CNET report: Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

[manlybrian]

Yikes. Looks like this one's for real. Here are the first three paragraphs from their "Rights" section of the Terms of Use upcoming in January 16th, 2013. Wouldn't you just love to be driving down the freeway and see your face plastered on a billboard advertisement without your previous knowledge?

Rights

1. Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free,
transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service's Privacy Policy, available here: http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/.

2. Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.

3. You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such.

Here's the link from CNET.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...l-your-photos/

[Velocity Kendall]

haha oh nooo all my yellowish pictures of coffee cups, pints of beer with packets of rolling tobacco next to them and meals i ate might be used by some corporate pig to sell people stuff? nooooooooo!!

[Sushy]

haha true that VK

Though, some people do post their artwork on there, even if it has a filter, you would not want them to sell it without your permission. XD

[keeptime]

I thought Facebook and DeviantART both already have the rights to sell anything uploaded to their website without compensation to the uploader? It looks like pretty standard EULA stuff nowadays.

[Arshes Nei]

Sky is falling guys...

But here's a rebuttal http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3...ey-really-mean

[Star Eater]

Related: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/18/te...ers/index.html

[Atreides]

TOS mean nothing. It isn't a contract, no one is enforcing them and the companies can change them anytime they like to anything they like. The only brake on them is user outrage, which invariably means nothing more than a few blog posts and free publicity for the sleazy data mining company in question.

As notions of privacy and data security are eroded they just change the TOS to grab more and more rights for themselves. Ten years ago people would have been outraged at data usages which are perfectly ordinary today. The process which led to that situation is calculated and repeatable and this is what it looks like.

Data miners ain't in it because they want to empower you.

[manlybrian]

Update. They'll probably still lose a bunch of users. The hazards of legal agreements.

blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening

[Arshes Nei]

I forgot that good journalism isn't about inquiring the other side for comment anymore - but to send everyone into a panic mode.

[Anthonycarey]

Never used it. And I'd never post anything on my Facebook I wasn't prepared to be stolen..

[blogmatix]

I consider anything and everything I put online to be, in effect, in the public domain. If you don't want something to be taken, do not put it online. This is now the practical reality, whatever the law says. I do not mind personally, because art is just a hobby for me, but professional artists who earn much of their income from things like prints should take note.

[iambanana]

Knock yourself out Instagram.

[Thistlegorm]

Aw shucks, you mean to tell me I'll never get a cent for those ironic photos I've taken?

[Trase]

Past: We present you, extremely advanced and tiny cameras in your mobile devices, with them, you can take photos with quality that can rival professional digital photo equipment of couple years ago!
People: Ok, thanks, I guess.

Now: We present you, extremely advanced software that uses your extremely advanced cameras to make tiny, distorted photos that can almost rival camera-phones of 2002!
People: HOLY SHIT SO COOL

[Januz]

If you're not paying for the product, then you are the product.

(Unless it's open source)

[JDSart]

that "can rival Profesional photo equipment" part is quite the hiperbole. Cell phone pics are still cellphone pics even with the megapixels count bumped, which usually just serves as a gimmicky number to advertise in promos. (Mpx alone doesn´t say much of the quality of a camera or the pictures it can take)

Current cell phones cameras do take much much nicer pictures than older cell phones cameras, but its still for play time. If people share their lunches with a vintage filter on their fb feed who cares, the tool is not meant for much more advanced purposes anyways. I believe the technology is being used appropiately.