Did You Really Think Facebook Wouldn't Turn Your Instagram Photos Into Ads?

Forbes ^ | December 18, 2012 | Robert Hof

[beaversmom]

Instagram just set off a bomb inside its new privacy policy and terms of service. New wording essentially makes it possible to turn people’s photos posted after Jan. 16 using Instagram into advertisements. In other words, that sutro-toned picture of your beloved Lhasa apso freshly coiffed after her grooming might well become an ad for Classy Canine Dog Salon.

The language at issue:

[Y]ou 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.…

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.

[beaversmom]

Instagram TOS

[bgill]

Simple. Do NOT use FB.

[proxy_user]

“....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.”

But how about people who appear in the photos, who are not Instagram users and did not agree to the TOS? Can they sue?

[beaversmom]

From the article:

Already, angry users are venting loudly. “Answer me @ Facebook and @ Instagram, why do you hate your users so much?” one tweeted this morning. More than that, they’re calling for people to kill their Instagram accounts.

[Hessian]

How long until someone who is unwittingly in the background of an Instagram pic sues for unauthorized use of their image?

I don’t see how I’ve given up the rights to my image if you post a pic of me on Instagram without me knowing about it.... some ugly legal stuff is about to be unleashed.

[beaversmom]

But how about people who appear in the photos, who are not Instagram users and did not agree to the TOS? Can they sue?

Yeah good question.

[kabumpo]

Unfortunately, FB is necessary for work in the area I'm in. My stomach turns over daily with all the Obama worship.

[beaversmom]

Also in the Terms of Service:

“... 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.”

[Mangia E Statti Zitto]

I feel incredibly ignorant, but could someone tell me what Instagram is?

[beaversmom]

It’s a photo sharing site, where you upload the photo and share it. As part of that, you can select a filter to make the photo look a certain way...for example, make it look like an old Polaroid instant. I just found all that out today. :)

[BenLurkin]

Then there’s this...Swedish teens riot over Instagram sex rumours
http://www.thelocal.se/45142/20121218/#.UNB4ZG_AexU

[Dr. Sivana]

Already, angry users are venting loudly. “Answer me @ Facebook and @ Instagram, why do you hate your users so much?” one tweeted this morning. More than that, they’re calling for people to kill their Instagram accounts.

The users are not their customers. Advertisers are their customers. The relationship of users to facebook can be likened to the relationship of chickens to Col. Sanders. Enjoy your feed!

[maranatha]

I have used Instagram since summer and I love it. I see pictures of daily life and country scenes of a woman in Israel, I enjoy many sweet Christian families some are Air Force, a young man in IDF, I happened upon and it gets like family because you see their grandkids, babies, cats, breakfasts, new shoes, odd as that sounds.
I totally deleted my account yesterday after reading their new privacy contract for January (one click and all pictures, comments everything I did is gone).
I was sad afterwards but knew it was the right thing to do. They even say they or business partners see where you go on the web and they store the data they collect. You know Obama government will need it too someday.

[beaversmom]

I was sad afterwards but knew it was the right thing to do.

Oh I bet!

[Moltke]

So basically they appropriate the right to steal your creative work (for their own profit at that).

Have the RIAA and MPAA weighed in yet on this gross copyright infringement? Is this even legal under the DMCA?

Will the Zuckerdork be arrested out of his bed in a pre-dawn no-knock SWAT raid?

Questions, questions...

[tomkat]

Farcebook is evil

Read the EULA

[cripplecreek]

Enjoy your feed!

LOL

However, if FR wanted to do that I would happily give permission for my photos to be used to fund FR.

[Graybeard58]

Simple. Do NOT use FB.

I've been not using Face Book since it started. F.B & Twitter are the C.B. Radios of the 21st century.

Copy that good buddy?

[muawiyah]

Any photographic material used for commercial purposes best have a SIGNED RELEASE from each and every person who can be identified in the picture.

I don't think that part of the law has been changed such that you can just say 'Hey, I got your pic and I can sell it as I wish'. Then there are the members of the Stuntman's Association ~ they have the idea that they can sue and win for enormous sums ~ and they do ~

I have this sinking feeling they used lawyers more familiar with video game intellectual property rights.

[bgill]

10-4

[BobL]

“Simple. Do NOT use FB”

Easy for you to say - you probably don’t spend half of your waking hours on FB, keeping up your status.

I guess it’s easy for me, as I don’t do that either.

[D_Idaho]

This is from the Instagram site just now:

“Ownership Rights Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period.”

Have they given up the ownership thing? Also, does anyone use the Amazon Cloud? Don’t they have something similar?

[Moltke]

Thanks. Sounds like weasel words, though.

How would this fly:

Hey RIAA/MPAA: I’m not going to claim ownership rights to the works of your artists whose music/films I download (and perhaps sell on a street corner). I respect your artists’ rights to the ownership of those creative works. Period. So we’re good, right? Right? /s

[a fool in paradise]

As if it will just stop with the Instagram content. People have repeatedly poo pooed the notion that this is the power grabs that the heads at Facebook are doing.

They have temporarily rolled back this plan. The legal language will be changed, I suspect that the attempts at ownership will continue.

And some will probably proclaim (such as Snopes) will probably proclaim that because the offending lines have been removed from the current policy, that it was all an unsubstantiated hoax. An inboxer rebellion.

And Big Media proclaims that they aren’t rich enough because of theft on the internet. Meanwhile Big Media continues to take the work of others to sell it without paying the creators or acknowledging their rights.

[discostu]

They aren’t stealing it, people gave it to them. It’s the same terms of use most free upload/ share sites have. You put stuff on their hard drive and now they own it. If you want someplace to share your photos that won’t claim ownership pay them, if you don’t pay them you’re not a customer, you’re a content provider.