New Instagram TOS claims right to your photos.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/12/18/instagrams-new-policies-could-put-them-out-of-business/

Basically, if I understand this, Instagram (and their owner Facebook) want to be allowed to sell any and all photo content the users post to advertisers (along with user identify data) without permission and compensating end users. 

I get that it is stated in the new Terms of Sevice (TOS) but when your only options is to delete your account before the Jan cutoff date, it strikes me...well a bit sneaky. 

Don't get me wrong, most folks photos are crap. The only worth to them is to the people involved but to claim such wide spanning rights strikes me as a bit sneaky.  Would it really kill them to be a bit more fair with their end users?

And that doesn't even cover the fact that they could using the photos taken by a minor who legally CAN'T give their consent.

[Moraline]

Also all of the celebrities who's images are worth millions. This is a massive violation of their rights. Their image is what they sell, if instagram is going to just take them and sell them without paying them, they are effectively taking away from their livelihoods.

I'm all for free use but when you start earning money off of other peoples images - that's a problem.

[Callie Del Noire]

The reason it stood out for me.. is..well both Yahoo and Microsoft have tried similiar shinagins in the past. yahoo did it with their webpages when at one point and Microsoft tried it with one version of word/office for like.. 2 weeks. They claimed right to use on any content put through the system that you agreed to by clicking on the Eula. And took a HAMMERING over it.

Of course I don't expect that Facebook will learn from them.

[Revolverman]

Facebook and privacy is like used motor oil and water.

[Callie Del Noire]

They are already tap dancing away from the change. One service that let's you back up your account has had like 10,000 users login today. Copying/backing up their stuff to the tune of like 200,000+ photos. I'd love to see how many accounts were shut down or deleted.

[Lithos]

Instagram reverted  their policy just while ago so it seems that the public upset worked at this case.

[Revolverman]

Instagram reverted  their policy just while ago so it seems that the public upset worked at this case.

Something tells me too little, too late.

[Lithos]

Yes, good reputation is easy to lose and hard to gain back.

[Curious UK]

Yes, good reputation is easy to lose and hard to gain back.

All the more so for companies and services,  call me cynical but I believe they most likely sold what images they could before changing it back again. I wonder how much money they made before they reverted their policy and if it was worth it in the end.

[Callie Del Noire]

All the more so for companies and services,  call me cynical but I believe they most likely sold what images they could before changing it back again. I wonder how much money they made before they reverted their policy and if it was worth it in the end.

That's just it. The new policy didn't take place yet. It was supposed to go off till sometime AFTER the new year. They lost standing for NOTHING.

[Lithos]

And they should well have realized how stupid idea it was cause many actual photographers actually use the service.

[Callie Del Noire]

And they should well have realized how stupid idea it was cause many actual photographers actually use the service.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/tech/social-media/instagram-terms-users/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Case in point.. Mark Zuckerman's own wedding photographer

[Revolverman]

Facebook has to be the most poorly run company on earth, at least when it comes to PR. Do you ever hear anything good about facebook ever since its IPO?

[Oniya]

Do Did you ever hear anything good about facebook ever since before its IPO?

Fixed

[TheGlyphstone]

Fixed

Back when it was a tiny, college-student-exclusive networking community, it apparently had some merit.