Instagram yields to user outrage over policy change

Technology Dec. 19, 2012 - 08:13AM JST ( 15 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

15 Comments

1

nostromoDec. 19, 2012 - 09:10AM JST

Some people tweeted in defense of Instagram, arguing that it was a “mega-business” that needs to make money

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...
5

LFRAgainDec. 19, 2012 - 09:22AM JST

From this:

"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."

To this:

'We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we're going to remove the language that raised the question," he continued. "To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos."

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.
0

The passageDec. 19, 2012 - 09:27AM JST

“Who in their right mind will use a service that allows your images (to) be sold with no financial remuneration to you?”

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.
4

David Van CleefDec. 19, 2012 - 10:08AM JST

“Everybody should continue using Instagram but just take blurry photos of sandwiches,” suggested a Twitter user with the screen name Michele Catalano.

You mean do the same thing they've been doing all along?
1

basroilDec. 19, 2012 - 12:05PM JST

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.
0

billyshearsDec. 19, 2012 - 12:06PM JST

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).
0

okillbegoodthistimeDec. 19, 2012 - 12:21PM JST

I hate big companies that think they can push around individuals.
0

papigiulioDec. 19, 2012 - 02:24PM JST

Some people tweeted in defense of Instagram, arguing that it was a “mega-business” that needs to make money.

LOL? 2 billion is not enough? gtfo
0

FarmboyDec. 19, 2012 - 06:15PM JST

Right. The lawyers who wrote the terms of agreement just used the wrong words, those silly guys...
0

smithinjapanDec. 19, 2012 - 07:35PM JST

They're obviously not going to back off -- they're just going to change the wording. Delete accounts, people.
0

JapanGalDec. 19, 2012 - 08:29PM JST

I have that app. I put one picture on it. An Asterisk.

Any people here read KV before? You should know what it means.
-1

basroilDec. 19, 2012 - 09:46PM JST

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
0

malfupeteDec. 19, 2012 - 11:59PM JST

somebody actually read the ToS? wow
0

FadamorDec. 20, 2012 - 12:58AM JST

The terms also stated that “a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.”

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.

“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.”

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.
0

John BeckerDec. 20, 2012 - 02:12AM JST

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...