Slashdot Mirror
Instagram Wants To Sell Users' Photos Without Notice
DavidGilbert99 writes "Many Instagram users have reacted angrily to a proposed change to the apps terms of service by owner Facebook, which would give the social network 'perpetual' rights to all photos on Instagram, allowing it to sell the photos to advertisers without notice — or payment to the user. The new policy will come into effect on 16 January, just four months after Facebook completed its $1bn acquisition of Instagram. It states that Facebook has a right to distribute any content posted on Instagram without paying the user royalties:"
Also worth reading Declan McCullagh's take on it.
Instagram bubble
Like your photos are stubble
That they'll just whisk away
And save you the trouble.
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Never had instagram. Now I never will get one.
There is going to a lot of food images up for grabs...
It's not like there's any real competitors to Instagram. I mean, we never uploaded pictures to the internet before them, right?
Just when I thought I could never want to use Instagram less, this happens.
They want to sell shitty pictures, taken by shitty camera phones, that have shitty filters applied to them? Great business model there.
I played around with instagram for a few days, but I never really saw the point of it. I can take and post pictures with the camera that came with my phone. If I want to play around with the picture I have other apps for that, and they do not send the picture back to a mother ship.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
at what point is enough, enough. When are people going to quit Facebook/Instagram/whatever en masse as these deliberate and calculated abuses continue?
These are your pictures. You own them. No corporation has the right to use them without your permission just because they are holding them.
Sure, one can always not put up pictures, but that defeats the whole point of Instagram, doesn't it?
There are options. One could always upload the picture with a big watermark on it or plaster a copyright symbol and your name on it, but knowing these shysters, they would just remove those things and still claim it's theirs.
Just another reason why I don't use any of these "services".
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I think not. They've got to be looking for any revenue stream they can and this is just another commoditization of their user base. Nothing is free after all.
All the morons need do is read to what they agree and the world would be a better place, for me, and you !! So shine a little love !! and give InstaGram your vote of APPROVAL !!
I feel like Instagram is grasping for straws as it is and this sort of move seals their fate.
... those angry users uploaded the photos to Instagram? Why post your personal photos to some website in the first place?
Yes, this is a shitty thing to do. So don't use Instagram or Facebook or any of the other "services" that are constantly trying to screw you for their profit. We got along just fine for a very long time without Facebook or Instagram. Time to grow up and move on.
....aaaaaaaaaaaaand switch.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
For all that parents get up in arms about digital services abusing the privacy rights of their children (resulting in support of laws such as the US's COPPA), they continue to volunteer for services which violate their own privacy rights.
Adults have more to lose in this battle than children.
I saw this yesterday, and was shocked. This is effectively stealing all users' photos that have been uploaded thus far, and a pretty sleazy thing to do even for new users. If I was an instagram user, my first action after seeing this would be to delete my account. There is almost nothing instagram could offer me that would be worth giving them this kind of free control over all of my photos.
The privacy implications for photos containing people is even more staggering. I doubt most people on instagram have current model releases for their photographs, so using these commercially could get any number of people sued, but based on the instagram policy, it very well could be the user who took them initially, then "gave instagram permission to use them commercially."
I would expect this policy to change, but if it doesn't by January 5 or so, I would suggest all instagram users delete their accounts. Also, if it doesn't change by then, watch out for Facebook's terms to change to something similar.
This should not surprise anyone, as facebook does this already. Nothing to see here, move along!
Contracts between online service vendors and consumers need to be regulated by law. There has to be some kind of way to define some bare minimums that these contracts adhere to. Such as, the terms of contract changes, ownership of data, etc.
Either that, or online contracts should simply be invalid. In this case I suppose that the owners of the data (pictures) would own them.
EFF's Opsahl says the new policy runs afoul of his group's voluntary best practices for social networks. He added: "Hopefully at some point we'll get greater clarity from Facebook and Instagram."
Could they be any more clear? "We own everything, bwaa-haa-haa"?
I'm sure this is just a polite way of saying, "What the f*ck do you think you are doing? Stop this sh*t now!".
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Deleted app from iPhone and iPads.
"The new policy will come into effect on 16 January, just four months after Facebook completed its $1bn acquisition of Instagram"
I'm sure the timing is a coincidence though.
they need to have a $5/month keep-my-crap private mode.
I dont know what is the great thing about instagram. It's just an app to apply some filters used mostly to apply a vintage effect in a photo of a meal. I know people here on /. don't need someone -me- to help you how to find an app to replace instagram, but please let your friends know about EyeEm or Snapseed. Anyway, results are almost the same.
My photos are copyrighted by me and if they do that, there will be an official takedown notice of Instagram and or facebook
Except loss making Internet scam Facebook, has the details of who your close friends, not so close friends, relatives and enemies are. Of those, you may only have Instagram'd your photo to your close friends, but the rest would pay to see it, particularly your unfrienermies.
Facebook recently stopped letting Instagram photos be posted around freely, starting with Twitter. So it's only a matter of time before they sell access to your photos. The only people interested are friends, former friends and stalkers who didn't receive it. Since most people have their privacy rights changed by Facebook without them knowing it, they don't know Facebook has probably already given themselves the rights to show those photos outside your account, unless you press button Z twice on page broken link.
Facebook recently started selling 'adverts', so if you have money and want to send information to your following friends, you need to pay or they won't see it. In effect it is selling you the relationship you made and it broke. This is the flip side of that.
You see that it's not about selling photos to random people, because random people aren't interested in how drunk you were at a bar last night. Your boss on the other hand.. Your wife... Your angry ex-unfriended girlfriend. Or even for that matter your mum, who you decided didn't really need to see that, but FB knows she wants to look anyway.
This is despicable of course. And Instagram/Facebook needs to clearly and loudly (e.g. a click through notice when you login, and every day later until the 16th) explains this change in the ToS, and explains what it means (in plain English, not lawyer speak). But I bet they don't.
Anyway, any pictures with identifiable images of people in them could be a problem for whichever company purchases the image. Because of model rights you know? If an ad is run which has a person who is clearly identifiable, then in most places a model release is required. And I bet you that Instragram doesn't require that photographers have people sign model releases...
Oh, and the blog post:
A bit of a lie really. The key point from the various articles is:
http://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/updated/
You can express your disapproval of these changes by emailing support@instagram.com.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Whatever fb will do with the pictures, if there is a company that already does similar stuff, it can sue fb for abusing their monopoly in the social network market to dominate other markets.
This makes me rethink before simply accepting terms and conditions without reading on any online website.
approach to eliminating personal privacy. It creates another big bru-ha-ha in the media (useful for brand awareness) which then dies down after a few weeks, and then it's business as usual. How far has facebook twisted its own 'privacy' policy by now compared to how it started? It's just amazing how easy they are getting away with slowly boiling the lobster.
Sell if you can !!
But I posted that disclaimer on Facebook expressly forbidding them to do that
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
How can Instagram casually assume that the uploader even HAS the right to assign republishing rights to them? OK, fine... the TOS requires that uploaders have the rights. We all know that a certain percentage won't comply. How many times does Instagram really want to spin the roulette wheel and risk getting nailed by a lawsuit from someone who owns the copyright on a wrongly-uploaded photo... in a strict-liability jurisdiction with joint and several liability? In English, that means Jim might, under Instagram TOS, be 100% liable for infringement if he uploads a photo and gets Instagram sued when they republish it, but at the end of the day, Jim isn't going to pay that million-dollar lawsuit... Instagram will, because Jim is likely to be judgment-proof, and any halfway-competent attorney could get the judgment to adhere to Instagram regardless of what they might claim.
Not to mention, model releases. If Jim posts pictures taken at a birthday party his child attends, Instagram would legally need releases from every person (or their legal guardian) recognizable in the picture (with a few exceptions, but it's still a minefield).
Did I mention the legal suicide mission of using pics that have anything to DO with kids from Europe? I think in Germany, it's not even legal to use kids in an advertisement for anything, period... consent from fame-whoring parents or not. Or for that matter, the fact that fucked up French copyright law allows you to copyright the image of buildings and structures, even structures that dominate the horizon and are visible from literally miles away (like the Eiffel Tower and the Millau Viaduct), and (in legal theory, at least) make it almost impossible to publish photos taken almost anywhere in Paris (due to the large number of "historically and/or architecturally-significant structures") if they show a complete building facade of one or more buildings in the background? Granted, the French situation is slightly unique, and is used mainly by the French government as a tool for censorship of unflattering and politically-sensitive images, but that's just one country out of hundreds.
There's a reason why big corporations get all of their public photos from companies like Getty Images -- it lets their management and lawyers sleep at night knowing that the copyright clearances and model releases have all been taken care of, and the image vendor itself is big enough to pay any lawsuit that might arise from the photo's licensed use. It's also why some people have had so much fun showing the same clip-art models really getting around, and showing up in everything from ads to "happy employee" photos to patients at STD clinics.
He shouldn't be writing about this without disclosing his conflict of interest. Heck, she shouldn't be writing about this. Google does its own evil things with users' content.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/05/12/1935205/twitpic-will-sell-your-photos-but-no-cash-for-you
facebook needs the right to distribute photos in order to let people access them in a news feed. i havent read the instagram terms and conditions but google docs contains a similar right to distribute. however google explicitly say they use this right only to support the functionality of google docs, they dont seek to own your content
Not surprised by this, once someone makes money stealing others, web sites. It is almost a guarantee they will buy out technology, (thinking it is worth something) then butt fuck anyone else out of there say.
Taking there examples from Asshole (Apple), and MicroShit...
Now we'll have to find a new boobwatch site.
So you could take pics and upload from iphone and then share on facebook or wherever, and control your pics better.
If you don't like what a business has done to you (or not done), the one thing you can do to show them your displeasure is to vote with your feet. And then tell everyone you did and why. It's a hard fact that 95% of customers that receive bad service never complain to the vendor, they just leave and tell everyone what happened. That means that for every one of us complaining to Instagram and Facebook, there are 19 others that are leaving and telling their friends about the crappy service they got.
I deleted my Instagram account yesterday since I hardly used it and I wasn't about to let any of my pictures be used by ANYONE without my permission. I've also curtailed my Facebook use drastically, deleting them from my Mac and phone since I realized all the "appointments" that were cropping up on my WORK calendar were coming from them.
I am Homer of Borg, resistance is - Ooo Donuts!
These so called "social" websites are a fraud. Nobody reads these terms of service and they know it. They don't have any legitimate way of making money so they steal what you upload and sell it. Nice business model. Just because they give me a few megs of space on their server should not mean that they retain full ownership rights to my pictures. If that's their terms of service fine, but I'm not playing that game.
So what happens if you upload someone else's photo to the service, then that photo is sold and re-used without the original artist's permission. I would presume that Instagram would be at fault, since they sold the content.
hello world.
I never understood why Instagram is supposedly worth so much
Could someone explain this to me?
I can see why FB are trying to claw that back by douchebag moves like this.
I'm so glad I never got around to using that service.
I'll stick with my privately hosted blog where I control all of the material.
Just because you've granted a license (through TOS, etc) to a third party, so they can use material for which you still retain the copyrights ... does NOT mean that the subjects in the photos have waived their privacy rights. Third parties looking to use the images commercially (NOT the photographer!) are the ones responsible for having that signed model release in hand, and are the targets for a suit in case of mis-using someone's likeness. Doesn't mean the pissed off subject won't also sue the photographer (because you can sue the proverbial ham sandwich, if you want), but the law is very clear in this area. The party that puts the image to commercial use is the one that needs the release in hand. It's not the photographer's responsibility to obtain it, keep it, or provide it to anyone (unless they've signed a contract with a third party that calls for them to do so ... but that's very specific, professional circumstances).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If you read a little further down in the EULA, it also says they have the right to perform medical experiments on you, including making you part of a human centipede...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
how can we provoke them to fail? we must upload strange unseen images of celebrities with powerful lawyers.... think taylor swift at 10 years
old or demi moore in a halloween costume so you cant quite tell its her.... powerful people that are hard to immediately identify
but who have deadly powerful lawyers who fight anyone over anything.... turn them on instagram.... we need people to claim that
images of the president in college are really images of them (fake profile) etc....
They won't own them, as the Terms make explicitly clear. At the same time, you "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".
So, yes, you still own your photos, and yes, they can do anything they want with them.
The SHOCKING thing would be if FB did NOT do this.
If I'm under 18 and upload a photo, Instagram may ask me to certify that I have a model release on everyone in the photo, but that won't hold up in court.
If Instagram uses the photos commercially without a model release, the person in the picture can sue Instagram for big bucks. Instagram can cancel my account, but it's very doubtful they could sue me. Even if they did, good luck collecting.
Even if I am over 18, if I am so poor as to be "judgment proof" Instagram could wind up paying out big bucks to people who are in the photos.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You all fell for it so enjoy it.
They're not worth $1 billion. Instagram were bought using mostly Facebook shares and $300 million in cash. It wasn't even worth the $300 million, but there were reasons why they bought it.
Facebook had an IPO coming up, to establish its shares had value, they decided to buy something with shares. Since Facebook had been making losses, its shares could be worthless if people believed they're worthless. So it bought Instagram for ONE BILLION DOLLARS (small print: mostly shares of Facebook). To seal the deal they paid $300 million in cash, since of course Instagram backers are not stupid, they know the game!
Thus Facebook establishes that it's shares have a worth, and Instagram do a big marketing and PR exercise giving third party validation to Facebooks IPO worth. Instagram of course, have nothing to lose. They've sold a small business for $300 million and all they have to do for that is back up Facebooks claim of value. For them it was a win-win
Facebook goes to market, pulls in tens of billions, despite being a loss making business whose most popular thing is a Farm game they don't own, and the investors have buyers remorse.
Similar to a mock auction, except that instead of being arrested and thrown in jail, the head of the Fed does a speech in your honor for pumping an asset bubble.
Actually, that is not a right. And, in fact, SCOTUS ruled as much earlier this year by upholding Obamacare, and saying that people can be coerced to purchase something by taxation - having to pay a tax for refusing to purchase something.
So, in essence, you don't have a right to vote with your wallet.
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
.
Am I misreading this? It doesn't look like Instagram is selling your data, only changing how they may use it.
i.e. Instagram is choosing to your use existing data as a part of targeted advertisements delivered to you. They are _NOT_ selling the data to advertisers, but instead saying to advertisers "Here's the types of data we have, you tell us how you want it displayed when your ads come up". As another Slashdotter already mentioned, "Hey Mike, Dave just got back from an awesome trip to Rome!". The service could grab a picture of you, grab a picture of Dave from his recent Rome trip, and do some swapping of bodies in the pictures. Then inject a message of "Image yourself enjoying Rome like Dave did".
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but if I'm reading this correctly this is a pretty smart move. Instagram holds the data, the advertisers link to the data, but do not have a copy of it. They avoid all of the legal issues by not selling the data, and, make more money in the process.
They take the rights, but do they also take the responsibilities?
I never bought into the Instagram app is that I knew this crap would happen. Now I do upload photos directly to Facebook and I'm concerned about rights there.
But I like how flickr does it - I can set attributions on the photos and I've actually sold a few photos on that site and I got the profit.
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further!" -- Darth Zuckerberg
But, we can't downlaod their movies..... not fair :)
overwhelm the system with uploads of already copyrighted material ;)
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
My friends think I'm weird because I won't let people take my picture. I tell them about social networking sites and facial recognition technology and how the only way to stay out of the system is to abstain completely.
Social networking sites are like Africa. Facebook is HIV, MySpace is Hepatitis, and Google+ is some parasite that you never realize you've contracted but stays with you for the rest of your life. Okay, non-car analogies are difficult. The point is, when in Africa, keep your dick in your pants. When on the internet, keep your personal information away from the infectious diseases that are social networking sites. Sadly, it's gotten to a point where a crappy cell phone picture of you might as well be your social security number.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Hoedown!
If you bothered reading what people are posting, you'd realize that this is not what the concern is.
Not that I ever read the TOS before agreeing to them, but I always just kinda assumed it would have some sort of broad language saying "you relinquish all rights to everything, ever". Isn't that pretty much what they all say?
I have no FaceBook account, and I don't know what Instygram is. Should I be worried, because I'm not.
All this Instagram and Facebook stuff raises a very interesting, and as yet unresolved, issue. What exactly are your digital rights on the internet? Who owns your digital image? How can it be used? Can it be used without your explicit permission?
If I were to follow someone around long enough I would probably be able to snap a picture of them scratching their ass or picking their nose. What's to stop me from publicly posting that image for the express intention of embarrassing that person? Currently...nothing. What if I were to take the original picture and doctor it up so that your ears look huge or your eyes are crossed or I put some fake acne on your face and then publish it? The possibilities are endless.
If I write a book or a document or some code I can copyright that material so that others cannot steal it. But I cannot copyright my likeness. Some advertising firm could troll through Instagram photos and find a picture of someone that might look right for their latest ad campaign. Then they superimpose the person's face in the magazine ad and - bingo - instant ad copy and they don't have to pay you a dime. It's unfair, it's immoral and it's an invasion of privacy.
How's that Facebook Cloud working for ya now??? I've never had one, never will. Because of shit like this. People always ask me "why aren't you on facebook?" Maybe this will convince them I was right.
So what you are saying is that the "ad supported" business model fails and Instagram shouldn't have started up in the first place?
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
The 'commercial' part is going to come back to haunt them. The rules for commercial use are so different than for non-commercial use. They will shut down the commercial aspect the first time one of the following happens:
1) A user takes a picture of a person who did not consent to commercial use of their likeness. (something that is not needed for the original individual to post for non-commercial use)
2) A photographer gives an individual a photograph without license for commercial use and that someone posts the photograph with consent for non-commercial purposes and it's used a third-party for commercial purposes.
In each of the above cases the up-loader was within their rights and the commercial publisher can't get an appropriate license because the up-loader didn't have the appropriate permissions.
The commercial publisher is going to be the target of the law suits and they won't be able to use the defense of any license because the up-loader didn't have the appropriate license to transfer. They can try and sue Instagram to recover damages and Instagram may try to sue the original up-loader, but I can't see that getting very far. (not for lack of trying as much as for lack of money and original usage not violating the usage.
Examples of case one.. I was in Story Land a few years back, and this young woman had a frown on her face, I can only image she wanted to be somewhere else.. anyway, I took a picture of her on one of the rides with this huge frown and arms folded across her chest. (not that anyone would want to use her photo as a advertisement for the story land, but I think it falls under editorial if not artistic use... but I have no right to use her image for commercial purposes, so can't give that right to anyone else)
Example for case two, both of my kids school pictures included a small sized digital image which was explicitly licensed for non-commercial usage. So I was within my rights to use it non-commercial. posting it so relatives could see them. ( as I didn't get a commercial right I can't transfer one)
Even if I used Instagram (which I don't), even if I am agreeing that by uploading an image I transfer all rights, I can't transfer what I don't own. Commercial publisher sues, Instagram, Instagram sues me .... I doubt it, and the Commercial Publisher has no relationship with me, so they can't sue me. Even if I was sued, I can't believe any judge would find against me as I didn't attempt any commercial usage and even if they did.... They would likely spend more on the legals fees than they would ever see from me.
I would normally say, no 'legit' commercial publisher is going to purchase and use a photograph for commercial use without a firm release signed, etc.... but there this case not that long ago.. and many similar ones since then....
http://www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157600541608353/
FTFA:
"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" explain the new Terms of Service
This means, not only your photos, but your name, location and comments could be sold by Facebook to third-parties.
I don't think "pay us to show you things that have been uploaded to Instagram" == "sell your photos, name, location, and comments to third parties".
Sensationalist article not only has an annoying video, it's also wrong.
If you want to retain ownership of your data, host it on your own server.
Sorry.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"That seems narcissistic"
TODO...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
download your pictures....
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/416349/20121218/download-instagram-photos.htm
delete your account....
https://instagram.com/accounts/login/?next=/accounts/remove/request/
"Here's a pic of your roommate Dave dipping his balls in T.G.I. FRIDAY'S NEW ZESTY POMEGRANATE RANCH SAUCE! Don't you want to "get some" at T.G.I. FRIDAY'S today?"
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Oh, nothing??? When will people get the clue that anything that is given to you for free probably costs somebody something, and therefore the odds of somebody making money off the freebie you got approaches unity if it is a corporation giving it to you?
Duh, people! Am I really that much of a supergenius for being able to say, "No Shit, Sherlock!"
I bet the people who are complaining are the same who download pirate mp3.
I understand that Facebook wants to monetize your photos. But think on this: after you publishing on the Internet in an environment that was available 'for free', you expect to be the owner of these photos?
So how about thinking different and having your photos published in a free format? Having your photos available to people without worrying about what they will do?
Maybe then you will improve your life quality reducing your worries, your stress and moreover helping to create a more creative world!
Folks can forget about deleting all their pictures from the site. I guarantee they were archived before the announcement was made. They probably have the ever-popular "Only individual binding arbitration" agreement as well.
The internet stopped being the "Wild West" and became feudal Europe a long time ago.
In the 90s/00s I used to have my own website. I designed it myself, wrote the HTML and paid for web hosting so I could avoid Geocities. I uploaded my photos and shared the link with friends via email.
These days, I just don't have the time anymore and after a long day at work, the last thing I want to do is sit coding all evening just to upload a new album. So I share holiday snaps etc via Facebook and amusing pics via Twitter (different audiences). It's easy because someone else has done the hard work.
As everyone knows, there is no such thing as a free lunch and so developers and support staff must get paid. My understanding is that Instagram intends to do this by monetising the content users upload. The problem with today's society is that we don't want to pay people for their hard work, but we also don't want them to come up with innovative solutions like this which will allow them to keep their services to the end user.
I don't personally use Instagram but I do use Facebook and Twitter. I'm happy to keep uploading because I am too lazy to roll my own solution. I've given advice to my immediate family about finding HTML tutorials and inexpensive web hosts but strangely they don't seem to like the idea...
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
I don't see a problem with this.
If you want to be paid for your pictures, host them with a stock photography site that will pay you money when they sell your picture. Or if you want your valued pictures private, and they are actually valued, stop using shitty free services, and pay a couple bucks for real hosting.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
An instagram.
Seemingly altruistic social media site which performs a useful service to millions of users for free turns out to have business plan to profit from people's usage of the site, and does not in fact exist just to be free.
I'm disheartened to realize that there are still people who do not get this concept. Of course Instagram is going to sell your photos and not cut you in on the deal. You agreed to it in the T&C. Even if it wasn't in the T&C, the clause of "oh hey we can change this at any time with no notice and you proactively agree to any changes" is probably in there. Why in the hell did you think they set up this service? Because they want to "connect people through social experiences"? Fuck no, they want to sell this shit to whomever will pay for it.
Same as Facebook. Same as TwitPic. Same as every other site that does this for free.
You should just assume anything that you put online will be sold to the highest bidder and adjust your habits accordingly. If you don't what that photo of your dick to be on a porn site don't put it on Instagram.
Schnapple
It's fascinating that a good number of the folks who are complaining about not being compensated for the use of their photos are also the same people who gleefully traffic in pirated music and movies.
Funny how different IP law can look when you're on the other side of the fence.