Opaque Instagram ad policy change riles users
NEW YORK (AP) - Instagram, the popular photo-sharing service that Facebook bought this year, is the target of a storm of outrage on Twitter and other sites after a change in its user agreement hinted that it might use shared photos in ads.
It's not clear that anything substantive has changed in Instagram's new terms of service, which were posted Monday and go into effect Jan. 16. As is the case before, the service reserves the right to use shared photos in any matter it likes, though the photographers keep "ownership" of the photos.
The updated terms of service say users agree that their photos could be used "in connection with paid or sponsored content." The current terms say the service can place ads "on, about or in conjunction with your Content."
The fast-growing site is a popular way to share photos from cellphones. Facebook Inc. bought Instagram in September. The cash-and-stock deal was worth $1 billion when it was announced in April, though that fell to about $740 million by the time it was completed because of Facebook's falling stock price.
The updated terms suggests that Facebook wants to integrate Instagram into its ad-serving system, which can, for instance, promote an item by telling users that their friends "Like" it. The new terms make it clearer that Instagram could use your photos to market to your friends.
Instagram announced the change in a blog post, but didn't explain its intentions. It said a concurrent change to the privacy policy, a separate document, would help Instagram function more easily as part of Facebook.
Twitter users were vowing to cancel their Instagram accounts in response to the policy change, complaining that the new terms would essentially let the service sell people's photos for ads.
It's not clear that anything substantive has changed in Instagram's new terms of service, which were posted Monday and go into effect Jan. 16. As is the case before, the service reserves the right to use shared photos in any matter it likes, though the photographers keep "ownership" of the photos.
The updated terms of service say users agree that their photos could be used "in connection with paid or sponsored content." The current terms say the service can place ads "on, about or in conjunction with your Content."
The fast-growing site is a popular way to share photos from cellphones. Facebook Inc. bought Instagram in September. The cash-and-stock deal was worth $1 billion when it was announced in April, though that fell to about $740 million by the time it was completed because of Facebook's falling stock price.
The updated terms suggests that Facebook wants to integrate Instagram into its ad-serving system, which can, for instance, promote an item by telling users that their friends "Like" it. The new terms make it clearer that Instagram could use your photos to market to your friends.
Instagram announced the change in a blog post, but didn't explain its intentions. It said a concurrent change to the privacy policy, a separate document, would help Instagram function more easily as part of Facebook.
Twitter users were vowing to cancel their Instagram accounts in response to the policy change, complaining that the new terms would essentially let the service sell people's photos for ads.
Business-minded folks, consider the opportunity if you use Instagram. Â Brand your photos, and post. Â Let Facebook and Instagram share your photos anywhere they like. Â What's not to like if you are marketing?
 I guess there are enough people who don't care to make it work. I'm not one of them.
Invasion of privacy cooked up by idiot hipsters.
http://i.imgur.com/49WV7.png
Actually, they'd be much smarter to offer a small royalty to users for any photos used in any ad that's clicked on. Users would flock to the site and post millions of pix in hopes of getting a few pennies. Of course, FB would have to spend more for storage space, but, that's part of its business platform, anyway, and is small potatoes compared with the millions/billions it'll get from ad revenue. If only Congress would think from the consumer/taxpayer point of view . . . ;)
It's been said before and I'll say it again: when a service is "free" YOU are the product.
Don't like it, don't use the service.
Â
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and all the others do not exist to make YOU connect with your friends for free. Their business goal is to make a profit for THEM and return value for their investors. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't expect that anything you post on their sites is "yours". Once you hit POST, you've given up all rights to what you just posted- be it a comment, idea, note or picture,
Â
@DrugFighter Not entirely correct -- in this case, at least, you give up some control, but NOT ownership of your pictures. So your statement about giving up ALL rights is incorrect. You can still remove the pictures, or at least use them however YOU want to. Other than that, a good summary.
@DrugFighter That was very well put and exactly correct.
Share nothing but crap pictures. Want to share your good stuff? Get a free account at almost countless photo sites. Smugmug is a good one. That's what I use. Maybe someone can build an app that puts a watermark through the middle of your photos before they are sent.....
Glad I never bought into that Facebook service! My photo's are for me and my friends not to be used for ads... if they are going to use that then I want royalties each and every time they are used! I'd say $5 a view and $10 a click and $20 on conversion to a purchase....will lighten my mood shame on you FaceBook!
If you actually read the Facebook policy before you click "OK" you can see they have the right to do whatever they want to with the content you or any of your "friends" post.
Â
"you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)."
Â
You shouldn't expect any privacy on a social media website.
Dont use instagram, never have. I dont understand why Facebook and other social media sites continue with progression of policies like this. You would think making decisions that are unpopular with your subscribers would be something you would try and avoid, but it does not appear to be the case
What do they expect? Â It's Facebook. Â
Â
About as "opaque" as living in a plate-grass house without curtains.