All those duck face pics might just end up in a commercial, you scared
Users of Instagram, the popular photo-sharing app owned by Facebook, were up in arms Tuesday over language that appears to give the company ownership of their images.
A new update to Instagram’s terms of service states that data collected through the app can be shared with Facebook. That’s not a surprising move, considering Facebook paid an estimated $1 billion for the photo-sharing service earlier this year.
But the language that’s upsetting some of the app’s more than 100 million users says that “a business or other entity may pay” Instagram for the use of user images and may do so “without any compensation to you.”
That didn’t sit well with some — including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s wedding photographer.
“Pro or not if a company wants to use your photos for advertising they need to TELL you and PAY you,” Noah Kalina wrote Tuesday on Twitter.
Kalina stopped short of vowing to quit Instagram, saying he hopes that language will be deleted. The proposed changes are set to go into effect January 16.
Other folks aren’t as patient or accepting of the new policy as Noah.
A popular Twitter feed associated with the hacker collective Anonymous was urging its more than 780,000 followers to dump the app Tuesday morning.
“Only way to opt out of @instagram selling your photos is deleting your account,” wrote the person who runs the account. “Sounds good to us. #BoycottInstagram”.
The feed posted image after image of screen shots from followers who had done just that. It claimed it was receiving thousands of such images — too many to count.
The new terms would significantly broaden what Instagram can do with users’ content. Currently they say, “Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content.”
While many don’t seem concerned about the new policy, the celebrity IG users may want to pay attention to this change.
Wil Wheaton, who parlayed a child-actor stint on “Star Trek: The Next Generation” into becoming one of the Web’s earliest star bloggers, wrote that he doesn’t use Instagram. But he questions whether other “celebrities to some degree” could be exploited if they do.
“If someone Instagrams a photo of Seth Green walking through an Urban Outfitters, does that mean Urban Outfitters can take that image and use it to create an implied endorsement by Seth?” Wheaton wrote. “What if the picture is taken by a complete stranger? Who gets final say in how the image is used? The subject, the photographer, or Instagram?”
What do you think? Are you angry that Instagram could use your personal photos in advertisements without paying you or do you not give a fawk??