tech

Instagram yields to user outrage over policy change

15 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

15 Comments
Login to comment

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...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

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.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

“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.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“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?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

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.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

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 ( +0 / -0 )

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

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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 ( +0 / -0 )

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

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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

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

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

somebody actually read the ToS? wow

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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 ( +0 / -0 )

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...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites