The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2012 AFPInstagram yields to user outrage over policy change
SAN FRANCISCO©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2012 AFP
15 Comments
Login to comment
nostromo
Gee, my heart bleeds for these "mega-businesses" who need to make money.... reminds me of that pathetic concept that companies are "people" and should be treated as such...
LFRAgain
From this:
To this:
It sure as hell reads like they had every intention of doing just that. Taking a page from Facebook, it would seem. Until users got justifiably angry, that is.
Greedy, amoralistic morons.
The passage
Not an unfair statement, but on the other side of the coin, who is paying for the infrastructure to host your pictures so that you can share them? Instagram and Facebook are going about this very hamfisted, but how much would people actually pay to use SNS? Probably 0, hence some form of sponsorship required. My guess is that they had a plan to target photo usage to things like "Hey, your friend XYZ likes product ABC" and include a picture of them that has been tagged.
nath
You mean do the same thing they've been doing all along?
basroil
Worst thing is, facebook (and therefore instagram) is a copyright leech, stealing copyrights from any unsuspecting photographer with good photos. As long as someone even links to your photo, they refuse to obey their ToS, and forget submitting DMCA requests, they never uphold them.
billyshears
Huge marketing error which Kevin Systrom has had to retract , probably scrambling to find any justifiable excuse his team could come up with ("just tell them we worded it wrongly!"). If he wants to find ways to monetize Instagram and really increase its usage, he should have gone the other way and offered to pay users half the proceeds of any sales of their photographs (of course, including an opt-out clause).
okillbegoodthistime
I hate big companies that think they can push around individuals.
papigiulio
LOL? 2 billion is not enough? gtfo
smithinjapan
They're obviously not going to back off -- they're just going to change the wording. Delete accounts, people.
nath
I have that app. I put one picture on it. An Asterisk.
Any people here read KV before? You should know what it means.
basroil
http://mashable.com/2012/12/18/5-free-alternatives-to-instagram/#1072191-Streamzoo
Plenty of alternatives, and now people actually have a reason to try them
malfupete
somebody actually read the ToS? wow
Fadamor
So yeah, Instagram wants to get paid by advertisers in order for the advertisers to use your photos and not have to pay you any royalties for said photos.
Well it certainly was true before some people actually read the proposed TOS change. The language isn't confusing in the slightest. The only actual mistake you made was in assuming nobody would read the fine print and now you're treating your users like morons by thinking they'll believe your statement that you never intended to sell their photos.
So you're STILL disrespecting your user base.
nath
So.... they never intended to actually do what they said they were going to do. Too late - most of the people I know have already deleted their accounts. Well played, Instagram...