5 ms·

Instagram is a perfect example of how arrogance could re-define the 'image' of a company. The real problem for Instagram was not about selling its users' photo

by neya 14y ago

Instagram is a perfect example of how arrogance could re-define the 'image' of a company. The real problem for Instagram was not about selling its users' photos. The real problem was being 'sneaky as fuck'. If you intend to sell our photos, we actually have no problem. You just have to make it clear to us. But what did Instagram do? Silently update it's terms of service WITHOUT informing its users. Legally, it's not obliged to do so, but when you have tons of data that THE USERS have uploaded, it is YOUR duty to tell us, atleast inform us before trying to sell it. This is what created that public outrage, because Instagram failed to notify any of its users of this change. You can't just walk in one fine day saying, "You know what? All the pictures YOU have taken effort getting it right, will be ours from today, and I guess it's best you don't know about it." Well, fuck you Instagram, you deserved this. When I joined Instagram, I knew someday it would have to make money to sustain and most likely my data would be compromised (something an average user wouldn't realize and would assume it's forever free). Fitting ads somewhere inside your app or on your webpage would have been a much better solution, because it is something the average user would see (and possibly wouldn't mind either). But your sneaky as fuck change in TOS was UNETHICAL. You deserve this. I just hope some other open source app replaces you and your fame fades away. Because you are u.n.e.t.h.i.c.a.l.

k-mcgrady 14y ago
>> If you intend to sell our photos, we actually have no problem I don't think that's true. Anyone I saw that left always made it clear they didn't want Instagram selling their photos and that was their reason for leaving.
- neya 14y ago
  sorry, I meant if they made it clear before-hand like, before joining their service. So you wouldn't be suddenly disappointed like what happened now.
  - RyanZAG 14y ago
    If they made it clear before-hand, then they would not have acquired the users they did and not sold for a billion. So that is not a good solution at all. Personally, I don't see a solution to this.
HannibalLecter 14y ago
>The real problem was being 'sneaky as fuck'. Isn't this the problem with every business today? Listen if you want my continued business, do me good service in an honest way. I'll be a customer for life if you do. If you lie to me once in an organized way, you'll never see me again. If some salesperson lies, I'll report it to management because I obviously like your business if I'm using it -- but if you do nothing -- or ignore me -- I'm gone. Forever. No matter what you do I'm not coming back at this point. If you're selling oxygen, I'm not breathing it anymore if you do this.
mbell 14y ago
You seem to have not read the ToS before or after the change. It was actually more restrictive _after_ the change. All this 'outrage' seems to fundamentally be about the user being reminded that the ToS actually existed in the first place, not any changes made to it.
SolarUpNote 14y ago
But wasn't this whole thing a big misunderstanding? They were never going to sell users' photos. The TOS changed to make way for "promoted" photos (advertising). http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-wer... Please correct me if I'm wrong.
- zmj 14y ago
  That statement would be made regardless of their original intent. It isn't evidence in either direction.
- logn 14y ago
  "The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question" They admit right there that the TOS allowed for brands to feature user photos in ads. It's a nice cover to claim you never intended that, then if so why put it in TOS? Maybe the legal department got carried away, but more likely they envisioned photos being like Facebook "likes" (e.g., "Joe Adams likes Amazon!"). You might have Amazon promoting a user image of someone reading a Kindle on Instagram.
- neya 14y ago
  Whether they were going to sell the photos or not wasn't the issue, they just gave themselves the 'right' or 'possibility' to do so without anyone's consent. Either way, let me give you an analogy - You catch a someone red-handed trying to steal your belongings from your house. If you asked him what was he doing there, he's obviously going to defend himself. He would say anything but 'I'm here to steal your stuff.' In this case the burglar just said he's here for a cup of coffee, which to me seems too good to be true.
- mongol 14y ago
  I can't say that you are wrong but some of the criticism has been that the new conditions make it _possible_ for them to sell them, regardless of their "intention" as they state in the blog post.
- 14y ago
freshfunk 14y ago
This is a perfect example of how ignorance can lead to fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's also an example of how erroneous media can easily mislead the public. Instagram was never going to "sell your photos." If you read the TOS, they were reserving the right to advertise against your photos much like how sponsored stories work on Facebook. But advertising is so evil right? Time to give up Google Search, Gmail, Google Maps, LinkedIn, New York Times, etc. Frankly, I find it funny that your everyday consumer is in an uproar because they think that their kissy-face photos could even be sold. Companies like National Geographic whose businesses are built on the IP around their photos have legitimate reasons to be concerned in general. In this case, though, these changes would've allowed them to advertise their magazine on Instagram. Professional photographers may also want to protect their content from being used in advertising. But 99% of users are every day people taking pictures of babies, dogs and the sunset...content that would almost never be "sold." Also, the fine print on AppData shows that their method of measuring users is completely prone to error. Many other apps showed a drop off and FB made some algo changes around the same time.
- propercoil 14y ago
  Your assumption that these photos can not be sold is simply false. Maybe you specifically won't pay but i would. I pay for premium services when i need graphics. Think of an instagram api you can get access to and showcase pictures with tags x,y that are popular within your service.
- neya 14y ago
  >Instagram was never going to "sell your photos." If you read the TOS, they were reserving the right to advertise against your photos much like how sponsored stories work on Facebook. Dude, are you Instagram's lawyer? How can you be so sure?? Either way, you still don't get the point. It wasn't about whether they were going to sell it or not. It was about they giving themselves the 'right' to automatically, possibly do so in the future. Naturally, when you do something like this, especially with others' data, you could in the least inform them. Because it's their fucking content. When I joined facebook and orkut, I saw the ads on the side. I knew it was a compromise I had to make. So it really didn't matter to me. That's why I still use Google. Because I know the company is trying to make money by letting me use it. With Instagram, when I joined it, there were no ads nor did they tell me or give me a hint that my photos would be 'sold'. An average user would have assumed it would remain free forever, but I knew they would somehow need to make money. But, they didn't express their intent to make money (through selling your photos) clearly because they knew if they did so, no one would join their service. Hence they basically deceived you into joining their service for free initially and one fine day gave themselves the rights to sell your photos. That's unethical. The problem here is I took the effort to get the photo right, but I am NOT compensated monetarily for my effort. Instead Instagram just benefits from it. So it's like a free photo sharing site first that is automatically turned into a stock photo site without your consent where you don't even get any benefits when your photo is sold. I'm sorry, that's unacceptable and that's unethical. What the consumer owns is none of your business - be it babies, dogs, sunset or even elephants. It's their will to do what they want with their phone's camera. And like I said, there's even nothing wrong with monetizing these photos as long as you express your intent clearly.
timrpeterson 14y ago
2nd the Instagram is 'sneaky as fuck' comment

by neya 14y ago

k-mcgrady 14y ago

>> If you intend to sell our photos, we actually have no problem I don't think that's true. Anyone I saw that left always made it clear they didn't want Instagram selling their photos and that was their reason for leaving.

neya 14y ago
sorry, I meant if they made it clear before-hand like, before joining their service. So you wouldn't be suddenly disappointed like what happened now.
- RyanZAG 14y ago
  If they made it clear before-hand, then they would not have acquired the users they did and not sold for a billion. So that is not a good solution at all. Personally, I don't see a solution to this.

HannibalLecter 14y ago

>The real problem was being 'sneaky as fuck'. Isn't this the problem with every business today? Listen if you want my continued business, do me good service in an honest way. I'll be a customer for life if you do. If you lie to me once in an organized way, you'll never see me again. If some salesperson lies, I'll report it to management because I obviously like your business if I'm using it -- but if you do nothing -- or ignore me -- I'm gone. Forever. No matter what you do I'm not coming back at this point. If you're selling oxygen, I'm not breathing it anymore if you do this.

mbell 14y ago

You seem to have not read the ToS before or after the change. It was actually more restrictive _after_ the change. All this 'outrage' seems to fundamentally be about the user being reminded that the ToS actually existed in the first place, not any changes made to it.

SolarUpNote 14y ago

But wasn't this whole thing a big misunderstanding? They were never going to sell users' photos. The TOS changed to make way for "promoted" photos (advertising). http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-wer... Please correct me if I'm wrong.

zmj 14y ago
That statement would be made regardless of their original intent. It isn't evidence in either direction.
logn 14y ago
"The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question" They admit right there that the TOS allowed for brands to feature user photos in ads. It's a nice cover to claim you never intended that, then if so why put it in TOS? Maybe the legal department got carried away, but more likely they envisioned photos being like Facebook "likes" (e.g., "Joe Adams likes Amazon!"). You might have Amazon promoting a user image of someone reading a Kindle on Instagram.
neya 14y ago
Whether they were going to sell the photos or not wasn't the issue, they just gave themselves the 'right' or 'possibility' to do so without anyone's consent. Either way, let me give you an analogy - You catch a someone red-handed trying to steal your belongings from your house. If you asked him what was he doing there, he's obviously going to defend himself. He would say anything but 'I'm here to steal your stuff.' In this case the burglar just said he's here for a cup of coffee, which to me seems too good to be true.
mongol 14y ago
I can't say that you are wrong but some of the criticism has been that the new conditions make it _possible_ for them to sell them, regardless of their "intention" as they state in the blog post.
14y ago

freshfunk 14y ago

This is a perfect example of how ignorance can lead to fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's also an example of how erroneous media can easily mislead the public. Instagram was never going to "sell your photos." If you read the TOS, they were reserving the right to advertise against your photos much like how sponsored stories work on Facebook. But advertising is so evil right? Time to give up Google Search, Gmail, Google Maps, LinkedIn, New York Times, etc. Frankly, I find it funny that your everyday consumer is in an uproar because they think that their kissy-face photos could even be sold. Companies like National Geographic whose businesses are built on the IP around their photos have legitimate reasons to be concerned in general. In this case, though, these changes would've allowed them to advertise their magazine on Instagram. Professional photographers may also want to protect their content from being used in advertising. But 99% of users are every day people taking pictures of babies, dogs and the sunset...content that would almost never be "sold." Also, the fine print on AppData shows that their method of measuring users is completely prone to error. Many other apps showed a drop off and FB made some algo changes around the same time.

propercoil 14y ago
Your assumption that these photos can not be sold is simply false. Maybe you specifically won't pay but i would. I pay for premium services when i need graphics. Think of an instagram api you can get access to and showcase pictures with tags x,y that are popular within your service.
neya 14y ago
>Instagram was never going to "sell your photos." If you read the TOS, they were reserving the right to advertise against your photos much like how sponsored stories work on Facebook. Dude, are you Instagram's lawyer? How can you be so sure?? Either way, you still don't get the point. It wasn't about whether they were going to sell it or not. It was about they giving themselves the 'right' to automatically, possibly do so in the future. Naturally, when you do something like this, especially with others' data, you could in the least inform them. Because it's their fucking content. When I joined facebook and orkut, I saw the ads on the side. I knew it was a compromise I had to make. So it really didn't matter to me. That's why I still use Google. Because I know the company is trying to make money by letting me use it. With Instagram, when I joined it, there were no ads nor did they tell me or give me a hint that my photos would be 'sold'. An average user would have assumed it would remain free forever, but I knew they would somehow need to make money. But, they didn't express their intent to make money (through selling your photos) clearly because they knew if they did so, no one would join their service. Hence they basically deceived you into joining their service for free initially and one fine day gave themselves the rights to sell your photos. That's unethical. The problem here is I took the effort to get the photo right, but I am NOT compensated monetarily for my effort. Instead Instagram just benefits from it. So it's like a free photo sharing site first that is automatically turned into a stock photo site without your consent where you don't even get any benefits when your photo is sold. I'm sorry, that's unacceptable and that's unethical. What the consumer owns is none of your business - be it babies, dogs, sunset or even elephants. It's their will to do what they want with their phone's camera. And like I said, there's even nothing wrong with monetizing these photos as long as you express your intent clearly.

timrpeterson 14y ago

2nd the Instagram is 'sneaky as fuck' comment