Being a non-Instagram user, I was actually happy to find out that this week's buzz under the "social media platforms screwing over their users" category did NOT make any difference to me, for once.
On Monday, Instagram updated its "Terms & Conditions" and the news were not very well received by their users. Under the "Rights" section on their updated Terms of Use page, the following paragraph was the main reason for the angry comments that followed the update:
"2 - 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. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf."
Basically saying they might sell your pictures and keep all the profit to themselves. Oh, and of course, that you have already agreed to that. The changes are supposed to be effective starting on January 16th, but the reaction received by the mobile photo-sharing company right after the news were posted came way faster than that.
Even celebrities such as Pink, DJ and music producer Deadmau5 and canadian model Coco Rocha went to Twitter to express their opinion, check it out:
 |
| 4k+ RT's |
Of course I wouldn't make you go all the way to Deadmau5's Instagram profile to see the classy photo (over 20k likes up until the publication of this post - I know, right?!):
 |
| a moment of silence to get over this person's nails |
Coco Rocha's two cents:
And on her Tumblr:
The reaction all over the internet was obviously so huge and instantaneous, Instagram had no choice but to do something to try to control the PR disaster. On the following day, they published this thank you slash let me explain note, signed by the company's co-founder Kevin Systrom. This is part of it:
Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.
Hm. Not sure how "you agree that a business may pay us to display your stuff without any compensation to you" can be considered "confusing language", but now we will have to wait and see what happens. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if, in a couple of weeks, it simply turns out that Instagram meant what they said the first time - their decision of stop displaying the photos on Twitter also seemed kind of weird and as far as we know there wasn't obvious money involved. In the end of the day, the "moral questions" on what's right or wrong actually go back to Facebook, owner of Instagram since April of this year. Their privacy policies are not exactly known for being the nicest to users.
Good luck, Instagrammers. I'm out of this one. #nofilter #nocry
