this is less than cool.  I had just recently started using Instagram to post some of my images, but if this policy really kicks in on Jan 16th, then I will likely delete my existing images and only post privately.

I mean… being able to use and sell a person's images without their knowledge, not even giving credit to the photographer?  This just really bugs me.  I think that a lot of people wouldn't mind their images used without compensation, as long as appropriate credit is given.

I understand that a company has to make money, but these TOS are just too broad.  If they really wanted to use/monetize all the photos that are posted by their users (and there must be millions of photos posted daily), then perhaps they could try offering a stock/microstock photography service.  Even if users only got pennies per image, I guarantee that there wouldn't be as big a backlash – heck, MORE people would probably start using IG!

Edit: if some people want to save their photos from IG, this may be of use: http://instaport.me/export

#instagram   #instagramtos  

Reshared post from +Wil Wheaton

So Instagram is now going to use photos taken by its users in advertising, and they may or may not disclose to viewers when the advertising is happening.

I have no idea how this will work, and I'm once again glad that I don't use Instagram… but I know a lot of people who do, and many of those people are celebrities to some degree.

Here's what I'm wondering: if Kaley Cuoco uses Instagram to share a photo of her and Melissa Rauch doing something silly, does that mean that Instagram can take that photo and use it to advertise for something silly without compensating them for what becomes a use of their likeness for commercial purposes? I can see that being a pretty serious shitstorm if it happens.

This sort of dovetails with another concern I have about the automatic opt-in nature of much of our digital life: if I'm in someone's address book, and they use an app that grants the developer full, unfettered access to their address book, I've now had my information given without my consultation or consent to a developer, and I never even knew it was happening. 

Just as we have a "do not track" option for our webbrowsing habits, we're going to need to have something similar for other aspects of our increasingly-digital lives: from contact information to our location to moving and still images of ourselves. Because it's no long enough for me to be careful with my opt-ins and online sharing; now I have to ensure that every single person around me is careful, as well.

Google+: View post on Google+


  • December 18, 2012 - 04:19 | Permalink

    Guess who won't be signing up for instagram?

  • December 18, 2012 - 04:29 | Permalink

    Well.. If they still have this TOS at 15 january I'll delete all my photos

  • December 18, 2012 - 09:27 | Permalink

    Considering to do the same +Kjetil Greger Pedersen .

    If you wish to backup your photos, this might be of use to you: http://instaport.me/export

  • December 19, 2012 - 04:30 | Permalink

    I don't agree with the way Facebook (which now owns IG) uses photos .
    That's why I use http://www.snapseed.com and share it to G+. 😀

  • December 19, 2012 - 12:47 | Permalink

    I still haven't gotten on FB +Daniel Ting , and so far no inclination to unless I can find some real benefit from it.  
    I don't have a mobile device that I can take pictures with, so most of my images shared via IG were from my G+ gallery.  Now looking into EyeEm as an IG alternative, will see how that works out! 🙂

  • December 29, 2012 - 13:57 | Permalink

    A lot of this  'you can't run an app with allowing access to ph and networking address books' and the data mining which is out of control just makes sick these days. . . don't get me started on the invasive advertising in life in general or I may start ranting %-}

  • Comments are closed.