in nature, the possible scenario I suggest where "we" ourselves become the advertisement seems very overt to me. I agree that this is similar to facebook likes and shares. However, facebook likes are voluntary actions by me. That is very different from my personal photos (which are even stronger impressions that likes or shares) being used in their original form as advertisements without my knowledge or consent (well I guess I do consent to it if I use the service under the new TOS). Maybe this will be accepted by society in the coming years, but right here and now, it evokes an eerie "evil-mustache universe" type reaction in me, where my "normal universe personal photos" become mirrored as "evil-mustache universe advertisement photos".
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >Why is it "messed up" if it makes advertising more engaging? You do understand that "making advertising more engaging" does not preclude something being messed up, right? If anything, it's the opposite. Killing people on camera would also make for engaging advertising. Wouldn't you find it "messed up" for that reason?

webwright 14y ago

There are tons of stock photography models who live with this risk for a bit of compensation. So they make (say) $100 to be in a photo and have a 0.01% chance of being in an ad they find objectionable. I get a free/fun app instead of $100. Instead of a .01% chance, I have a .00000001% of appearing in an objectionable ad (my photos just aren't as good as pros, and I'm just not that pretty). Add to that-- if this happens, I certainly won't be the first one it happens to and will almost certainly have an opportunity to delete my account when I start hearing about this happening in the wild. Even if I don't delete it, the chance of my crappy photos getting found/used out of the MANY BILLIONS on instagram also seems laughably small. Statistically, this could bite me-- but I have to figure that the chance is so close to 0% that the (small) reward of using Instagram is worth the (trivial) risk. I also tend to dismiss concerns around lightning, sharks, and hijackers.

postit 14y ago
What about the risk of your image being attached with a company/idea that disagree with your believes nor doesn't reflect your ideas?
jellicle 14y ago
> Add to that-- if this happens, I certainly won't be the first one it happens to and will almost certainly have an opportunity to delete my account when I start hearing about this happening in the wild. Even if I don't delete it, the chance of my crappy photos getting found/used out of the MANY BILLIONS on instagram also seems laughably small. You don't understand the situation. When you delete your account, it won't delete the ads in circulation - there won't be anything you can do about that. And your photo won't be used for a general Coke advertising campaign. It will be used to sell Coke to YOUR FRIENDS, on Facebook and elsewhere across the web. Everywhere your friends go on the intertubez, they'll see a picture of you drinking Coke, with the caption "Drink Coke, just like your good buddy Webwright does!" And that will stay as long as Coke feels like it.
- webwright 14y ago
  "You don't understand the situation." I sure do. My point was-- the first time this happens, there will be an outcry that makes this one seem small. At that point, I can delete my account. Maybe the poor sucker who was the first victim can't, but I can. MAYBE Instagram at this point is so malevolent that they give me the finger and retain my photos, but that seems kinda unlikely. Edit: And I couldn't give a single damn about whether my friends see my visage next to a coke logo if I was willing to photograph myself enjoying a coke. It doesn't inconvenience me or my friends one single bit. Even if they throw my photo into a cigarette ad, I'd probably send them an annoyed note, nuke my account, shrug and move on with my life.

drewcrawford 14y ago

> For another thing, generally, when you appear in an advertisement for a product, you get paid. Your likeness in the context of a commercial ad campaign has value I don't think this is going to be a popular opinion, but keep in mind that Instagram has untold engineers and UI people, all of whom are fairly expensive, and this advertising clause is really in lieu of a licensing fee, not something consumers provide "for free". I'm not really in favor of the business model, but in a world where apps are licensed at 99c I think models like this are to be expected. To fix this problem, we would have to return to a system where the costs to develop software are paid by the people who use it.

imgabe 14y ago
I agree. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more for software in return for more control over how my information is used, but I'm probably in the minority. I just assume everything I post Facebook, Twitter, etc, is available for public consumption regardless of what privacy controls they have. The thing about this model is it extracts a large cost from a very small proportion of the users and the rest get a free ride. If they'd included it as an opt-in service and shared some of the revenue with the users whose photos they sold, it would probably be very popular.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
There's nothing wrong with setting up a business model like this, as long as people know what they are opting into it from the very start. Luring people into using your service then yanking the rug out from under them by changing your business model is just plain not cool.
- jonknee 14y ago
  Not only that, but pulling the rug out after the founders made away with a billion dollars is what's normally called fraud.

edwardunknown 14y ago

You have no imagination, a better idea would be to sell the photos and all the data Facebook and Instagram have on you to Coke so in a couple of years when you're pumping gas a little camera recognizes your face and the gas pump says "Hi Imgabe! You like Coke! You can't fool us! Press yes to buy a Coke! Your mom's birthday is next Tuesday but since she's a diabetic would you like to buy her a Diet Coke? STOP TRYING TO HIDE YOUR FACE AND PRESS YES TO BUY YOUR DIABETIC MOM A DIET COKE IMGABE. It's coming.

courtneypowell 14y ago

We started a complaint to ask Instagram to reconsider. http://www.publikdemand.com/s/dXpDf7/ http://www.publikdemand.com/s/dXpDf7/

fusiongyro 14y ago

"Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos." -- http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-wer...

ohwp 14y ago

"I know the pictures are of too low quality to be plastered on a billboard." Don't be too sure about that. Billboard pictures are very lowres (sometimes even 10ppi) because most of the time they are viewed from a large distance.

return0 14y ago

I think it boils down to economics: Why give away your chance to become a poster child and the money that goes with it? Taking your photos elsewhere will kill that chance, and the accompanying unfairness. I wonder why instagram didn't opt for the revenue sharing model with its users.

theklub 14y ago

You are close, I think their plan is to use your photos with people you know. AKA you drinking the coke is now coke's ad on your friend's pages.