Instagram's new ToS allows Facebook to profit from your pictures forever and ever

Instagram's new ToS allows Facebook to profit from your pictures forever and ever
UPDATE: Now that everyone has had time to cool off, there are some who are looking at Instagram's new ToS and saying that the new wording never gave Facebook the right to sell your pictures without permission, and that Instagram always had the same rights to use pictures

You can't blame Facebook. As a public company, the social-networking site has an obligation to its shareholders which means trying to find a way to make big bucks off Instagram. To Facebook's credit, the plan isn't to put ads on the site as we surmised a week ago. But the reality is something that many Instagram users are not going to like.

The new Terms of Service on Instagram give Facebook the perpetual rights to license your pictures to any company or organization, and the photos could be used for advertisements. And guess who is not getting paid for the use of the pictures. If you guessed Facebook, guess again. Instagram users have until January 16th to delete their account because that is the date when the new ToS take effect.

Those looking to save their Instagram pictures are turning to Instaport, which is a service that will allow you to archive your pictures as a single ZIP file. As far as a replacement for Instagram, the smart money is making a mass exodus to Flickr, which has just added filters ala Instagram to its Apple iPhone app. Speaking of upset Instagram users, people are now calling it the world's largest stock photo agency. And this all comes about from some changes to the ToS. The term "limited license" is replaced with the use of "transferable" and "sub-licensable," which allows Facebook to license users' photos to any other company or organization. In simpler language, Facebook writes that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you." That is a another new phrase to the ToS and is the one that gives Facebook investors some hope, but makes Instagram users angry. The new policy also seems to indemnify Facebook and Instagram from class action lawsuits.

If you're an Instagram user, what will you do? Certainly there are other, similar photo-sharing sites out there although none yet have the membership numbers that Instagram does. However, that might change in the next month. By the way, if you're interested in saving your pictures to Instaport, we have so thoughtfully provided you with a link.


source: Instagram via CNET


FEATURED VIDEO

35 Comments

1. e.wvu unregistered

Maybe if I take a picture of my middle finger they would hopefully use it in an ad. But in serious note, I think this is ridicolous, but it's not gonna make me delete my account.

24. Mxyzptlk unregistered

I don't see the problem here.

2. InspectorGadget80 unregistered

This is stupid

3. downphoenix

Posts: 3165; Member since: Jun 19, 2010

anyone know if this also applies to pictures up on facebook? Just need to know if I need to only delete my Instagram, or delete both.

7. the_best

Posts: 139; Member since: Oct 14, 2012

i dont know if they can sell your content on facebook, but the contract wich you sign when gettin a FB page clearly states that they own everything you post there.

4. XPERIA-KNIGHT unregistered

"Facebook writes that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you." are they serious? does facebook or should i say Mark Zuckerberg (billionare) really need the money? Sounds extremely selfish to me....smh

9. NexusKoolaid

Posts: 493; Member since: Oct 24, 2011

Facebook IPO'd just south of $40. It's currently just south of $30. The investors want their investment money back, and they'll gladly squeeze your personal data to do it.

10. XPERIA-KNIGHT unregistered

still selfish......and sounds a bit panicky or something like someone wont eat if they dont get their money! sigh.......lets just see how this turns out

14. johnnh

Posts: 37; Member since: Dec 18, 2012

really mark is just the creator, now facebook is an entity of shareholders, so do not blame someone like he has the keys to stop everything. If you had an investment on facebook you wouldn't be so childish. Welcome to capitalism, nothing is for free. There's a fee for everything aside human thoughts and feelings.

15. the_best

Posts: 139; Member since: Oct 14, 2012

well thats what we post on facebook and instagram, our thoughts and feelings.. so i guess thats got a pricetag to..

16. XPERIA-KNIGHT unregistered

sorry dude while thats all true and all it still seems like their just panicing over nothing.........like facebook wont be popular anymore if they dont do this......fear can cause you to lose more than you will ever gain remember that.........

5. the_best

Posts: 139; Member since: Oct 14, 2012

holy s**t! where is my freedom? i thought the internet should set us free, not lock us in a cellar and throw away the key.

11. caseball2051

Posts: 31; Member since: Feb 09, 2012

signing up for these sites are optional, you can express your freedom by not usign them! but youre right this is absolutely stupid. i hope they suffer from this decision.

6. ncv144

Posts: 126; Member since: May 04, 2012

And everyone flocks to G+!

23. JeffdaBeat unregistered

That didn't happen when Google+ released...why would it happen because of this? People will complain and then get over it.

33. quakan

Posts: 1418; Member since: Mar 02, 2011

As always.

8. SavageLucy42

Posts: 211; Member since: Mar 24, 2011

People are flipping out but if Facebook really thinks using some photo of a doll I tortured or a snapshot of my mom and grandma is going to bring in the users, have at it. These are snapshots for fun. The things I upload to Instagram are not art. (I have an actual camera camera for taking Etsy listing photos.)

12. caseball2051

Posts: 31; Member since: Feb 09, 2012

youre missing the point. if they wanted to take a picture of your mom and grandma and sell it for profit (which youll see 0% of the money) to a nursing home to use on a brochure they can.

13. XPERIA-KNIGHT unregistered

exactly......but the thing is............why are they so damn concerend about money........i mean i know its "money" and all but there should be a more reasonable and "honest" cause for doing somthing like this...........seems like there just saying "we're going to use YOU to get paid!"

19. caseball2051

Posts: 31; Member since: Feb 09, 2012

theyre concerned about money because theyre a business and thats waht businesses concern themselves with...lol you dont go into business to break even. the stock isnt doing as well as tehy expected and now they need to satisfy their holders.

21. XPERIA-KNIGHT unregistered

dude ive heard it all before........and while what you're saying may be a "fact" GREED wont get you any further than what you are now......accept that or not but watch as they fall if they continue to thrive off of that motive alone...

17. SavageLucy42

Posts: 211; Member since: Mar 24, 2011

My point was that these are s**tty photos that I can't imagine them using.

18. XPERIA-KNIGHT unregistered

shitty or not their still gonna have to come up with a better reason than just wanting to flat out use us for their benefit...

20. caseball2051

Posts: 31; Member since: Feb 09, 2012

i just gave you a perfectly valid scenario where your pictures would be used. if you dont care about others profitting from your property more power to you, but this will make them lose some members

26. SavageLucy42

Posts: 211; Member since: Mar 24, 2011

Why would anyone use Instagram/Facebook photos as stock photography when there are many really great, professionally shot, extremely cheap/affordable stock photo websites already established?

30. caseball2051

Posts: 31; Member since: Feb 09, 2012

who gets paid more? strangers that get paid 0$, or models who get paid real money? its simple economics. cmon

34. quakan

Posts: 1418; Member since: Mar 02, 2011

Then don't virtually hand them your pictures if you don't want them to have a copy. Simple as that.

22. BREvenson

Posts: 240; Member since: May 17, 2012

I don't really use Instagram as much as I hoped I would when I first downloaded it. Now, I really have no desire to ever use it again. Though the chances of them using any pictures I may take are slim to none, I still feel better knowing that I am not contributing to the new agenda.

25. SavageLucy42

Posts: 211; Member since: Mar 24, 2011

If you're really concerned that a real pet food company would pay money to utilize a grainy orange tinted photo of your dog, why not just watermark your photos? Better yet realize that there are stock photos out there that are extremely cheap and professionally shot.

31. caseball2051

Posts: 31; Member since: Feb 09, 2012

youre still wrong. if youre ok with people captalizing on your photographs stay a member of instagram. if you dont want people using your image and making money on your photos dont join.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.