Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Instagram: We Won't Sell Your Photos

Posted by Soulskill on from the perhaps-now-the-internet-can-stop-panicking dept.

hugheseyau writes "Earlier, we discussed news that Instagram introduced a new version of their Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that will take effect in thirty days. The changes seemed to allow Instagram to sell users' photos, and many users were upset. Instagram now says 'it is not our intention to sell your photos' and that 'users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos.' This is good news for Instagram users." And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."

57 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

    They are OURS, fools!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by alphatel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      'it is not our intention to sell your photos' is not the same as "We won't ever sell your photos". History make a note before this is erased from yourself.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by sneakyimp · · Score: 4, Funny

      All your photo are belong to US.

    3. Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      'it is not our intention to sell your photos' is not the same as "We won't ever sell your photos". History make a note before this is erased from yourself.

      In no way does this mean we won't change our minds tomorrow. Suckers!

    4. Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by NFN_NLN · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."

      More like, "We were caught trying to stick it to our users BUT they called us on our shit."

    5. Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Instagram says "It is not our intention to sell your photos". Unsaid was "But our intention doesn't matter, since Facebook controls us now, and only their intention matters."

    6. Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by wwalker · · Score: 2

      It is not our intention...

      HA-HA-HA! "We have our dick up your bum hole, but it is not our intention to rape you any time soon!"

    7. Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't put anything on Google services that I might want to claim copyright on, for similar reasons. Google's TOS includes an unlimited license for them to publish any material that users put on their services:

      When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.

      Here's Google's disclaimer:

      Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your Gmail account.

      But note what Google does *not* promise to do: avoid harming users' economic interests in their data. Yes, you might still *own* your data, but you give Google practically unlimited permission to do anything it pleases with your data, up to and including binding it in a paper book and selling it.

      I'm not particularly concerned they'd do that -- that's sure to be viewed as unconscionable. I believe that what Google wants to do are things that some jury somewhere might construe as "publishing". Unfortunately, that same jury that would exonerate Google based on the TOS would also strip the author of certain special rights authors enjoy for unpublished manuscripts -- secrecy, for example. It is also possible (I hope) that at under future changes in copyright law, Google's having quasi-published a manuscript might effect its copyright term.

      Scientists might have similar issues with inadvertently "publishing" data by storing it on some Google service (Gmail for example), thus rendering it unpublishable in an academic journal.

      If Google intended to protect the users' interest in their data, they'd qualify the permissions they claim to "publish" your data so it only applied to public facing services. Yahoo does this:

      "Publicly accessible" areas of the Yahoo! Services are those areas of the Yahoo! network of properties that are intended by Yahoo! to be available to the general public.

      So I avoid GMail and use Yahoo Mail for anything I don't want "published", because Yahoo doesn't claim a right to "publish" emails and their attached documents, but in Gmail Google *does*.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Nobody has the intention to build a wall"

      --Walter Ulbricht, first secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of the GDR, 2 months before the Berlin Wall was built.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More like, " We were caught trying to stick it to our product BUT they called us on our shit."

      "So now we're trying to see if meaningless reassurances will smooth things over." What matters is the agreement terms. Until they change, nothing has chaned.

  2. The First Rule by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rule #0 of business agreements: If a contract says that the other party CAN do something, proceed under the assumption that they WILL do it.

    1. Re:The First Rule by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously. This is an insult to our intelligence. Of course, it'll probably fly because most people haven't had to deal with the inevitable conclusion when they change their mind, or the business isn't growing fast enough and they have to find money somewhere, or enough time has passed that they think they can get away with it, or somebody else is in charge with different notions of what a promise means and is empowered by this clause.

      "Oh, no, we won't ever actually do that. It's just in the contract because ... uh ... well, it's just there! Don't worry about it!"

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    2. Re:The First Rule by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rule of Acquisition #5: If you can't break a contract, bend it.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    3. Re:The First Rule by mirix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just like when they make a new law. Someone points out that this is overly vague or somehow over-reaching, and can be used for $bad_thing. Lawmakers say this is obviously not the intent, and will never be used for such, no need to worry your head about it.

      But they intend to use it in that manner soon and often, otherwise it would be rewritten.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    4. Re:The First Rule by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Well, it doesn't help that, in the past, we've already seen Facebook using people's personal photos in their third-party product ads.

      Instagram/Facebook claims those clauses are going to be rewritten. If that doesn't happen by, say, January 10th - I'd strongly suggest you delete your photos from Instagram and then remove your account.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:The First Rule by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2
      Don't forget:
      • Rule #52 Never ask when you can take.
      • Rule $60 Keep your lies consistent.
      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    6. Re:The First Rule by argux · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are at least 285 rules of acquisition.

    7. Re:The First Rule by chihowa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course. They keep saying that 'users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos.' That's not really the issue, though. Nobody claimed that they were taking ownership of the photos, only that you're granting them 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 they've added the right to transfer or sub-license your photos. They've not claimed that they own your photos, but they claim to be able to sell them as they please.

      Here's their old ToS:

      Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services.

      and the new, updated ToS:

      Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby 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, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service's Privacy Policy, available here: http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    8. Re:The First Rule by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason they do this is so that they can show your pictures to other users of Instagram without getting sued. Dropbox does the same, because otherwise, they wouldn't be able to implement the shared Dropbox feature. Since you (presumably) own the copyright on whichever photo you upload, technically, if you didn't grant them any rights, they wouldn't be able to create copies, or transmit the image to other users of the system. So, in order to cover their ass against users who would upload a photo and then claim copyright infringement when they shared said photo with other users on the system, it's just easier to create an all encompassing clause which grants them the ability to actually do the stuff they need to be able to do. If in a month they introduce a new feature, that lets you do something else with your photos, or they want to make them into a new thumbnail size, they don't want to have to ask your permission to generate a bunch of new thumbnails. People have tried to sue Google for spidering their site, and I don't know if anybody was successful, but I'm sure it created a bit of a headache for Google to have to deal with it. If they really don't want their stuff indexed, they can set their robots.txt file appropriately. But instead they'd rather bring up a lawsuit. Instagram doesn't want to deal with stupid little lawsuits like this, so this is why they create these clauses.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:The First Rule by skids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or somebody else is in charge with different notions of what a promise means

      This usually. People who accuse the "Internet" of "Freaking Out" over such things seem to have no grasp of the fact that we live in a world where people with the approximate moral value system of The Kergen are regular recruits for the decision-making table. Either that or they fail miserably to realize the implications of that.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    10. Re:The First Rule by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The lawmakers often don't intend to use it for such. The lobbyists who actually wrote it do of course, but they aren't officially the lawmakers.

    11. Re:The First Rule by c++0xFF · · Score: 4, Informative

      Their old TOS let them do exactly that already. Go read it again. I'll wait.

      The change they made now gives them the rights to not only use the image however they need to implement their services, it also gives them the ability to sublicense user images to others.

      Who are these others? I can't think of any reason why another USER of instagram would need a licence for the pictures of other users. So, that leaves other companies that instagram works with, such as advertisers. The new language would allow them to sublicense your images to an advertiser, without asking you and without any compensation. That's what got everybody all worked up.

      Fortunately, the blog post seems to suggest that this won't be happening, and they'll be removing, or at least changing, that language. Good for them.

  3. They still have the rights... by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While they may not intend to exercise their rights, they still HAVE the rights to be able to use any instagram photos in ads, and use that for commercial purposes, etc.

    So this is a great example of doublespeak/equivocation -- our contract lets us do what we want, but we promise not to use what it allows us to right now to avoid a PR frankenstorm.

    I don't see how the case is closed after this...it isn't so much a case of we let lawyers write a document, as, we're just making sure we're "protected" to keep our "options" open in the future when we might "want" to exercise our rights to "your" photos...

    Given Facebook's history on privacy policy shenanigans, I think any reasonably prudent person would not trust Instagram's assertions..

    1. Re:They still have the rights... by tool462 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      any reasonably prudent person

      I believe that set is disjoint with the set of all instagram users.

    2. Re:They still have the rights... by Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      not just that, but they could end up without a choice in the matter, if they go bankrupt and are carved up and auctioned off, the contract rights they posess will be one of the things sold

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:They still have the rights... by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      Why people continue to trust Facebook et al. is beyond me.

      Oh, that's right. They're Facebook users.

    4. Re:They still have the rights... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think we can assume that they will strike some balance between profitability and user outrage.

      It isn't hard to imagine the day when facebook goes the way of all the others that have come before like myspace, geocities, etc. At some point along that line they will value their ownership of our photos more than they will value their reduced userbase. Then it becomes a simple business decision to liquidate and sell off their copyright in those images to another company, perhaps getty or another stock photo site which has no interest in anything beyond reselling licensing rights to the photos. Photos that have already been conveniently tagged by the suckers^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h former users.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:They still have the rights... by Swampash · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually the new bits in the Terms of Use that offend me the most aren't really even related to photos and what Facebookstagram will do with them. It's shit like this:

      - We can share not just your photos but anything we know about you with Facebook and then Facebook can share that info with any company it is in a relationship with. Things we know about you include but are not limited to where you are.

      - We can show you ads without telling you they're ads. And because we're part of one of the most aggressive tech-savvy ad companies that has ever existed, you won't even know they're ads. You'll just click "like" because we'll use awesome photos that we know you'll like and then we'll sell what we've learned about what you and your friends like, and how easily we got you to like it.

      - If you're under 18: by using this service we will treat you as if you have your parents' consent for everything in these terms. You're not legally able to enter a contract but by default we will act as if you have.

      I don't care how much backtracking and spin Instagram tries to put on it, I'm out. Photos backed up, account deleted.

  4. Still have not seen that in the fine print. by jackb_guppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So when is the new new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service will be shown?

  5. cynic by codegen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The cynic in me sometimes wonders if this is something they do on purpose. Publish new outrageous terms of service and then wait for the internet to explode. Wait a few hours more and then come on with a ready appology. A lot of people have enough invested in a particular site that they won't leave right away, and with an appropriate "apology" are molified. And a lot of exposure is thus gained. But given that other competitors are ready to swoop in, the other part of me dismisses it.

    --
    Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    1. Re:cynic by causality · · Score: 2

      The cynic in me sometimes wonders if this is something they do on purpose. Publish new outrageous terms of service and then wait for the internet to explode. Wait a few hours more and then come on with a ready appology. A lot of people have enough invested in a particular site that they won't leave right away, and with an appropriate "apology" are molified. And a lot of exposure is thus gained. But given that other competitors are ready to swoop in, the other part of me dismisses it.

      That tactic is used in politics all the time, particularly whenever the desire is to expand government. Float an idea and pretend like there's any real debate about what you are going to do anyway. It gives the illusion of legitimacy. If there is a lot of backlash, do it over time in baby steps with carefully crafted excuses as justification; if not, just go for it.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  6. "Mistake" my Ass. by Grog6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They Got Caught, and had to respond.

    There is a business plan on fire in a trashcan somewhere, most likely; or just put off for awhile.

    We'll see this again, wait and see. And not as a repost, lol.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  7. Nonsense. by voice+of+unreason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The chapter is closed? Nonsense. They haven't offered to change the contract, they just claim that everyone's misinterpreted it. Which gives you no more rights than you had before. If it's in the contract, it's in the contract. Their PR statements would not affect in the slightest their legal ability to use your photos.

    1. Re:Nonsense. by swillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      They haven't offered to change the contract

      From their statement: "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."

      We'll have to see what they actually change, but they have said that they're going to change it.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Nonsense. by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm guessing they're just going to change the language into a more confusing form. Same terms, just more confusing so they can try to get away with it.

      Given the outcry thus far, they'd have to be really stupid to try that. There will be too many people scrutinizing the language, including lawyers, who are ready to interpret any such attempt.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  8. What they say means nothing by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is the actual EULA/UA that matters. Until it is properly amended all this announcement is worth is a loud stinky fart.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  9. What the new TOS really mean by h8mx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This article shed some light on the new TOS for me:

    What the new terms of service really mean | The Verge

  10. Too little too late by morcego · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a classical example of how a mistake can cost you users forever.
    Earlier today, I removed all my photos and deleted my account. After that, I started trying other apps and services, and actually found one I like more than Instagram.

    So yeah, I could go back, but I won't, simply because I found something else that I like better and, truth be told, moving back is simply not worth the 5 minutes it would take.

    Does this make a big different for me ? Nope, which is why I wasn't even looking for an alternative before. This whole fiasco pushed me to look, and I'm not going back.

    --
    morcego
    1. Re:Too little too late by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Why do you need a special app to take pictures? I dont understand the need to make it complicated. Take picture, use normal tools that dont demand your first born, publish.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Too little too late by morcego · · Score: 2

      Why do you need a special app to take pictures? I dont understand the need to make it complicated. Take picture, use normal tools that dont demand your first born, publish.

      The only reason I used it was because of the how convenient it was to apply filters.

      --
      morcego
    3. Re:Too little too late by morcego · · Score: 3, Informative

      What did you move to may I ask?

      2 apps.

      1) Streamzoo - Easy and convenient. Very Instagram-like.
      2) Pixlr-o-matic - Amazing filters. However, not was convenient. A ton of filters and options are available. Keep your pics on your phone and share using standard services (pic.twitter.com etc).

      So I will be mostly using Streamzoo for whatever pics, and will use Pixlr-o-matic when I want some better results.

      --
      morcego
    4. Re:Too little too late by morcego · · Score: 3, Informative

      Streamzoo for daily crap, and Pixlr-o-matic if I want better stuff.

      Pixlr-o-matic is much more powerful than what we are used to, with tons of filters and options, making it a bit slower to use. However, it gives great results.

      --
      morcego
  11. bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos"

    No.. they dont claim "ownership"... they do claim a perpetual and unlimited rights though... which is all the benefits of ownership, with none of the liabilities.

  12. "We won't SELL your photos..." by TuringTest · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...we'll only RENT them for the duration of an ad campaign".

    --
    Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    1. Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After we're done turning them over to any TLA with the words "defense", "security", "intelligence", or "investigation" in their names.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 3, Funny

      Time to open the Office of Defense Intelligence Security Investigation

    3. Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Informative

      The term is not "rent", it is "license". As you read every time you "buy" some software, music, movie, etc: "This product is licensed, not sold." And the right to sublicense they explicitly added to the terms and conditions, so they cannot credibly claim that they don't intend to do that.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  13. They would, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    However there has yet to be a picture on Instragram that's worth paying for.

  14. Fatal flaw with biological storage by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Funny

    I actually had a great, if somewhat unusual, method of backing up my photographs- I got a deer to memorise them. I know it sounds weird, but it turned out to be quite effective, at least with the males (does, on the other hand, were less reliable). I trained it to understand basic commands and in response, it scratched out a basic reproduction of the requested image, eventually improving to quite impressive quality after a period of time.

    In this way, I came to realise that I was using their brain as a sort of basic computer memory. This worked very well until I realised that my contract with the owner of the deer meant he had the right to reuse anything they had memorised.

    Of course, this was not acceptable, so I no longer store my photos in stag RAM.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:Fatal flaw with biological storage by causality · · Score: 3, Funny

      I actually had a great, if somewhat unusual, method of backing up my photographs- I got a deer to memorise them. I know it sounds weird, but it turned out to be quite effective, at least with the males (does, on the other hand, were less reliable). I trained it to understand basic commands and in response, it scratched out a basic reproduction of the requested image, eventually improving to quite impressive quality after a period of time. In this way, I came to realise that I was using their brain as a sort of basic computer memory. This worked very well until I realised that my contract with the owner of the deer meant he had the right to reuse anything they had memorised. Of course, this was not acceptable, so I no longer store my photos in stag RAM.

      This is why drugs are not for everyone.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  15. Too Late by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instagram already showed us who they are on the inside. How they feel about their users. That they see them as cattle to be slaughtered and sold in whatever way most suits their customers, the advertisers. The only thing that has changed is they got caught and so they are going to hide their disdain for a while until this storm blows over.

    It is not this policy that is unacceptable, it is their attitude. They have shown that they cannot be trusted, and it is our duty -- as the silent hand of the free market -- to put them out of business as a warning to others.

    Delete your Instagram account, and never darken their door again.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  16. Damn lawyers by Monoman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's why I often wish laws, contracts, etc could contain sections written in plain/common language explaining the intention/spirit of the document. Of course it would never work but I can dream.

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    1. Re:Damn lawyers by PRMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The only entity I know that does this is the NHL rule book. There is an accompanying "Situation Guide" which explains the original intent of the rule and some situations in which is should and should not apply.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  17. Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes those evil lawyers. Fucking slashdot with its predictable "commentary."

    Lawyers are one of the few priesthoods left in Western society. The purpose of a priesthood is to guard information from the uninitiated, so that most people are dependent on the priests.

    The Catholic Church of medieval times really hated the idea of a Bible written in the native languages of the laypeople. They preferred Latin, a language that was generally taught only to the clergy at that time. If there is ever a movement to simplify the law and remove the legalese, so that the average person could easily understand and apply it without professional help, you will see a similar outcry from the lawyers.

    The difference between a lawyer and a doctor is that the human body is inherently complex. The law is only so complex because men have made it so.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  18. Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lol the law and judge opinions aren't written in LATIN.

    While that was not the OP's point, it is ironic that you focused on it because it is demonstrably not true.
    Modern legal code is littered with latin phrases.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  19. It would have been easy to say by Trashcan+Romeo · · Score: 2

    And prudent - given how big a PR hit they've already gotten for their ambiguous language. So interpret the absence of "We won't ever sell your photos" to mean "We'll sell your photos whenever we feel like it".

  20. I think the word for that is "busted" by Grayhand · · Score: 2

    Amazing how often these are claimed to be innocent mistakes. I'd call bullshit on that one. They know exactly what's in these contracts they just hope you won't notice. Since they weren't even required to notify you if they were to be used your first clue would be your vacation picture of the Grand Canyon appearing on a billboard. Odds are 99 out of a 100 would never know. I think getting outed this early on sent them back to the drawing board. What do you want to make a bet they offer an option next year so you can click on a box agreeing to allow your photos to be sold and you get a small percentage. That was probably the long range plan all along but they figured they could get a few years of collecting a 100% of the royalties before they had to surrender and offer you a cut.