back to article Instagram back-pedals in face of user outrage

Instagram has responded to the storm of protests from its users over proposed changes to its terms and conditions by promising to alter the language it uses and guaranteeing that it won't sell user's photos. "Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Same old routine

    It doesn't matter whether it's a commercial operation or a political party, they all do the same thing: kite flying.

    If there's no adverse reaction then the new policy goes ahead. If there's an outcry then they back pedal a bit and make out that they really do care.

    One thing you can guarantee is that the terms of service will still have changed and not for the benefit of the users.

    1. LarsG
      Meh

      I wouldn't

      Believe this lot over anything, if they walked in and told me it was raining outside I would check for myself.

      They use this as a softening up technique, then backtrack but the real terms and conditions will be softened to what they wanted in the first place.

      Its a sales technique, hit them with a high price, then offer a discount, only the discount never existed, it was always going to be sold at the 'discount price' anyway.

      I say f**kem and watch them bleed during the exodus.

      1. Chris 244

        "Door in the Face" technique

        Cialdini et al., circa 1975.

        Even has its own Wikipedia page. See also "Foot in the Door" technique.

        1. davtom

          Re: "Door in the Face" technique

          Shouldn't that be "book in the face" technique?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    fickle hipsters

    Doesn't take much for them all to wander off like sheep to this weeks new big thing....

    It's always dangerous basing your companies entire revenue on a sheep-like bunch of fickle retards.

    1. andreas koch
      Holmes

      @ AC 2349h - Re: fickle hipsters

      . . . unless you're Apple Inc. , of course.

      1. andreas koch
        Trollface

        @ all - Re: @ AC 2349h - fickle hipsters

        SCNR

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @ AC 2349h - fickle hipsters

        "... unless you're Apple Inc. , of course."

        Apple's business depends on loyal hipsters...

    2. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: sheep-like bunch of fickle retards

      So if you're not selling to humans, who are you going to market at?

  3. gef05

    Oh, they are everyone's friend

    All the Instagram users can calm down - Systrom said they love everyone and wont do anything dodgy. What a nice young man.

    1. andreas koch
      Happy

      Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

      Awwwwww.

    2. DougS Silver badge

      Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

      Just like Zuckerberg told us he was on our side, and Larry and Sergei told us they wouldn't be evil. They're all trying to figure out ways to sell our eyeballs and our personal property/data to anyone they can for as much as they can. Google is safe only so long as people dislike Microsoft more than them. Facebook may have everyone on it today, but Google+ or Twitter provide an escape, or people could even go retro and find their way back to Myspace. Certainly Instagram shouldn't feel safe, but none of them really should feel as though they're immune to people dumping them once they've had enough.

      Wonder how long it'll take for Twitter to try to pull something like this? Or maybe they already did and I missed it?

      1. Alpha Tony

        Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

        ' but Google+ or Twitter provide an escape, or people could even go retro and find their way back to Myspace'

        Um.. How about the escape of not putting all your private information up on the internet in the first place?

        Posting anything that you want private (especially pictures) to any social network is like hiring Gary Glitter to watch the kids.

        1. Chet Mannly

          Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

          "How about the escape of not putting all your private information up on the internet in the first place?"

          Or even more fun, fill your profile with utterly bogus data, and laugh when FB start pitching ads at you for Morris Dancing lessons :-)

          1. Paul Crawford Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

            Morris Dancing lessons are never to be laughed at!

            1. DuncanL
              Coat

              Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

              Two things in life to never do - incest and morris dancing.

              If pushed to extremes, never, ever morris dance.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

                "Two things in life to never do - incest and morris dancing.If pushed to extremes, never, ever morris dance."

                It's guys like THIS that give morris dancing a bad name!

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StompMorrisdance.jpg

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

                OK, Morris Dancing, that's a lock for sure, but ....?

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

                "Two things in life to never do - incest and morris dancing."

                My former housemate never tried morris dancing, but well......I never did meet his aunt,so I can't say what the attraction was.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

          - Posting anything that you want private (especially pictures) to any social network is like hiring Gary Glitter to watch the kids. -

          What the hell have you been smoking? No, inviting Gary Glitter, unsupervised is like hiring Gary Glitter to watch the kids! Posting too much personal info on a social website just means you bit of prat and should be far more careful and little less trusting of people you do not know, with my advice to read some Phillip K Dick novels to understand why. It is not quite the same and inviting a peadophile to fiddle with your kids!

          Jesus wept, some people really need to get some perspective and scale in their supposedly witty metaphors!

          1. Alpha Tony

            @AC 'some people really need to get some perspective'

            Some people really need to look up 'hyperbole' !

            ;)

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @AC 'some people really need to get some perspective'

              and learn to spell 'pAEdophile' (capitals for emphasis - I wouldn't normally spell it with capitals. Just in case someone wondered)

        3. DougS Silver badge

          @Alpha Tony

          Um.. How about the escape of not putting all your private information up on the internet in the first place?

          I'm on Facebook, but don't have ANYTHING I don't want kept private on it. It has my real name and photo, plus a few other photos I've uploaded at various times, but doesn't have my email exposed, or phone number, job info, birthday, relationship status filled in at all (well birthday is, since they require it, but the birthday is the wrong month, year and day so fat lot of good that does them for marketing) It is a good way to keep in touch with people I otherwise wouldn't, and a good time killer. It is quite possible to be on Facebook without "putting all your private information up on the internet".

          My concern isn't giving them private info, that's one's choice. I chose one way, others (either less clueful or more trusting than I) have chosen differently. My concern is the kind of crap they tried to pull with Instragram, and even themselves in the past - but luckily had to backtrack both times after a big outcry. I don't want them using my name or photo in ads they show to others. That's just plain wrong, and luckily even the "over sharers" on Facebook seem to realize this, based on the size of the outcry when Facebook tried it the first time and when they tried it again with Instagram.

          Whether these ads would say "Doug uses an iPhone, you should too" (which is true, they know because I access FB using the iPhone app) or whether it was something totally random like if I happened to 'like' someone's post about a Dodge Charger, then they use me in a Dodge Charger ad, I don't want it. If Facebook wants to do that, and gives me the choice of ALLOWING them do it and getting paid for it, like everyone else who shills for a product, fine. But they damn well can't just go ahead and do it without my permission, and the minute they do is the last time I ever login to Facebook. And it looks like I'd be far from alone. That type of mass exodus off Facebook (regardless of where people went) has so far been a powerful enough threat in terms of lost revenue that they don't consider it worthwhile tradeoff for "improving" their targeted advertising to those who remain.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh, they are everyone's friend

        you missed it.

  4. PC Paul
    FAIL

    Good old in-your-face book

    Facebook have an interesting approach to business... build up (or buy) a large user base of people who use the service because it offers some useful features for free, then change things until they all leave.

    One of the biggest draws for this sort of service is the fact so many other people use it. As soon as you start driving them away you're on a very slippery slope, relying on user inertia to keep you as a going concern.

    It's like when a research-heavy company starts going all bureaucratic after a merger or privatisation. The brightest and best are also the first to notice and the most mobile, so they leave. The company lumbers along for a while longer, but fundamentally what made it great has gone and can't be easily regained.

    1. C Yates
      Pint

      Re: Good old in-your-face book

      "fundamentally what made it great has gone and can't be easily regained"

      Jolly good! I just wish that in Facebook's case, it would happen a little faster (and bloodier).

      I could hope that this would serve as a lesson to other big companies, but in the real world...

  5. The Alpha Klutz
    Stop

    can somebody please explain to me what is worth a billion dollars about this

    beautiful photos? crap more like....

    so why did this site ever become popular to begin with?

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: can somebody please explain to me what is worth a billion dollars about this

      Because someone told the sheep that the grass was sweet in the adjoining field.

    2. Chet Mannly

      Re: can somebody please explain to me what is worth a billion dollars about this

      "can somebody please explain to me what is worth a billion dollars about this

      beautiful photos?"

      Beautiful photos which show the faces of all your friends (who FB can identify thanks to the facial recognition tech they use) and famous landmarks you may be visiting together, as well as stores etc.

      Plus the photo metadata is to be sold to advertisers as well. This metadata includes:

      - the camera and lens you use (the cost of which can be used as a crude indicator of income)

      - exact time of day

      - date and the timezone you are in (can be used to determine your likely location)

      - plus these days most shots include your exact GPS coordinates.

      So they can track where and when you've been, as well as which FB friends you were with (so they can use your profile info to subsequently market to your friends).

      Given all this data, its worth a lot. Dunno if that adds to $1b in value, but its definitely worth more than you'd think at first glance.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: the camera and lens you use

        So basically iPhone, which means salary between £0 to £infinity.

        A VERY crude indicator indeed.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: the camera and lens you use

          So basically iPhone, which means salary between £0 to £infinity.

          --

          Ermm, well it does allow you upload photos ( including the EXIF data ) from other places, so that is where the real data comes from, the EXIF which 90% of the happy-snapper camera users do not even know exists. Given that GPS data is now stored in EXIF especially from mobiles and the more expensive happy-snapper pocket cams offering this feature, this is pretty interesting stuff!

    3. g e
      Facepalm

      Re: can somebody please explain to me what is worth a billion dollars about this

      Because Appleists could post pictures of super-expensive branded lattes to demonstrate how much cash they had to toss around?

      WTF use is a square picture anyway when most photos-that-have-been-composed-properly are framed in 4:3 or similar. Never mind one made to look like it fell out of the 70's. Perhaps they're supposed to look like your nan's polaroids (ooerrr).

  6. Simon Harris Silver badge
    Headmaster

    How many?

    promising to alter the language it uses and guaranteeing that it won't sell user's photos.

    Oh, storm in a tea-cup then, if they only have the one user!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How many?

      Not only that, but they may have left out an article. In fact, I'm sure of it. They definitely left out an article.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They had no choice to back down really. A lot of celebs have been using Instagram on Twitter and I can't imagine them being too happy giving Instagram free reign of their photos, especially for commercial purposes.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Reflected Glory

      "They had no choice to back down really. A lot of celebs have been using Instagram on Twitter and I can't imagine them being too happy giving Instagram free reign of their photos, especially for commercial purposes."

      Now *that* is an insightful comment. And of course, chasing the celebrities off of Instagram will mean that the remaining anonymous-faces-in-the-herd will no long shine with the reflected glory of of those departed celebrities. : (((((

  8. Franklin
    Thumb Down

    Well, I suppose backing down is better than the North Korea approach (close the borders, plant mines, start a nuclear program). So they'll instead die a slow death of attrition, I reckon. It never ceases to amaze me how many social networking sites don't seem to understand how easy it is to lose their userbase's trust and how hard it is to get it back again.

    1. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Backing down?

      I still don't see that their T&Cs have changed at all, I don't call that backing down.

  9. badger31

    Third time's the charm.

    Facebook did almost exactly this, not that long ago. They changed the TOS to say something like leaving Facebook handed ownership of all your photos to Facebook. There was outcry and a fair amount of back-peddling, so that's twice they have tried and failed. Like I say -- third time's the charm. They'll definitely give it another go, soon enough.

    1. Chet Mannly

      Re: Third time's the charm.

      "Facebook did almost exactly this, not that long ago."

      Its a FB standard operating procedure these days - when was the last time there *wasn't* an outrage followed by a backdown after Zuckerberg shot for the stars with a privacy change?

      Zuckerberg just bought instagram - seems they inherited FB operating practices as part of the deal...

    2. Turtle

      @badger31 Re: Third time's the charm.

      " They changed the TOS to say something like leaving Facebook handed ownership of all your photos to Facebook."

      You know, I wonder if this would stand up in court. If someone uploaded photos etc when these terms were in place, then they might survive the scrutiny of the courts. But to change terms, after the fact, to give Facebook ownership, might not survive - it looks to much as if Facebook is simply appropriating material to which they have no right, exacerbated by the fact that they are doing this without offering any reasonable compensation to the owner.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @badger31 Third time's the charm.

        They are relying on your having the very deep pockets to get to court in the United States. There are a few pro bono lawyers, but they've all been used up contesting cases where illiterates without computers have been fined millions of dollars for allegedly downloading tatty pop songs, because the **AAs wouldn't want to go after someone who had influence.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @ribosome

          "where illiterates without computers have been fined millions of dollars for allegedly downloading tatty pop songs"

          Can you give me some examples of that, or is your post just an example of your stupidity? And where are you getting your data to back up your contention that any significant percentage of pro bono lawyers are occupied with cases involving filesharing? Especially now, when no suits against filesharers have been institutes since years ago.

          And mightn't there be even a single lawyer who might want to start a class-action suit?

          And if it's alright for The Pirate Bay and Google - among many many others - to profit by expropriating the work of others, then what exactly is wrong with Facebook and Instagram appropriating the photos and data of their users?

          Or is it just the case that content can be stolen if YOU deem it "tatty"? Or can anyone deem it "tatty"? If so, it's lucky for Instagram who on that basis could appropriate pretty much ever picture posted there.

          The thing is, that people like you not only pull these kinds of statements out of your ass, but you also believe them after you say them.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ribosome

            The original judgement against Jammie Thomas-Rasset was for $1.9 million, in 2009

            Like many fulminating Americans, you miss the point. When anyone criticises the RIAA or the MPAA you immediately go all Manichaean and argue that there is no position between hugely expensive court cases and support for piracy.

            Of course there is. I don't like stuff being ripped off, but damages should be proportionate, about the same as if someone stole a CD from a shop. And there needs to be a clear distinction between real thieves - who run it as a business and sell ripped CDs in car boot sales - and people who, in this country, would be dealt with with a small fine.

            I support the people over corporations. You clearly support corporations over the people. There is a name for at, and if you google for Mussolini you will find out what it is.

            In any case, I really cannot take seriously the views of anyone who thinks that 99% of today's pop music isn't exploitative tat that will be forgotten in a year or so. I'm consistent: I don't pay for it because I don't listen to it, and I would certainly never degrade the Internet further by downloading it.

  10. Chris 171
    FAIL

    Seed sown...

    Photographs regardless how digitally mangled will always be somebody's.

    Essentially fraping your own userbase on content that harbors personal feeling is just stupid.

    Flickr has it right, even if it's not cool because you have to pay for it.

  11. MachDiamond Silver badge

    Pay or BE product

    Someone here on The Reg posted the perfect line:

    "If you aren't paying for a product (or service), you are the product."

    In the words of Robert Heinlein, "TANSTAAFL, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"

  12. JeffyPooh Silver badge
    Pint

    Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity

    Most likely the Manglement Team simply forgot to review the proposed Ts&Cs from the point of view of the users. They essentially decided to perform this key step in public, with predictable results. It's exactly what would be expected when there's a one-sided, one-party approach to the "agreement" (sic) combined with a failure to install an intelligent review process.

    Legal Dept. .NE. User Relations Dept.

    Not smart. Lack of common sense.

    1. nuked
      Holmes

      Re: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity

      "Most likely the Manglement Team simply forgot to review the proposed T&Cs".

      No, most likely they didn't. I don't think your comment was malicious though.

  13. jonathan keith

    Er, did I miss something?

    "Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed."

    Indeed. In fact, as I recall, the problem wasn't that Instagram were trying to claim ownership of one's photos, it was that they wanted to claim a license to monetise those photos without having to make any payment to the owner.

    I don't see that the PR fluff from Systrom does anything to change that particular point of contention.

    1. Chet Mannly

      Re: Er, did I miss something?

      But the nice man *said* he wouldn't sell my photos - that makes all the difference right? </sarc> :-)

      I'll start posting again when I see the new T&Cs and *if* I'm happy with them.

      Couldn't hurt for people to do a mass download to send instagram a message, even if they intend staying :-)

  14. Chet Mannly

    "it's clear that Instagram has made a major corporate mistake in announcing the changes poorly and not explaining them to panicking punters.

    Ever since Mark Zuckerberg took the seemingly personal decision to shell out almost a billion dollars for the site"

    Easy to see where they got their new-found arrogance from, this sounds like every FB privacy change for the last 5 years!

  15. John Tserkezis

    Am I the only one who reads the T&Cs?

    I don't belong to either Facebook or Instagram, but read the T&Cs out of interest - and more reason not to join..

    So far, it appears that nothing has changed.

    Even reading the quotes in the article won't really change anything they want to do regarding selling your images.

    Would be interesting to read the revised T&Cs when they're released, but I won't be holding my breath on anything other than more political double talk, and less actual legal changes.

  16. g e
    Devil

    Too late, Instagram

    You've already abused the trust of your users.

    They, like Anonymous, do not forget. Though in your case _don't_ expect them.

    #FillInstagramWithShit

  17. dan1981
    Meh

    Without passing judgment, this is the reality of Facebook.

    Even without all the similar changes that FB has made in the recent past, this episode should serve to inform all FB/Instagram users of their mindset and company practice.

    This is the way they think about data that their users upload, be it a photo or a status update or a 'like' - it is information that they want to make money out of. That's not inherently a bad thing and by no means unique to Facebook but if you don't like that then it really is time to start thinking about moving away from that ecosystem.

    Still, my own personal opinion is that they were testing the waters. All such policies, be they privacy, usage or even laws, tend to be worded in such a way as to provide a large scope for the company (or government if it is a law) to do a great many things that might not be within the 'spirit' of it.

    On the surface of it, the post by Systrom is straight-forward and takes responsibility for the confusion, rather than simply saying it was the users who were confused as is the usual response. This, again on the surface, is commendable.

    However, the simple fact is that Instagram, through Facebook, have access to the very best lawyers available, especially those dealing with exactly such policies. We must assume that these policies were not written by some intern and published without oversight - they were developed over time with input and oversight from lawyers well-versed in the language of privacy and terms of use policies.

    If the language of the policies really does not mean what they wanted it to mean then that is not a good look for a company handling the data and private information of millions of people.

    With such legal resources at their disposal, however, it is vanishingly unlikely that the language used says anything other than exactly what they wanted it to say. From that, Systrom's claim - that the original policies were a mistake and didn't accurately reflect their goals - must be seen as a lie.

    This does rest on an assumption but I think it's a fairly likely one - that Intagram, through Facebook, has access to enough legal resources that any confusing of misleading wording would have been identified and discussed. In other words, Insatagram had full chance to correct the wording well before the policies were made available. They did not do so.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mainstream news

    I heard this story as a news item on various radio station bulletins. Not one of them mentioned Facebook in any way, despite the fact that this would make the story sound bigger. Facebook have been in the news a lot this year.

    That's because (Instagram==uncool) whereas (Facebook==cool), especially when the same radio stations are plugging Facebook and Twitter pages on every show.

    That's how superficial the mainstream news is.

    I wouldn't trust any free social networking (or similar) site with intellectual property I care about protecting. Flickr don't claim ownership of your photos, but there are already too many people using the APIs to take photos that are marked "all rights reserved" (including the BBC).

    And even the snapshots I do upload to such sites are never high resolution.

    1. g e

      Re: Mainstream news

      Absolutely.. Any photos I post that I have great hi-res copies of are posted 800px wide and 70% jpeg quality.

      Yeah you might get a crappy postcard out of it but I have the one that prints beautifully at 3' x 2' and you're not getting it! :oD

      Mostly I post crap from my phone though. (Literally for instagram last night with the kitty litter tray...). The grown-up (no, not like that you pervs) SLR photos are archived on the raid drives at home

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: LBC 97.3

      A presenter on LBC 97.3 radio in London has made this the subject of his phone-in this morning, and is taking the stance that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

      It's interesting to hear the general view expressed by email and Twitter messages that Instagram claiming ownership of your images is unfair, and then drawing a stream of flawed analogies such as putting your furniture into a storage company, who then lend your furniture behind your back to other people to use and abuse... without considering the fact that you pay a storage company for their service, which is why you expect them to be stored securely.

      But the people actually phoning in are saying that if you want to protect your IP, you should make your own website and only show low-res images, though there's nothing wrong with using Facebook and Twitter to show off unimportant photos.

      It's also only people phoning in who've said they've closed their Instagram account, delete traces of their movements on Facebook on the basis that it highlights global brands and generally wear tin foil hats and have bought the David Icke 2013 calender.

      On the subject of David Icke, when you consider the cost of a ticket and the fact he talks for about 11 hours, I really don't understand why his show doesn't get more praise than Les Mis, Starlight Express or Camelot. The only reason I haven't gone myself is the fear of who I'll end up sitting next to.

  19. jubtastic1
    Devil

    A cynical take

    They're not stupid enough to think that there wouldn't be a massive outcry and a whole load of users would walk away from Instagram, they were counting on it.

    Instagram came with a massive installed base, but the users that aren't on Facebook are dead weight, chuck out some scary legalese and they'll take their cash free business to someone else's trough.

    Are users abandoning Facebook over changes to the Instagram T&C? not really, will Facebook users still post pictures with the adopted Instagram filters? yep, result, costs are down.

  20. mark l 2 Silver badge

    Facebook took the Microsoft approach when it bought Instagram in as it just bought it because it saw it as a threat rather than because it actually wanted to do anything with it. I doubt they bought it for its photo filters as instragram probably didn't have any IP around those as you could achieve the same effects for years with photo editing software Eventually it will get absorbed into facebook and everyone will forget that it was a promising alternative social network

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    They'll get away with it

    Looking at the long list of user's blogging about their relief that Instagram are not claiming ownership of their pictures, I get the distinct impression that they're missing the point.

    Instagram never claimed ownership of the photos. They were claiming the right to make commercial use outside of the site without compensation to the owners, and nothing in their recent response indicates that that will change. People really need to read the full text of the Ts&Cs before relaxing.

    1. TheOtherHobbes

      Re: They'll get away with it

      There's a difference beween:

      We own your content (and you don't)

      You own your content and we licence it so we have legal permission to store it, copy it and display it on our site (but that's all)

      You own your content but we licence it so we can sub-licence it for cash - which we don't share with you

      You own your content but we licence it so we can sub-licence it for cash - which we do share with you

      You own your content but we licence it so we can use it in our own ads (but that's all)

      I'm still not sure which applies here.

      Or whether it even matters; if Instagram still hasn't worked out how to monetise content, it probably never will.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @TheOtherHobbes - Re: They'll get away with it

        I think the one that applies is

        You own your content but we licence it so we can sub-licence it for cash - which we don't share with you

        This is based on the following in the original proposed Terms under 'Rights' :

        ... 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

        The only constraint acknowledged is on what they do within the Instagram service. Outside - anything goes.

        The summary/preview part of the blog very carefully avoids raising this issue and, in my opinion, it was deceitful (although not actually false).

      2. dan1981

        Re: They'll get away with it

        ". . . if Instagram still hasn't worked out how to monetise content, it probably never will."

        Without claiming to know the internal structures that exist between Facebook and Instagram, it would seem that access to the vast funds of Facebook means that Instagram don't have to rush to monetise the content.

        To the point, though, I'm pretty sure it's this:

        "You own your content but we licence it so we can sub-licence it for cash - which we don't share with you"

  22. Danny 5
    WTF?

    not going to use it anymore

    I've hardly ever used it to begin with and have now resolved never to use it again. They may be backpeddeling at 150 BPS, there's no guarentee that 1: they wont use your pics anyway and 2: they'll silently change the policy in time anyway.

    I fully understand that social media are looking for new ways to make money and to a certain extent, i support that, but i draw the line at crap like this.

    1. dan1981

      Re: not going to use it anymore

      As a general comment (not directed to you, good sir), people who are ceasing to use Instagram over this should also stop using Facebook.

      Facebook owns Instagram. If you have a Facebook account and stop using Instagram then FB aren't really going to care. The only way to send a message of disapproval is to close your Facebook account and, if you are the proselytising type, encourage others to do likewise.

      At the very least, explain to your friends and family that you do not want them posting any pictures of you, of with you in them, to Facebook (or Instagram).

      On an utterly unrelated note, why is the spell-check on a British website trying to correct me to using vile 'American English'?

  23. Crisp Silver badge

    I don't believe them.

    I really don't. And what's to stop them from pulling crap like this again?

    Sorry Instagram, you had your chance. Bye bye.

    1. Test Man
      WTF?

      Re: I don't believe them.

      MUG. That could equally apply to any site, including The Register.

      Just put the tin foil hat down now.

  24. Platelet
    Alien

    All your users are belong to someone else

    Mechanic: Somebody set up us the T&Cs.

    Operator: Instaport turn on.

    Zuckerberg: All your photo are belong to us.

    Zuckerberg: You have no chance to survive make me profit.

    Captain: Move Flickr.

    Captain: For great justice.

  25. Ian 5
    Stop

    Great big turds

    Never used Instagram, but now I'm tempted to install it and photograph every pile of dog shite that I come across... I'll be happy for them to use those.

  26. Amorous Cowherder

    I think I uploaded one crappy picture and even though they are trying to make amends, it is too little too late. They might well back-peddle now but they will sneak these T&Cs back in again at some point. Thanks but no thanks.

  27. Darren Bell
    FAIL

    Google has exactly the same:

    They can sell your content if they wish to:

    "When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide licence to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes that we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights that you grant in this licence are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This licence continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing that you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure that you have the necessary rights to grant us this licence for any content you submit to our Services."

    1. Philip Lewis
      Big Brother

      Re: Google has exactly the same:

      Including the draft of my next "bestseller" written using google services and stored on their cloud, about the sexual shenanigans of dotcom millionaires?

  28. splodge
    FAIL

    If only their statement would load. I'm so looking forward to the bit where he says he would like to apologise!

  29. GotThumbs
    Boffin

    Why the outrage when it's a free service? When will these idot consumers learn....

    that nothing is free. I think its a huge laughable joke and the fact that many people are jumping into these services with both feet and then getting a surprise when they discover their is a price to be paid.

    Bottom line. The service is free. No business/company can exist without revenue. It costs money to run the servers, buy the hardware, as well as pay the developers/employees. How many people would use the service for a nominal fee each month to store their content and not have it licensed out to third parties?

    Users should have a choice, but they should also be realistic in the realities of how businesses work/survive. This kind of ignorance in how these services exist, just shows how dumb the general public truly are at times.

    Best wishes,

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why the outrage when it's a free service? When will these idot consumers learn....

      Why did someone downvote this? It is surely true. Anybody who thinks you get something for nothing on the Internet is, to say the least, gullible.

      I will happily use a free service if I can see how the supplier is making money from it and I agree with what they are doing, but Facebook and its ilk are really opaque. They need to die, and die quickly, so that people get used to paying a fair, and visible, price for services and the present nonsense stops.

      For one thing, it might get rid of a lot of the crap that is presently on the Internet, and improve our bandwidth.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Megaphone

        Re: Why the outrage when it's a free service? When will these idot consumers learn....

        "They need to die, and die quickly, so that people get used to paying a fair, and visible, price for services and the present nonsense stops."

        So how much will you pay to read El Reg, and when will you start paying? Or your chosen mainstream news site? More broadly, you'll happily wave goodbye to free current account banking, and pay for one of those bundled premium accounts? If you're in London, you'll want to go back to paying for the Standard? How would you like to pay for your search engine - per use or monthly subscription? When did you last pay for weather information?

        There's many different ways of paying for the services we use, and the problem here isn't that people need to pay good hard cash, it is when the way they pay is opaque, the terms one sided, and particularly when changes to terms are malignant, as in this case.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why the outrage when it's a free service? When will these idot consumers learn....

          Let me see...

          I paid for weather information when I installed the Met Office application, which I pay for with taxes. I pay for my bank account by letting them have my money to use. I buy a physical newspaper.

          El Reg is a site which adds value to the provision of advertisements by IT companies. I work in IT. Some of those adverts are actually useful to me and I don't mind the Register collecting some information from me in exchange.

          I can remember when the Evening Standard was a newspaper...I have no desire to read it.

          I help with one social media site and so neither pay a subscription nor get ads in exchange.

          About 60% of the time I use a search engine it is to find where I can obtain things. The rest of the time it's work or research which will probably result in someone, somewhere buying something. So ad-funded search engines I can accept.

          I pay for my Dropbox account and my email mailboxes.

          Your point was?

      2. dan1981

        Re: Why the outrage when it's a free service? When will these idot consumers learn....

        I wasn't the down-voter but I can offer a few possible explanations of why.

        The first is as you yourself have said: " . . . Facebook and its ilk are really opaque." In general, I believe that most people, like you, will happily use a free service if they understand how the money is being made. The problem is, as you have identified, that it's often hard to figure that out, which is of course the point.

        The second, is that these companies all start out being free and open and about the users but then gradually grow to be more about profit. Yes, people realise that companies need to make money but people don't like it when the ground moves under their feet.

        What happens is that people upload data to their 'social networking' service of choice under certain policies and terms of use. Sometime down the track, the policies and terms are changed, almost always toward giving more control to the provider and/or less privacy to the user. The important part is that these changes always apply to your old data as well - i.e. the data uploaded under different policies.

        I realise that it would be practically impossible to segregate data based on when it was uploaded and apply different policies to each but when someone has uploaded data within a certain set of policies, they have an expectation that that data will continue to be governed by that set of policies. They may have gone through the terms word-by-word and decided it was acceptable but now that same data is governed by new, less acceptable policies.

        Tin-foil hat to one side, I very much dislike when a company I like and trust with my personal information is bought-out by a company I dislike and whom I do _not_ trust with my information.

        The third is that it is incongruous to say that these services exist because users are ignorant of the business practices of such providers and then talk down to people objecting to a change in those business practices. While an individual user may not understand the implications, the community as a whole very much does and that community is objecting.

        The final, and perhaps simplest reason, is that people just don't like being called idiots.

        It is very narrow to say that everyone complaining about this is ignorant and naive and such blanket dismissals of peoples' ideas and feelings are generally not taken well.

  30. dan1981
    Black Helicopters

    What are _my_ rights?

    I personally don't use these services. I suppose I just don't care what people ate for lunch or how well their baby slept last night. Tinfoil hat on, I also don't want my personal information shared with the world. I've got no problem with people who do, but I don't want ME being shared with the world.

    The question is, as someone who doesn't use the service, and therefore hasn't agreed to their terms, what are my rights when I find images of myself being used in the way proposed? (Or indeed at all.)

    Perhaps more simply, what right do I have over my own image? (Is likeness the correct technical term?)

    I suspect if I ever complained to one of these companies that images of me were being used without my permission, then they would claim (correctly for all I know) that the original uploader, and not they, are liable. I wonder if I would be able to simply ask them to cease using my likeness without requiring legal action against the uploader, who is likely to be a friend.

    Anyone here know how that would play out?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What are _my_ rights?

      "I personally don't use these services."

      No, but you're using social media by commenting here. Have you read the Reg T&C's? I haven't. No idea what rights I've given away, or what promises I've made. Rather worrying if they've got a clause in there promising that they can take all my worldly wealth.

      1. dan1981

        Re: What are _my_ rights?

        I confess that I haven't but I also know that such T&Cs can really only cover those things related the the service. There are plenty enough legal provisions to protect people from outlandish clauses and El Reg is limited by what it can realistically take without involving me. To use the example you have given, if there was a clause in there to charge me some fee then they would not be able to TAKE that from me without me knowing and thereafter, the legal protections do their job to, well, protect me.

        I fully authorise El Reg to use the data I willingly give it for their own purposes.

        Your reply really doesn't answer anything.

        What data The Register has about me, I give it to them myself. I have full rights to anything I write and in submitting that to the Reg's comments section, I grant The Register rights to reproduce that content any way they see fit.

        My point is that FB/Instagram may have my image which they then can use, but I did not give them that image and I did not ever authorise them to use it.

        Just because I am comfortable providing my (inane) thoughts to the Register, does not mean that I am comfortable having Facebook use my image (likeness?) any way they see fit.

        d.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019