Instagram ad shift creates online uproar
SAN FRANCISCO—Instagram faced a backlash Tuesday after the Facebook-owned photo-sharing service rewrote its rules to give itself the right to sell users’ pictures for advertising without compensation.
Twitter and Instagram forums were ablaze with debate regarding whether to delete accounts before the new rules kick in.
“Bye-bye Instagram,” tweeted Scott Ninness. “Who in their right mind will use a service that allows your images (to) be sold with no financial remuneration to you?”
“Everybody should continue using Instagram but just take blurry photos of sandwiches,” suggested a Twitter user by the screen-name Michele Catalano.
The new terms of service state, “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.” The terms also state that “a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.”
Instagram contended that it is not claiming ownership of people’s pictures, just that it can do what it wishes with images.
Some people tweeted in defense of Instagram, arguing that it is a “mega-business” that needs to make money.
Another Twitter user predicted that a handful of Instagram users will abandon the service and “everyone else will stick around.”
“Nothing has changed about your photos’ ownership or who can see them,” Instagram said in a blog post when the policy changes were disclosed on Monday.
The move that would let advertisers work with people’s Instagram pictures comes as the service tries to channel people to its website to view posted images.
Internet rights activists at the Electronic Frontier Foundation advised Instagram users that if they are uncomfortable with the possibility of the service taking liberties with their photos the only choice is to leave.
“Instagram should reconsider this policy, because it conflicts with the three key principles we developed for social networking services: informed decision making, control and the right to leave,” EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl said in a message at the organization’s website.
Facebook did not respond to an AFP request for comment, but Instagram fired off a Twitter message indicating that it was paying attention to the reactions being expressed by users.
Instagram this month made it impossible for Internet users to view its images in messages at fired off at Twitter.
Instagram, which has some 100 million users, is seeking to route photo viewers to its own website, where it has the potential to make money from ads or other mechanisms, instead of letting Twitter get the benefits.
Previously, Instagram pictures shared in messages tweeted from smartphones could be viewed unaltered at Twitter.
Twitter responded by adding Instagram-style photo sharing features of its own.
Yahoo! joined the fray last week by making it more enticing for iPhone users to use its Flickr photo service.
Instagram rose to stardom with the help of Twitter, but has distanced itself from the messaging service since Facebook completed its acquisition of Instagram in September.
The original price was pegged at $1 billion but the final value was less because of a decline in the social network’s share price.
Recent Stories:Last call for nominations to ’14 Presidential Awards 2 hours elapsed San Francisco business coalition slams proposed tax on sugary drinks 2 hours elapsed A ‘time-travel’ production of ‘Les Miserable’ at Stanford 2 hours elapsed Filipina Maryknoll sister honored for years of service 2 hours elapsed Two Popes who would be saints 2 hours elapsed Duke freshman declares for NBA draft 2 hours elapsed Anti-gay demo in Ethiopia cancelled 8 hours elapsed Ford Mustang turns 50 atop Empire State Building 8 hours elapsed