You're a commodity on the internet when you volunteer your personal information in exchange for use of a free service. Unless you're paying for the product, you are the product. Get real, folks.

Agree with personal info as product. I think there's a few things to be upset about w/ Instagram changes though. More worried about distribution and ownership rights for content. Working for a media company and being a photographer who has sold photos, I'm concerned that the new wording implies it will be a reality for them to sell photos I've shared. Granted they are lo-res and use filters, but it's content that could go viral and has potential to make me a few bucks. Compare it to YouTube. Free service that offers rev share via AdSense for popular UGC. Or does Google have similar wording that is being ignored for now?

agreed. and from what i can tell it isn't much different than before, if anything they are being more transparent about it, which is a plus to me. i dont understand why there is always a huge uproar when a free service changes their terms of service. if its that upsetting, stop using it.

Agree with Brandon. They're just being more transparent about it. That said, the new rules probably shouldn't apply retroactively to people's photos taken before this agreement was made explicit. This is like negative opt-out sales technique, in that people will now have to figure out how to make personal things private and how to save them to another service, potentially. Not some major blow for privacy online. But I expect more from FB and Instagram both.

Hi Branch people. I also don't really care about the TOS changes. If someone wants to take a low resolution photo and use it for something, I could potentially just throw it in my portfolio and take credit for it anyways. Even if someone did profit from my photo, I could likely gain from it someway or another if I wanted to. I'd probably then pat myself on the back, for maximizing a free service that is more about exposure and branding than it is about photography. I do hope that flickr and its app get off the ground because of this situation though. —Tim

If Instagram sold data and my photos to others previously and are now doing a better job disclosing this, I thank them. It was only a matter of time until they needed to monetize, but like Lora said, retroactively claiming ownership of content is questionable.
This could affect strategies for brands who use it as a marketing extension. A photo that was distributed using Instagram for promotional use cannot be resold by the platform without some legal issues for the users who post them.

it's the business of the internet. in one way or another, your data/information is being used - pretty specifically for marketing purposes. the only way to fight it is to go off the grid.

But isn't there a difference between your information being used for behavioral targeting vs your likeness or content representing a brand? Collecting and leveraging user data has to happen for these products to continue. There must be ways to do it that finds balance.

but it's exactly what facebook already does with sponsored stories, etc...

In theory as a user (pure theory b/c Facebook is just as sneaky), I have at some point Liked a page or story to appear in one of those stories. How would that same concept apply to Instagram? Are comments and hashtags the same level of user action as opting in to brands and general interests on Facebook? I guess if I tag a photo with #tacobell that could be used in a sponsored story.

sure, the functionality will be different, but on a basic level - they're using your name, profile image (likeness) and activity (content) to market. yes, you'll have had to participate in some way to make this occur - and while everyone freaks about the vaguaries of the new IG TOS, the implementation will probably be exactly the same. it's not like IG is going to create something to rival getty images or stock photography - that being said, if they DO do something like that, i'll be right on board with the jump ship mentality. but that's exactly why they won't - too many users will vanish.

This is really an issue about a perceived invasion of privacy.

Photos can be incredibly personal (think: children) and people naturally feel protective over personal things. When a service that is based entirely on photos makes a rights grab on them, it should give you pause.

However, you don't (or at least shouldn't) have the expectation that your extremely personal photos you shared freely on a quasi-private network were ever really private. This is where something like Path, or even the new iOS shared photo streams stand to benefit.

matt - agreed. (though not a fan of path).

and the iOS shared streams presents an interesting difference, but still comes down to a company trying to make money off of the users - instead of it being by reusing your content to market, you have to buy their product to prevent it from happening.

That's a good point about perceived invasion of privacy for end users. And Gray Blue makes a great point about the getty images scenario.

I've mostly been looking at it from a larger organization point of view. I work with data protection, info security and legal teams to figure out how to use platforms without violation of corporate policies or opening the company up to lawsuits. TOS that give third parties such broad permission are usually red flags in the approval process. Facebook has personal profiles and brand pages. A brand looking to engage on Instagram may have to take this into account. But maybe that's not the use case Instagram wants anyway.

it's also worth noting here that facebook&co have routinely made announcements like this, then taken the public response into account, and changed the action - i would bet that by week's end there will be changes made to the policy.

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but the more iOS and Android can trap you inside their walled gardens at the point of content origination, the better we'll all be in the end. Fewer service layers means less privacy issues for all consumers. We might just not get to use the Rise filter as often as we'd hoped.

This entire thing is about allowing greater flexibility in the usage of this entire collection of photos. FB already owns your photos, and I bet you already have more incriminating shit on there.

And, further, if you're putting valuable or painfully personal images on Instagram, you have bigger problems...

matt - agreed.

That walled garden approach was originally kinda what gave Instagram the "cool factor" right? Only available on iOS. Not really going anywhere with that as a point. I usually stick w/ native apps on my phone and happily play in that garden so I'm right there with you on personal disbelief.

What are the implications are for private instagram accounts (like my own)? The combination of the new TOS + a private account doesn't work, so will they disallow private accounts now?

What are the implications for celebrity accounts? Will brands now be able to buy product endorsements from FB without the permission of or sending money to the celebs and their teams? How will companies like CAA respond to this?

All I know is that this is my favorite Tweet of the day: twitter.com

Wes–
Looks like a private account will remain private.

Per the TOS:
"...By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services."

well now, that's interesting. so if we all just move our accounts to "private" - that deletes all the issues. at least currently.

or at least keeps it from being used for marketing outside of the instagram platform

Very nice. Well I guess the issue is irrelevant for me then. I've been private all along. Thanks Matt.

Though I guess it means they could slide it into ads within the Instagram service, now that I think about it. Not as bad though still.

I wish I could just become a paid member. I'd gladly give them a monthly fee to keep my experience clean, just like I do with say Words with Friends.

and just in case, and you feel like grabbing everything and heading for the hills (and haven't been using something like ifttt to back up you IG pics) 54.246.82.151

I'd be curious about a paid model.This also feels like a great time to be Flickr.

the verge took a deeper dive on the TOS changes - theverge.com

The official response: blog.instagram.com

Regardless of where the changes net out, who *really* didn't know this is how business works and was surprised it? Kevin Roose made a good point when comparing this to the 30-day free trial of... anything. You got more than a year out of Instagram, which seems pretty good to me. It'd be great if the trial didn't end, but I don't feel entitled to anything more.

I dig that. Makes sense.

nymag.com

People are focused on the photos, but the metadata is more sensitive and valuable. I don't know if you've noticed, but companies have started foregoing credit checks in favor of some other type of background check. Most recently I noticed this during the Simple (formerly, Bank Simple) account screening. What data are they looking at? Do I have the right t

to see it and make corrections? No. Would it be valid for a company to use instagram metadata to conclude that because I spend time in proximity to debtors, that I'm a bad credit risk? Seems nuts? We're not too far off from this.

Also, if anyone is interested in experiencing a paid social network, give app.net a try. I'm @jeffrogers. Say hello.