Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos

JLX wrote in post #15385746
LMAO agreed! My two cents is clear. There are pros and cons to any business decision. No social media site is suddenly going to revamp what their business is, ESPECIALLY when its successful. Instagram does not want to be a stock image site. It's not what they're trying for.

People get their panties in a twist over free services. How many things do you really get for free in this world? When some one hands you a free pen at work from one of the associate company's are you going to complain that it doesn't come in pink? Maybe you only like pink pens, so you won't use it. And if you like free pens and it writes, you'll probably use it to write.

Weigh the pros and the cons. Use the service if it makes sense to your business model. Don't use it if it doesn't. Simple as that.

Well, free services aren't expected without some form of income. But the original rewrite of the license text was way more aggressive than what was acceptable.

It isn't uncommon that sites makes money based on my visits, as in online advertising.

It isn't uncommon that sites makes money based on me being registered - such as letting companies pay to send directed advertising to me. Possibly based on the information I have entered into the system.

It isn't uncommon that sites computes market research information based on information the users enters, and then sell this statistics to companies.

But it is way uncommon for a site to want to take the information I publish and specifically sell that information stand-alone.

The original update specifically claimed the right to take individual photos and sell stand-alone for whatever use they could find a customer for.

MJones wrote in post #15385919
For example, uploading a photo to a facebook album - definitely their property. You are using their servers to store your images and you agreed to their terms.

Now, what happens when your image is uploaded to 500px, Zenfolio etc. Where your copyright remains yours, BUT you post a LINK on facebook that points to your work elsewhere?

So this is what it says on Facebook >>>

So what exactly do they mean by "in connection with Facebook" ?

They can let companies who have facebook pages show who likes them.

They can create links to facebook pages.

They can sell facebook and transfer the rights to the new owner.

They can compute stats from facebook info and sell.

They can split facebook into sub-companies for different countries.

In short - Facebook wants to make money from companies who have facebook pages. And Facebook wants you to like these companies. So the companies basically pays to get liked.

I don't recall what the C-net article says in specific but I read in comments on this thread that someone said that C-net was wrong and that IG never said anything about sub-licensing and such... well that's not true. It does say that right now, on their website at the link below. The current TOS does not use sub-licensable but it's still a royalty-free license.

Taken from the following link:
http://instagram.com/a​bout/legal/terms/updat​ed/

Under the "Rights" section these are the first four points.

1. Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, 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, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service's Privacy Policy, available here: http://instagram.com/l​egal/privacy/.

2. 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. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.

3. You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such.

4. You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Service or otherwise have the right to grant the rights and licenses set forth in these Terms of Use; (ii) the posting and use of your Content on or through the Service does not violate, misappropriate or infringe on the rights of any third party, including, without limitation, privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, trademark and/or other intellectual property rights; (iii) you agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owed by reason of Content you post on or through the Service; and (iv) you have the legal right and capacity to enter into these Terms of Use in your jurisdiction.

There have been many points made on this thread over the last days and I realize i'm coming into the conversation really late but here is my reaction to IG's TOS as well as some of the comments made by forum members.

1. You're under 13, no problem on our end legally. You state by creating an account and posting on that account that a legal guardian or parent approved the account and the use provision as outlined above in bold.

2. Model release? No problem, you say in point 4 that you own the content and that posting it and making it available does not violate any third party rights etc etc.. If someone happens to come after us (IG), it's not our butt on the line but yours point in 4-iii.

3. royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable etc... yeah, it's all right there in the currently proposed "updated TOS" on both their website and within the application itself.

4. It does get specific in point 2 that the use or display would be in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions. To me this is the only confusing point in the whole TOS. What I read there is that they are only going to use your "info" if you interact with paid "content" be that advertisements or other promotions. That it is unlikely they will go grabbing people's photos on a whim to use in advertising etc. However, the wording in the updated TOS would certainly grant them the right to do so based upon point 1 as quoted above.

5. To the people that say, oh i don't care, my photos aren't worth anything... Tell that to FB that paid $1 billion dollars to acquire IG.. Yes, your photos ARE worth something, especially when those photos are subject to a royalty-free licensing agreement. The fact that they are worth something to IG, FB and any other Satanic (lol - yes I'm joking) agency is the entire reason that the TOS was proposed the way it was.

I wont be making any moves myself until I give IG time to revise it's proposed TOS. If it's not changed by D-day, I will be deleting. I've already used instaport to download all my images so I'm ready to delete at a moments notice if necessary.

This will be the start of fall of instagram users.

bosley-lester wrote in post #15419697
This will be the start of fall of instagram users.

I'm thinking that 90% of people simply won't care.