Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest chap44uns

Instagram can sell your photos without permission

28 posts in this topic

Someone paste the ting

/

Might have to delete mine still, can't be selling my photos to modelling agencies and nuttin goes into my pocket u kno dem ones dare

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't really read the full story did you?

And you may wanna check your other accounts you have online, you'll find most ToS are pretty much the same

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats right, your actual whole persona, the witty, entertaining idiot you created is owned by someone else. Go back to your shameless, clumsy existence in reality.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nah I'd rather go back to my home town Columbia and just chill cos iam a worthless wasteman here in the uk

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shit your in Vienna?

nah you've made it

Fek Vienna u kna

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rahh nah I rate you for that still there's only a few man in the world that can actually say theyve been on holiday before

:/

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol I dissheveled you and your putrid thread fark orf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instagram seeks right to sell access to photos to advertisers
_64691328_hi016678305.jpg Instagram was bought by Facebook in April 2012

Facebook's photo-sharing site Instagram has updated its privacy policy giving it the right to sell users' photos to advertisers without notification.

Unless users delete their Instagram accounts by a deadline of 16 January, they cannot opt out.

The changes also mean Instagram can share information about its users with Facebook, its parent company, as well as other affiliates and advertisers.

The move riled social media users, with one likening it to a "suicide note".

The new policies follow Facebook's record $1bn (£616m; 758 euro) acquisition of Instagram in April.

Facebook's vice-president of global marketing solutions Carolyn Everson earlier this month had said: "Eventually we'll figure out a way to monetise Instagram."

A notice updating the privacy policy on the Instagram site said: "We may share your information as well as information from tools like cookies, log files, and device identifiers and location data with organisations that help us provide the service to you... (and) third-party advertising partners."

"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you," it said in its terms of use.

But Instagram said that its aim was to make it easier to work with Facebook.

"This means we can do things like fight spam more effectively, detect system and reliability problems more quickly, and build better features for everyone by understanding how Instagram is used," it said in a statement.

'Suicide note'

However, the updated policy will not change how it handles photo ownership or who is able to see a user's pictures, it added.

But the new policy has triggered a backlash among social media users, with some threatening to quit.

One user tweeted: "Good bye #instagram. Your new terms of service are totally stupid and nonsense. Good luck playing with the big boys."

New York-based photographer Clayton Cubbit wrote on his account that the new policy was "Instagram's suicide note".

Analysts said that the new policies could deal a blow to Facebook's reputation and alienate some users.

Richard Holway, chairman of TechMarketView, said: "Every time Facebook has altered their privacy policy it has led to a backlash and they've been forced to retreat. They tamper with people's privacy at a cost. People are very upset."

Alan Pelz-Sharpe, research director at 451 Research, added: "It's a barefaced tactic that Facebook and Instagram have taken, and one that will likely meet with many challenges, legally and ethically.

"The fact is that Facebook has critical mass, and is quite confident that such moves may cause uproar, but not a flight of business.

"Larger firms like Facebook are essentially trailblazing before specific regulations can catch up with them, and as we have seen with Google in the past, regulations and laws have limited real impact on their business operations - so they tend to move forward regardless of opposition."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok see some girls they faviorate my pics and follow me but I can't see their pictures as their profiles are set to private will this mean a change in this as surely people with private accounts pictures will be affected?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rahh nah I rate you for that still there's only a few man in the world that can actually say theyve been on holiday before

:/

lol what I was thinking

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not talking about holidays though are we, were talking 8 citys two of them twice in the past 2 months. Werent even a boast ting before but russia cant jump on it like say the last time he left the country werent to go see his russian family is some baltic ice block, sponsored by your mum

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt they would try selling photos . it's probably just having access to them to use in personalized ads like Facebook currently has

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

instagram is just for fags and drama queens anyway. let them sell them all into slavery for all i care.

great idea though. the way to make serious dosh today is to make pple have their 15mins of fame and voila.. ur a billi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instagram took perving too a whole new level for me this year.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't use it, but this must be the dumbest PR move ever, at least if you're gonna do this, do it on the sly like Google and Apple do on their T's & C's.

 

I know they need to be making money from Instagram but they should have thought of this before buying.

 

Also, lol at thinking you own the pics you have on Facebook...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never seen the hype for instagram

 

dont even browse it

 

like Freddie Mercury up there said, its for attention whores and people taking pics of food/trainers

 

just dont see the point

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it used to be the one until the youngers jumped on it

 

just like facebook

 

just like myspace

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't really read the full story did you?

 

 

 

 

 

Quit Instagram, They Said. They’re Selling Your Photos, They Said.

 

The real worldQuit, verb, to leave (a place), usually permanently.

The internetQuit, verb, to threaten to leave as loudly as possible, usually over something stupid, then do nothing.

Some days I feel like the blogosphere is full of paranoid attention whores. Other days, I’m sure of it. Today is one of those days.

Seriously — what the fuck happened this morning?

What started last night as a few people wondering about some (maybe) questionable wording in Instagram’s terms of service turned into full-on rage tweeting this morning. Every other tweet in my stream was someone suggesting that they were quitting the service. The clear implication was that Facebook had succeeded in whispering poison words into Instagram’s ear.

“How dare they do this?!” “Do what?” “THIS!” “AHHHHHHH!!!”

I did what any rational person would do: I started making fun of those people. But it didn’t stop. It got louder and louder and louder. Soon celebrities were boycotting, people were threatening to go back to Flickr — Flickr! And then, naturally, came story after story after story after story — each more ridiculous than the last.

The only problem? No one actually stopped to think about all of this for a second. Worse, it seems no one bothered to actually read the terms of service changes and compare them to the old version. That only occurred this afternoon when Nilay Patel of The Verge actually did the legwork. As a lawyer, he’s perhaps uniquely positioned to do that. But really, anyone could have, you know, just talked to Instagram or Facebook to clarify. I’m sure some tried to and maybe they weren’t commenting just yet. But then maybe, just maybe, wait to publish those ridiculous stories?

Nah. What fun would that be?

Well, now we have Instagram’s actual statement on the matter, and it’s pretty straightforward: “To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos,” wrote co-founder Kevin Systrom. He goes on to note that: “The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question.” Not quite as straightforward — and I’m sure we’ll have 15 more blog posts on the matter — but clearly well-intentioned.

That’s the thing: why was the default thought here to assume that Instagram was out to do something nefarious? Because Facebook now owns the company? Why is it the default thinking that Facebook is out to do something nefarious?

Yes, these companies have business models predicated on serving up advertisements to you so that you can continue to use their services for free. Many others do this as well, most notably, Google. (As an aside, can you imagine the outrage if Gmail were to do something like roll out advertising based on the content of your email?! Wait a minute…) You can argue about whether this is a more or less altruistic model than selling goods and services, but the fact of the matter is that it exists because it works and people deal with it.

The problem with jumping to the conclusion that these companies are out to get you is twofold: 1) You sound like a delusional, paranoid jackass. 2) This would be the single-worst business model ever.

I’ve used the line somewhere before, but these companies are not SPECTRE out to do evil in an attempt to destroy the world. And yet, it seems that quite often people really believe that.

As a result, today, some people quit Instagram. Not a lot, mind you, because rather than actually take a stand, most people are cowards or fools who don’t actually intend to stand behind their words and care far more about hearing themselves yell to get retweets or pageviews. A few months ago, everyone quit Twitter for similar reasons. Except for the “everyone” part, of course. Months before that, it was Facebook. Actually, it seems to be constantly the case with Facebook. Except that every metric suggests the opposite actually happens each of those times.

My suggestion for the next time a situation like this happens — probably in a week or so: shut up, take a deep breath, and think. Use common sense. Just because a service is big and popular, it doesn’t mean they’re out to get you. In fact, it’s probably safe to assume that none of them are. Because if they were, they’d be done. No one is forcing anyone to use them. And torturing puppies isn’t a proven business model.

Sane people don’t quit services when they make terms of service changes. They quit them when they start to suck. Focus your energy on calling out the suckage.

Disclosure: I own shares of Facebook (both personally and through my role as a general partner withCrunchFund) specifically for when they perfect the business model of torturing puppies. See my other disclosures here.

 

http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/18/a-valencia-filtered-middle-finger/

 

snarky, but w/e

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this one actually breaks it down like Triple C's feat. Bun B and is less condescending

 

 

 

No, Instagram can't sell your photos: what the new terms of service really mean

Turns out no one really trusts Facebook after all 

 

 

You agree that a business may pay Instagram to display your photos in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions without any compensation to you.

That sentence was added to Instagram's terms of service yesterday, sparking widespread outrage — the most panicked analysis claims Instagram just gave itself permission to sell everyone's photos at will. Even the least icky hypothetical scenarios being tossed around are completely icky: your parents leave a comment on a photo of your kid, and five minutes later, they're looking at an ad for a new life insurance policy featuring that same intimate photo of their grandchild. Is this really the future of Instagram?

Well, in a way. But it's a lot more like Facebook's current "sponsored post" system than anything else — there's no way Instagram can up and sell your photos to anyone, and advertisers are fairly limited in what they can do with those photos. Here's what's going on.

 

THERE'S NO WAY INSTAGRAM CAN SELL YOUR PHOTOS TO ANYONE

 

Instagram's new terms of service, which go into effect on January 16th, clearly state that your photographs and associated information (like location data) can be promoted by companies without anyone notifying you about the transaction. It's not even hidden in legalese — it's right there in black and white:

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.

Adding to the creep factor, the next section says that Instagram "may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such." They're not even going to tell anyone about the ads. Again: icky.

But let's step back for a minute and think about what this actually means. First, like every other company on the web that stores user data, Instagram has always had an expansive license to use and copy your photos. It has to — that's how it runs its networks of servers around the world. And Instagram's existing terms specifically give the company the right to "place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content." Instagram has always had the right to use your photos in ads, almost any way it wants. We could have had the exact same freakout last week, or a year ago, or the day Instagram launched.

 

INSTAGRAM HAS ALWAYS HAD AN EXPANSIVE LICENSE TO USE AND COPY YOUR PHOTOS

 

The new terms actually make things clearer and — importantly — more limited. That "on, about, or in conjunction" with language is dead and gone. Now you're only agreeing that someone else can pay Instagram to display your photos and other information only in connection with paid or sponsored content. These phrases have very specific meanings — Instagram can't sell your photos to anyone, for example. It simply doesn't have permission. And Budweiser isn't allowed to crop your photo of a bar, slap a logo on it, and run it as an ad on Instagram — that would go well beyond "display" and into modification, which Instagram doesn't have a license to do. (In fact, the old Instagram terms allowed for modification, but the new ones don't — they actually got better for users in that regard.) In technical legal terms, Instagram doesn't have the right to create a "derivative work" under 17 USC §106. The company can't sell your photos, and it can't take your photos and change them in any meaningful way.

So what can Instagram do? Well, an advertiser can pay Instagram to display your photos in a way that doesn't create anything new — so Budweiser can put up a box in the timeline that says "our favorite Instagram photos of this bar!" and put user photos in there, but it can't take those photos and modify them, or combine them with other content to create a new thing. Putting a logo on your photo would definitely break the rules. But putting a logo somewhere near your photos? That would probably be okay.

If all of this seems vaguely familiar, it's because it's basically what Facebook has been doing with Sponsored Posts for months now — advertisers can pay to "sponsor" your posts in various categories to make sure they prominently appear in your friends' News Feeds. So if you "like" The Hobbit, the filmmakers can pay Facebook to promote that post across Facebook. The main difference is that Facebook is a little more clear and careful about what can and can't be promoted — you do lots of different kinds of things on Facebook, so it fundamentally has more things to sell. Pretty much all you do on Instagram is share photos, so there's just not much else the company can do to make money except use those photos and your data to sell ads.

 

INSTAGRAM SCREWED UP ROYALLY BY NOT EXPLAINING THESE TERMS IN ANY WAY

 

And anything to do with your personal photos can be icky. Turning a "like" of a new film or status update about a morning coffee into advertising for Iron Man and Starbucks is an explicit statement about a product or brand — Facebook's simply taking our actions and repackaging them as social ad units. Instagram photos don't really have that connection: the company will be using our personal emotional moments in a limited commercial manner, even if they have no connection to the product being sold. And make no mistake: Instagram screwed up royally by publishing these new terms of service and not explaining them in any way. They could be written better and more clearly, and Instagram's intentions could be made much more plain. Instagram has our photos — the company has a responsibility to tell us exactly how it plans to make money with them, even if the plans are fairly benign.

 

THE REAL LESSON HERE ISN'T ABOUT INSTAGRAM — IT'S ABOUT HOW LITTLE WE TRUST FACEBOOK

 

All startups learn harsh lessons like this sometimes, but Instagram is a startup no longer: the company just made close to a billion dollars selling itself to Facebook. That's great, but the downside is that Instagram is now part of Facebook, the company we all love to hate because of its relentless quest to monetize our private lives. It's no wonder Instagram's new terms have triggered a passionate, emotional reaction in people who don't understand them — the same thing happens to Facebook users who are constantly falling for privacy hoaxes.

In fact, 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.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are re-writing the T&C's, you will retain all ownership to your pictures (unlike any picture that is on facebook)

 

 

Yesterday we introduced a new version of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that will take effect in thirty days. These two documents help communicate as clearly as possible our relationship with the users of Instagram so you understand how your data will be used, and the rules that govern the thriving and active Instagram community. Since making these changes, we’ve heard loud and clear that many users are confused and upset about what the changes mean.

I’m writing this today to let you know we’re listening and to commit to you that we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion. As we review your feedback and stories in the press, we’re going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos.

 

Legal documents are easy to misinterpret. So I’d like to address specific concerns we’ve heard from everyone:

Advertising on Instagram From the start, Instagram was created to become a business. Advertising is one of many ways that Instagram can become a self-sustaining business, but not the only one. Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. 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. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.

 

To provide context, we envision a future where both users and brands alike may promote their photos & accounts to increase engagement and to build a more meaningful following. Let’s say a business wanted to promote their account to gain more followers and Instagram was able to feature them in some way. In order to help make a more relevant and useful promotion, it would be helpful to see which of the people you follow also follow this business. In this way, some of the data you produce — like the actions you take (eg, following the account) and your profile photo — might show up if you are following this business.

The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. Our main goal is to avoid things like advertising banners you see in other apps that would hurt the Instagram user experience. Instead, we want to create meaningful ways to help you discover new and interesting accounts and content while building a self-sustaining business at the same time.

 

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.

I always want you to feel comfortable sharing your photos on Instagram and we will always work hard to foster and respect our community and go out of our way to support its rights.

 

Privacy Settings 

Nothing has changed about the control you have over who can see your photos. If you set your photos to private, Instagram only shares your photos with the people you’ve approved to follow you. We hope that this simple control makes it easy for everyone to decide what level of privacy makes sense.

I am grateful to everyone for their feedback and that we have a community that cares so much. We need to be clear about changes we make — this is our responsibility to you. One of the main reasons these documents don’t take effect immediately, but instead 30 days from now, is that we wanted to make sure you had an opportunity to raise any concerns. You’ve done that and are doing that, and that will help us provide the clarity you deserve. Thank you for your help in making sure that Instagram continues to thrive and be a community that we’re all proud of. Please stay tuned for updates coming soon.

 

Sincerely,

Kevin Systrom co-founder, Instagram

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0