# Instagram to own rights to sell your photos.



## PixelRabbit (Dec 18, 2012)

I poked around and didn't see this posted anywhere.  Come January Instagram will have the right to sell your photos?!?!?!?

Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos | Politics and Law - CNET News


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

PixelRabbit said:


> I poked around and didn't see this posted anywhere.  Come January Instagram will have the right to sell your photos?!?!?!?
> 
> Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos | Politics and Law - CNET News



Interesting.. yet another reason not to use it!


----------



## PixelRabbit (Dec 18, 2012)

I'd like to say that this is their death sentence but I wonder if the average user will care?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 18, 2012)

Frankly, I don't care. Cuz, well, you know, they're Instagram photos. I mean, really?

Now if Flickr were to do the same, I'd shut that puppy down, like right NOW!


----------



## PixelRabbit (Dec 18, 2012)

Ah yes but one man's Flickr is another man's Instagram, doesn't matter what the end product is as long as there is a market for it.  There is a market for Instagram regardless of our opinions of it  I don't have an account either, it doesn't twirl my beanie but millions of other people obviously think otherwise.  It will be a sad day for the photography world if Instagram survives this and continues to thrive.


----------



## Overread (Dec 18, 2012)

Flickr would be a warzone in seconds if they changed their TC to do that - rather like how it happened to Facebook when they tried it. 

That said companies that deal digitally with things know that the average user doesn't even read the TC let alone have enough general understanding to always understand what it is that they are reading. So they can get away with a lot of things like this. Heck a vast number of photography competitions are rights grabs for the company. 
At present the internet does give us some outlet to inform others and organise counter action and appeal against these being imposed. The problem is getting the average person to care enough to actually want to push through for change.


----------



## runnah (Dec 18, 2012)

Deleting account.

This sound legally dubious, but I guess when you have deep pockets you get to write the laws.


----------



## AgentDrex (Dec 18, 2012)

I don't have an account there but still, pretty lame.  If true that, perhaps in the future, failbook sells instagram users' photos without compensation to the original photographer, that will be an instagram suicide.  It would also be suicide for failbook. 

 Would you want to invest in or continue to invest in a company that time-and-time again comes out with controversial terms and conditions that anger most of the end-users?  Would you want to continue to have an account with an organization that only listens to users when the company is in the spotlight and at first chance when not, re-arrange or change language in pre-agreed upon terms and conditions so that it benefits them monetarily? 

This is just more of what I've been talking about as of late.  People just don't want to share.  They want more and more and more.  These companies want more profit.  Why pay stock photo prices when you can just acquire a photo service that has millions of users with billions of photos and just write up a terms and conditions that gives you the ultimate decision to sell the photos as seen fit and whether to pay or not-to-pay the original photographer (or fauxtographer)?  I'm sure they'll wise up. 

 They'll be in the spotlight again for this and reconsider their stance.  That is, until its no longer in the news and then it'll be the same old same old.  Its because people just won't leave and failbook knows it.  Sure a thousand people get mad and close their accounts.  Millions will just go along with it all.  In the past, there was a thing called boycotting.  If you want a company to quit behaving the way it does, boycott it.  Don't use their services.  It has to happen on a massive scale though.


----------



## snowbear (Dec 18, 2012)

I'm not surprised.  Isn't Instagram owned by Facebook?


----------



## AgentDrex (Dec 18, 2012)

snowbear said:


> I'm not surprised.  Isn't Instagram owned by Facebook?



More like butt-hurt pwned


----------



## sm4him (Dec 18, 2012)

I was just reading about that, and so of course, immediately came here to see if ya'll were talking about it yet. 

I've taken exactly TWO Instagram photos--but didn't keep either one of them, so I've got an account but no pictures associated with it. 
I only created the account to see if Instagram was something we might want to use for marketing purposes at work (in addition to many other titles, I manage & develop all our social media content).

My first reaction was, "that's it. NO WAY I'm using them now, nor recommending we use them for work purposes." Bitter's right, they ARE just Instagram pics, but after all, it's the "principle" of the thing.
But the truth is--FB already does pretty much the same thing. Not quite as flagrant, imo--but if you post a photo on FB, it CAN end up on other sites, AND--if I recall the fine print correctly--they can keep using it after you deactivate your account IF they were already using it when your account was active.

Then there's Pinterest, which we are also considering using. Talk about a giant conglomeration of copyright violations!

I still probably won't use it, personally. Part of that is because I think it would just really irritate me no end if one of my photos DID show up on advertising somewhere and I got no credit, no compensation--but honestly, the odds of THAT happening are even smaller than the odds of me winning the lottery (and those are small odds indeed, since I never buy a lottery ticket).
Mostly, I probably won't use it, because...well, because it's Instagram. I've said it before, but I'll say it again--I *took* many a photo that looked just like that back in the 60s and 70s with my little Instamatics. I've spent much of my photography "career" working to make my photos NOT ever look like that again.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 18, 2012)

Of the millions of Instagram images out there, what miniscule percentage are actually saleable/commercially usable?  I'm guessing something in the 0.0 x 10 -999999999th?  I VERY much doubt the average user need be concerned.  That said, I do agree that it's a slimey tactic and I very much hope the membership does revolt and cause them to change their mind.


----------



## Luke345678 (Dec 18, 2012)

I heard of this but never actually did the research to confirm it. I LOVE instagram and have lot's of pictures on there. If they do follow through with this I may shut down my Instagram account. I don't think it will happen though because they will most likely realize how many people start to leave. Hell, I know I will.

-Luke

Please keep updating this post if possible.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 18, 2012)

I guess. I mean, I just started using Instagram, but I wouldn't ever think what I do there would be worth selling myself. It's a fun little distraction.

I'll add, that I don't agree with the principle of it, and that it is ****ty. But, it is Instagram.


----------



## Luke345678 (Dec 18, 2012)

Do you think there is anyway out of this? Anyway to get them to stop?


----------



## Forkie (Dec 18, 2012)

The "hacktivist" group Anonymous have already started a boycott campaign on Twitter (#boycottinstagram) and it's apparently going quite well!


----------



## Overread (Dec 18, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Of the millions of Instagram images out there, what miniscule percentage are actually saleable/commercially usable?  I'm guessing something in the 0.0 x 10 -999999999th?  I VERY much doubt the average user need be concerned.  That said, I do agree that it's a slimey tactic and I very much hope the membership does revolt and cause them to change their mind.



It might be a tiny number, but it must be worth it to Instagram to go for that tiny number (and lets not forget in the big world tiny numbers are still potentially very big on their own).


----------



## runnah (Dec 18, 2012)

I think that starting jan 1, everyone should only upload photos of male genitals.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Dec 18, 2012)

I predict a sharp rise of watermarking on Instagram photos.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 18, 2012)

runnah said:
			
		

> I think that starting jan 1, everyone should only upload photos of male genitals.



Wait... Everyone doesn't already do that?

Oops...


----------



## jake337 (Dec 18, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Frankly, I don't care. Cuz, well, you know, they're Instagram photos. I mean, really?
> 
> Now if Flickr were to do the same, I'd shut that puppy down, like right NOW!



You should check out some of the artists I'm following.

jake_klein


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 18, 2012)

I think if somebody told bar refaeli's agents about this, they'd make her deactivate her account, and then like 1/3rd of male instagram users would leave instagram.  

I'm only half joking about that.


----------



## Steve5D (Dec 18, 2012)

I think I've shot a total of four photos on Instagram.

If they can get someone to buy a crap shot of my Bloody Mary, more power to 'em...


----------



## AgentDrex (Dec 18, 2012)

Luke345678 said:


> Do you think there is anyway out of this? Anyway to get them to stop?



It's an old trick but its a sure-fire trick.  It's called BOYCOTTING.

Or you could just do what the "99 percenters" do.  Make signs, bring tents and camp out for days on end at 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, 94025.  Make sure to get groups of people standing in the streets blocking traffic, making messes most will never clean up, getting drunk, selling drugs, getting angry with the police when they are called about the rowdiness and yelling at the top of their lungs for facebook to quit being greedy golems, .  While you're at it, make sure everyone continues updating the progress of the protest by tweeting tweets and updating on facebook with their phones, tablets and slates and posting photos of the protest to flickr and instagram.  Yeah, that'll work.  No quicker way to get a company to change policies than by continuing to use their products while protesting their products.

Or you could just not use their products/services and shun them.  But that never worked in the sixties for the black people, now did it???  Err...wait...hmm.


----------



## KmH (Dec 18, 2012)

That Instagram is now owned by Facebook, and Facebook is running out of ways to generate revenue, it's no surprise they would try and do something like this.

Facebook knows that most people never read the TOS of a web site, and with TOS terms like the ones proposed for Instagram, Facebook management starts looking like a bunch of crooks trying to take advantage the average guy/gal that uses Instagram.


----------



## runnah (Dec 18, 2012)

Like a monkey ****ing a football.


----------



## Overread (Dec 18, 2012)

The concept of costs on the internet is a difficult area and I can sympathise with companies who are expected to provide services for free online when provision of those services (especially if they are popular) costs significant amounts of money. A whole generation has grown up with the mantra of "the internet is free" (whilst their parents paid the internet and phone bills each month of course ). 

The thing is I dislike this rather underhanded way to generate revenue, whilst they've been open in declaring the change (they honestly can't do otherwise) it's still not the most honest of ways to generate income. They could easily have gone for some kind of opt in scheme or even shared revenue with the people putting photos up - flickr does this with Ghetty. There are other ways they could have done this or approached the topic, sadly they've gone the wrong path and its likely to bite them (again since they are Facebook owned )


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Dec 18, 2012)

Seems like a very ballsy and questionable business maneuver.


----------



## fjrabon (Dec 18, 2012)

I mean I sort of get that the ginormous amount of hosting instagram requires is probably starting to get expensive.  But it's the 'hoping nobody would notice this' aspect that really bothers me the most.  If they'd have just informed us of it and even said "due to rising hosting costs this is a necessary step to keep the service free" I'd be more okay with it.

It also bothers me because I'd bet it will cause many of the users who actually are worth following off.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Dec 18, 2012)

PixelRabbit said:


> I poked around and didn't see this posted anywhere.  Come January Instagram will have the right to sell your photos?!?!?!?
> 
> Instagram says it now has the right to sell your photos | Politics and Law - CNET News



One of the many reasons why I don't use it.

When Facebook updated their ToS to say pretty much the same thing, I stopped posting images there as well and have only posted outside links ever since. 

To Hell with these damn companies and their "the man" behavior. If it weren't for tech sites that blow the whistle on these things, no one would ever know...


----------



## ceejtank (Dec 18, 2012)

A- I think instagram is an abomination.  
B- Instagram photos are terrible.  Who wants 50,000 pictures of yellow tinted food?


----------



## panblue (Dec 18, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> But it's the 'hoping nobody would notice this' aspect that really bothers me the most.



A core tenet of so much of everything nowadays.


----------



## table1349 (Dec 18, 2012)

If you don't like it, don't use it.  Problem solved. Common sense 101.  

Remember in life you should never sweat the petty things, and never pet the sweaty things.


----------



## Tee (Dec 18, 2012)

The Internet is ripe and juicy for a new social media site. One that rises up from ashes. I wish I had the capital to fund one. I would make it a 2 tiered site. One free, one not. Kinda like many web forums.

I think I may cancel my Instagram account. Not because I'm vain enough to think my images will be sold but because I'm tired of being told to bend over and take it with a smile. This is a drastic change and I think we may just see an adjustment in the new policy before January.


----------



## invisible (Dec 18, 2012)

What's stopping Facebook from pulling this stunt on Facebook as well? They've shat on Facebook users so many times that we might not even notice one more dump on us.


----------



## Tee (Dec 18, 2012)

Ever since. FB came up with that amazingly chitty 2 sided timeline, I've spent less and less time on there.


----------



## Overread (Dec 18, 2012)

invisible said:


> What's stopping Facebook from pulling this stunt on Facebook as well? They've shat on Facebook users so many times that we might not even notice one more dump on us.



They tried it a year or two back - Facebook exploded on them. 
Basically companies like Facebook can't get away with this provided that the users actually take a stand on it. The trick is spotting these changes (We can change our TC any time without notification or making very small notifications that don't really say anything are common methods to get things into the TC changed without users paying much attention). After that its about organising - if you can organise enough users to take a stand then the service has to make a change or at the very least is forced to make an open explanation of its policy.


----------



## bhop (Dec 18, 2012)

I read that yesterday.. I've had fun with Instagram, but I plan to pull all my photos on the 15th..  I seriously doubt they'll want to use my photos, I don't have many followers and such, but it's the principle.  If they want to use photos, then pay for them, or have a separate service for that kind of thing.


----------



## Luke345678 (Dec 18, 2012)

Forkie said:


> The "hacktivist" group Anonymous have already started a boycott campaign on Twitter (#boycottinstagram) and it's apparently going quite well!



Thanks for telling me, I will be sure to join that boycott!


----------



## Luke345678 (Dec 18, 2012)

Before all of you guys continue hating on Instagram it has gotten tons of people into Instagram. It's a great starting point. 4 of my friends are now into photography because of Instagram. Yeah what there doing is stupid but I just taught them about water marking, tha'ts what I'll be doing!!!


----------



## Overread (Dec 18, 2012)

Just an innocent question here but - is it bad that I've never even been to the Instagram website once? Heck I can't even remember anyone even pointing me to the site to look at something. Then again I don't twitter or facebook* so maybe I just missed it?



*I have a facebook - It gets looked at around 3 times a year and normally that event comes with a half hour of cursing interface design students who design the darn interface and then "revamp" it every few months. I can't even find my Wall thing these days


----------



## nmoody (Dec 18, 2012)

PixelRabbit said:


> I'd like to say that this is their death sentence but I wonder if the average user will care?



I think its less the average user caring and more the average user knowing about it.


----------



## camz (Dec 18, 2012)

Yeah my wife was telling me she wanted to pull out images of people/things things out of her non-business instagram account.  


As ishty as it is, I agree with Gryphon.  I mean it's a free service, if we don't like it just don't be active and move along.  Just think of facebook and instagram as a marketers dream.  A free service in exchange for your information.


----------



## wicked (Dec 18, 2012)

No, Instagram can't sell your photos ? what the new terms of service really mean | The Verge


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 18, 2012)

Uh, hello? Facebook *does have the right to do this with all content you upload*. From the Dec 11, 2012 revision:

"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: *you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.*"

That's why I don't upload any pics or my short stories I write or anything I think might be commercially viable. The only thing that surprised me is that FB didn't do the same thing to Instagram immediately upon purchase.


----------



## thetrue (Dec 18, 2012)

runnah said:


> I think that starting jan 1, everyone should only upload photos of male genitals.


I think I'm going to get an account solely for this purpose!!!!!! :lmao:


----------



## camz (Dec 18, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> .....That's why I don't upload any pics or my short stories I write or anything I think might be commercially viable. *The only thing that surprised me is that FB didn't do the same thing to Instagram immediately upon *purchase.



Yeah they purchased it for almost a billion bucks and I wondered the same thing.  The thing is from the time they bought instagram until just before the announcement, the android market entered instagram along with millions of millions of additional instagram accounts.  They probably had a business goal before they would implement the new advertising infrastructure.


----------



## AgentDrex (Dec 18, 2012)

I think I may as well.  That was about the funniest and creative suggestion outside of mine to just boycott them.  If they want photos, let's give them photos.  Do they have to be of mine?  I'll feel strange if I have to either take photos of others or find them on the net.


----------



## BrianV (Dec 18, 2012)

How come they use a Polaroid OneStep as their Logo?

I always thought they catered to Polaroid users because of the Logo.

It's amazing how many sites have terms similar to Instagram. Netscape had similar terms. "Didn't work for them"


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2012)

runnah said:


> Like a monkey ****ing a football.



Hey...I have Instagram photos of that very subject!!!!!!!! They are pretty weird!!!


----------



## 12sndsgood (Dec 18, 2012)

New news out says the CEO blogged today that they will be revising the TOS and that they will not be selling the photos and that it's just some confusion with the wording. And that they have received a lot of concerned complaints lol.


----------



## invisible (Dec 18, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> New news out says the CEO blogged today that they will be revising the TOS and that they will not be selling the photos and that it's just some confusion with the wording.


So... A multi-billion dollar company, whose owner has already been under fire for this very same reason, didn't expect "some confusion"? It sounds like a lame apology to me. Like the article that wicked linked to says, "the real lesson here isn't about the legal implications of Instagram's terms of service  it's about how little we trust Facebook to do the right thing".


----------



## Demers18 (Dec 18, 2012)

thetrue said:
			
		

> I think I'm going to get an account solely for this purpose!!!!!! :lmao:



Lol I'm with you on that one.



			
				invisible said:
			
		

> So... A multi-billion dollar company, whose owner has already been under fire for this very same reason, didn't expect "some confusion"? It sounds like a lame apology to me. Like the article that wicked linked to says, "the real lesson here isn't about the legal implications of Instagram's terms of service &#151; it's about how little we trust Facebook to do the right thing".



I couldn't agree more. Facebook doesn't seem to  shoot straight and are seem to be in the news for the wrong reasons.


----------



## camz (Dec 18, 2012)

Facebook bought Instagram for almost a *billion* dollars.  C'mon let's not have our blinders on...there has to be a Return On Investment.


----------



## KmH (Dec 18, 2012)

The thundering herd, was heard!

Instagram says no plans to put user photos in ads: Thomson Reuters Business News - MSN Money


----------



## Mully (Dec 18, 2012)

KmH said:


> The thundering herd, was heard!
> 
> Instagram says no plans to put user photos in ads: Thomson Reuters Business News - MSN Money



Don't believe everything you read.


----------



## STIC (Dec 18, 2012)

...


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 18, 2012)

STIC said:
			
		

> There is NOTHING wrong with a company wanting to make a profit!
> 
> There is ALSO nothing wrong with an individual (who does not agree with or like the way said company makes a profit) not using, and advising family and friends to not use said company either...
> 
> Now, having said that...what is instagram?



Depends on the method of the profit.

There are these things called laws...


----------



## STIC (Dec 19, 2012)

...


----------



## ktan7 (May 12, 2013)

I read about this. Be careful what you post on instagram!


----------

