Shared publicly  - 
 
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.
4479
875
Luke Sodemann's profile photoLevi Richardson's profile photoPaul Hsieh's profile photoJim Miller's profile photo
469 comments
 
It's an alarming development, but expected with their Facebook purchase.
 
Yeah, that is not okay.  Think my Instagram experiment is about to come to an end, particularly since I have all the filters I could ask for on Android's stock app now.
 
Fuck 'em (I don't use Instacrack, either).
 
Facebook was already doing this, this was expected :-(
 
+Wil Wheaton you need to use your celebrity powers to get more people on g+. As we all know here sharing is easy and you can keep anything as private as you want.
 
Seems typical of facebook privacy standards. 
Jim Bay
+
6
7
6
 
I'm changing some people's names to aliases in my contacts file now.
 
I do hope google doesn't go that direction.
 
Not surprising, considering that Facebook purchased Instagram. I dumped them as soon as FB purchased them.
 
True, Wil, but unfortunately we won't see a feature like that. "Too much work" is what they'll say, but "I don't want to" is what they mean :-)
 
Yeah. We need some sort of vaccination-herd-immunity-type deal.
 
Too true. While some would say that the future is a world of infinite and open sharing, where privacy has all but disappeared (think Gary Shteyngart's dystopia), I can almost see an uprising of 'Blanks' ala Max Headroom. 
 
That may be the final push that makes me close down my Instagram account.

It does make me wonder if FB actually has the same policy and I just never noticed. 
 
+Wil Wheaton Considering that if I took a photo of say you or any celebrity for that matter without permission and posted it on instagram they then have the right to use that photo for advertising with no compensation. This new term of service could easily breach plenty of privacy laws and is stupid.
 
What is this Instagram you speak of Mr. Wheaton? 
 
Whatever small interest I had in using Instagram faded to zero when Facebook bought them.
 
There seems to be some sort of publicity laws being broken here...
 
And this is why i dont use facebook much now.. thinking of deleting the account. What u say +Wil Wheaton ? 
 
Thank You +Wil Wheaton for voicing some of the latest concerns I have with Instagram. [removed rant about how much I hate Instagram]
 
Instagram = no good.
Just as with anything else these days, compensation is in order, otherwise you're just getting ripped-off +Wil Wheaton 
 
Never have used it now never will for sure.
 
Add in the exciting 'what do I do about my kids' aspect and really, this is a really, really unfun thing to worry about.
 
The greater issue is that while many, if not most, individuals consider information or photos of them to belong to them, the corporations in the social space (and other sectors... think credit reporting agencies) do not hold this belief. 
 
Thanks for info, didn't know jerks were doing this. Not going to use it for sure now. 
 
Just a another reason to distance oneself from anything facebook related.
 
Facebook has pretty much the same policy which is even more devious.
 
I'm completely done with both FB and Instagram. With Google picking up at an amazing pace, I even find myself barely going over to Twitter.
 
All of a sudden everyone's a commercial cellphone photog and worried about image use...LOL.
 
I +1'd this before realizing who posted it.  
I don't know if that is funny, but it made me grin, "agreeing with a celeb".  lol
 
Not at all +Mike Hentz as soon as you click accept on the EULA is all over. That's why I like Google. You can control your privacy and the little that is available for public use is black and white unlike Facebook who has the longest EULA in the digital age. Literally.
 
If you take photos and use any commercial service to share them, you must reasonably expect that entity to attempt to exert control over that information.

In an old-world analogy, if I write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expecting it may be published, I cannot expect it to be published in its entirety or expect any royalties for publication, and I accept the information submitted may be used in ways I disagree with. This is and has always been a part of the risk taken by using other people's services to get your information into the collective consciousness.

People who submit and share photos using Instagram and/or other services cannot expect to retain many (if any) rights regarding the material they submit. Facebook's policy regarding their rights to your material is quite clear (they assume most rights to anything submitted to them).

The only way to make absolutely sure you retain rights over material (including your right to privacy) is to self-publish on your own domain, attaching all relevant licensing agreements and omitting all irrelevant information (like your contact details). This has always been the case and hasn't changed at all.

Do you own WilWheaton.net? The problem with owning your own domain, like owning your own remote cabin in the woods, is that is simply having the freedom to be ignored by everyone.
 
It's a free service. For you to be able to upload and store all those photo's and not pay anything for the service, you can expect the company to make money off of your data somehow.

 If you don't want your photo's to be used like that, don't use a free service. 
 
"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?"

If that's what the Terms Of Service agreement they clicked through says, then yes.
 
During the time AIM and ICQ was popular one got a glimpse of what is to come. Their TOS had one hand over all rights to everything that got transmitted through their service. If one shared a piece of code or a quote via a message all exclusive rights went to AIM/ICQ.
I bet Instagram has something similar in their TOS and now they cash in.
Always remember: if you are not paying then you are the product (you=your content, in this case).
 
"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."

This, I suspect, would be legally problematic in Europe. Not that the somebody is sharing out the address, but that the recipient makes commercial use of it or stores it without your consent.
 
«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.»

Any source?
 
The problem is that almost every form or social media is taking the same stand and trying to own what we post. So where do we go to share with each other? Also we all like things we use to be free so where are the services we like suppose to make money?
 
I didn't use it much myself, but as of this news breaking I deleted my account and wiped the app from my devices. Hopefully others follow suit instead of just allowing this to become the status quo.
 
Ah, there you go:
"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 (...)"

At the same time Instgram grants no rights whatsoever on their own "content" to anybody.

Equally interesting one even "warrants" the usability of one's content for Instagram:
"You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Instagram Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section (...)".

All the hassle, none of the gains.

This service truely sucks. :)
 
Obviously, that's not plausible.

What we're ACTUALLY going to have to get used to is a nostalgic longing for the days we had any sort of privacy aside from being so unremarkable that businesses and governments don't go pawing through our lives.
 
+Shaun Aston I know many who see G+ as the place NOT to be. Hard to change that thinking.
 
Instagram wouldn't do some like this. It always has your best interest at heart, Right?....
 
To everyone who is commenting they will cancel their instagram accounts as a result of this: this policy is the same as is the one that exists for your Facebook account. All that changed was instagram becoming a full fledged Facebook property.

Soo... Are you willing to cancel your Facebook account too?
 
Short answer to the question in the third paragraph: Yes. Instagram's new TOS basically says they have a permanent sub-license to every thing you post on the service that gives them the right to do whatever they want with it, including selling it to advertisers and not compensating you in any way.
 
I never used Instagram because I'm not a hipster.

+Matt Ruhstaller I removed all my photos from Facebook (and transferred them here on Google+) but I still keep my account open so I can see photos of my young niece and nephew.
 
I agree with everything you've just said. Well spoken. 
 
"Dear Instagram.  Please share my photos with the world for free, but... wait!  Not like that!  Not in any way that benefits YOU!"

Strikes me as both selfish and naive. 
 
Have been on-line, for, many years, but only taken part in social for about three,  "do not track" doesn't do, any thing, if the internet is to continued, connectivity has to be supplied, by someone so why not by, advisers, we don't like it, but a paying for, content directly, will, close, big parts of the web, to users.
 
Corporate lobbies will ensure that pro-privacy legislation will never happen. :-(
 
It's one of the reasons I stopped using Facebook. The were using the same policy. It isn't surprising they did the same thing with Instagram.
 
ug, "automatic opt-in" is not a thing. The term for that is "opt-out". This happens all over the technology profession lately and I don't know where it came from but its the most weasel-y.
 
+Brian Dollerhide really? It's not like flickr hosts photos for free and lets you share them to the world and retain all the rights and choose how to license them or anything.
 
Good call.  This is probably why some of us have already resigned ourselves to the 1984ish life we lead.  I don't even have a corner away from the telescreen.

It's okay, though. The corner is just an illusion.  A transitory glimpse of what might have been if the world were otherwise.  

And the deeper we all sink into this distracted, less thoughtful lifestyle, the less we will notice the loss of pseudo-freedom and pseudo-privacy we once thought we had.
 
Maybe a "members only" website for celebrities and psuedo-celebs should be established that scrubs your location data and provides secure man-in-the-middle applications for it's clients. :P
 
Celebrity randomly gives comment-author 10K?
 
It probably will work the same way how Facebook uses your info..  That being your followers or whatever will eventually see ads with your pictures that say "Wil Wheaton likes Susan's Stimuplus Dildos" or whatever product some company purchases your information to make ads for.
 
This shouldn't be of any surprise. I mean Facebook bought instagram. Ya know its all about how much they can make off their users
 
I would think that model releases would still apply, so it probably is limited to shots of bike seats and old fences.
 
This is why Facebook and G+ have the absolute minimum possible amount of information about me.  Name and email address are accurate, everything else is 100% bogus. 
 
Good thing I only have three pics on there.
 
Wil, you've nailed it. Personally, I know I'm pretty hosed in terms of my information being on the 'Net -- since I started in the days when you weren't charged for domain registration, that horse has long been turned into glue. However, I try to hold the line of agreeing to things like the instagram ToS. Fortunately I never bought into that service, but know a lot of people who have. Waiting for that day when I see a shot of me that's hosted there used for something really onerous.
 
I see a big problem here. If I, as an unknown person, take a picture of a celebrity and post it to Instagram, without even thinking about it because some member of my family is in the photo, they get to use it for what ever they want? That should not give them the rights to that picture of said celebrity, just because I posted a picture of my daughter, who is also an unknown.
 
That's my reading of Rights - Item 2.
alex v
+
2
3
2
 
Facebook has to make it's money some where and I'm sure it won't be the last thing t they do
 
The thing is +Wil Wheaton  no really reads any of the ToS bullshit no one really has a leg to stand on if they keep using the product after the company has released the advertising info.

BTW First time commenting to youso let me say I love Table Top thanks for it, it is a fun show 
 
Its probably in the terms and conditions somewhere.
 
You know, I was watching TV and a Taco Bell commercial with Instagram pictures came on, and I wondered if they asked permission for those pics. This is actually really shady. 
 
Leave it to Facebook to do something like this. 
 
That's it, I'm going back to hosting my own photos on my own damn website using Perl and CGI.
 
Unless it's your data, in your server, you are pretty much screwed nowadays.  Until people start hosting their own content things like this will happen and worsen.  Do you honestly think google, facebook, instagram and frends are free?  You pay for it with your intellectual property.  I don't like it, but until people start decentralizing the web, it's what's for lunch.
 
Poor little guys. Do you tough Facebook bought Instagram dozens of millions of dollars because they love you?
You must be new on the internet.
 
I stopped using it the second Facebook om nommed it. Kinda figured something of this nature would eventually come into play.
 
I thought it was pretty common knowledge and old news since Douglas Rushkoff articulated (regardng social media), 'you're not the customer, you're the product.'
 
Amen brother, #Instagram 's new ToS is basically screwing all you celebs who put your pics up.  It's very bad for business.
 
this is going to open a whole can of legal action if they start using photos without payment and/or permission. They use a photo of my daughter or son without permission and I'll release the Lawyers of War on them - and since they are both underage they are not allowed to accept the ToS so that won't be a defense for Instagram (of Facebook).
 
Start watermarking your stuff?  I doubt they'll want to use photos that has a great big COPYRIGHT @WILW across the faces.

Of course, that's not very attractive.
 
Who could have guessed that Instagram would end up with horrible TOS policies after being acquired by Facebook?  Oh yea, just about anyone.

Looks like its time to cancel yet another online account. 
 
I still wonder why people use Instagram when you can share photos directly with Twitter itself.

And it's less annoying and more convenient.
 
I think that someone with a higher profile such as yourself or Kaley would have strong legal recourse here. A good portion of the livelihood for an individual who is more widely knows can be through endorsement and a situation like you mapped out would create an implied endorsement that should be actionable on your part, opting in or out be damned.

Since privacy is pretty much a historical curiosity at this point, I think the only protection is legal precedent to protect people such as yourself against this hijacking of likeness that the average viewer would reasonably view as an endorsement of a good or service. If someone were to throw your picture up on a mug of home brewed beer, people who follow you could easily misconstrue that as endorsement of said beer.

Me, nobody is gonna put my mug on their... mug. (I am sorry, I actually went back and retconned that into the last paragraph... admitting that is my penance)

That said, I'm guessing that it isn't at the top of your bucket list to hire a $1000/hour lawyer and spend a few months in court to set that precedent? Hey, I promise to donate to the Kickstarter campaign if it came down to it.
 
Continuing off from what +Sydney Ashcraft said, maybe we need an app which intercepts any image being uploaded to certain sites and automatically applies the watermark. Other sites like G+ can remain watermark free.
 
What is everyone going to see your non stop references to star trek and the big bang theory?. That's all you talk about.
 
There is a real can of worms here, as California has very strict laws about celebrity endorsements.
 
I had a simple solution for them, I deleted my Instagram account.
 
lol they laughed at me when I asked them to join me, and they cry now... 
Yeah I said you are popular +Wil Wheaton and could help many avoid this type of thing, ... are you still laughing ? lol
btw no hard feelings... you can still help now if you really want... 
 
Meh. If you don't want people using your shit, don't put it on the Internet. 
 
Well you can cry and be abused by corps that don't have your best interest at heart; or join me and we can be happy users with no worries a corp is going to stitch us like kippers... which they always will... 
I just figured that the love of corps and the attachment and groupy thing people crazily feel for them was too strong for many to realise... 
Everyone will come to our new software when when the bandwagon gets rolling... I sort of care for others though, could do with some or atleast one person with a decent number of followers to help spread the word though to help others... (Either I thought people didn't care or didn't understand!  -- the high profile people I asked anyway...)
 
Me to. No money no honey. I knew it was coming. That's why v
I never used it.
 
Yep, deleted my instagram account, son't even want to deal with it. Stopped using facebook over a year ago.
 
lol Google is not your friend either... ok that is my last comment here ... 
People can learn the hard way with Google in due course... if they really want to ...
 
I'm pretty sure photographers will retain the copyright on their photos no mater what someone says on a hosting site. don't sue instagram sue their customer that uses your image. even in small claims court... they have to send a lawyer to defend it.
 
DeviantArt added a very similar clause to their user agreement years ago, which was the point at which I deleted everything in my DA gallery. I'd rather lose what little exposure I got from posting my artwork to their gallery than risk having my work exploited for their gain without them even telling me. Makes me glad I don't use Instagram.
Ryan Ng
 
I'm not sure that Instagram is going to do that, due to the fact that some of the photos may have copyrights on them.
 
This is precisely why Facebook knows much about you and your connections even if you have never ever used it - your friends do.
 
nobody cares, wheaton. there are far more pressing issues than what instagram does with pictures of your penis. get a real job.
 
Fargo and Sheldon Cooper doesn't care, they'll kick yer ass Dr. Parish.. Grrrr...
 
I understand OP's concerns--especially the pay about opting out regarding our digital lives. I will say this: if some company is using my shitty instagram pictures for their advertising, they're doing it wrong. :)
Ryan Ng
 
+Dan Beaudry I know about the new terms of service. I was just saying that, sometimes before people upload photos to Instagram, they put copyrights on the photo first.
 
Um I'm no expert but isn't everything you post on the net copy righted by you unless you say other wise?
 
read the EULA. a lot of times you waive that right when you use the software.
Ryan Ng
 
+Ryan Prior I don't think so. Only if the copyright is explicitly stated, or in the terms of service, then there is a copyright on that item.
 
it's all to confusing for me!  like your drop ins on big bang.
 
This is certainly egregious, but as many here have pointed out, you take the risk by using public services. Things are not as clear cut now as they were before such wide use of the internet. Best thing you can do on a majority of social networking is to not post anything you wouldn't want used against you. Especially, uh, "erotic" photos of yourself (like some morons), photos of your children or family, photos of weapons you may own (or even your kitchen knives), etc. Use discretion and moderation, as in most aspects of life.
 
I wish people would realize the shell game these networks are playing with their rights. These companies continue to work at convincing people that the content they generate on the networks doesn't belong to the individual user. It doesn't no matter how many ways they say so, the work is yours.

They can write all the TOS documents they want, if you created the work, photo of your lunch or award winning photo journalism, it is yours. It will always be yours and no one can take away those rights.
 
man, now I'm nervous that quikpic is going to turn out to be evil. 
 
You wanted Apple. You wanted Facebook. You wanted shiny, happy things that have no options or choices because thinking is hard, configuration is for nerds, and brushed metal is how you show the world that you are a member of the leisure class. And now you are complaining that all of the power and control that you gave up in order to have simple, mindless, pretty things is being used against you in a way that, if you stopped and really thought about it, doesn't fucking matter.

Oh boo, hoo.

Like the celebrities who whine about the paparazzi and the "loss of privacy." Boo hoo. Wipe away your tears with your $100 bills.

And fuck these "free services." How DARE they find a way to make money? Who do they think they are?
 
+Ryan Prior HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  You crack me up, man!  Funniest thing I have read all day.  Automatically copyrighted!  Fucking genius. Are you a professional comedian or are you working a day job and trying to get your comedy done in the evenings?  Either way, you have a future in stand-up or written comedy.  Where can I see you perform?  Automatically copyrighted!  I am still laughing!!!
 
Facebook.... What do you expect? Never going back to them.
 
And delete goes the instagram account...
 
Does anyone else read all of the "TOS" comments and think: Star Trek TOS?

...just me?
 
You can learn a whole bunch studying the methods of malware to understand overall systemic vulnerabilities.  Who hasn't received a message from a compromised account saying "I'm stuck, I need money!" 

More recent attacks actually re-use the compromised accounts address book for re-infection - during the initial compromise of the email account, the attacker will store the contacts.  If the account gets secured, it will then receive personalized attacks - the mail will come from names that exist in their contacts, even if the underlying email addresses don't match.  

Leveraging the trust you have of your friends is a cost-effective business practice outside the bounds of law.  If all it takes is consent for corporations to leverage that trust legally, then, well...   
 
READ the end user licence agreements because if you "agree" to it it's legal. Don't let them get away with this shit!
 
The automatic consent of underage users may be the most disturbing part of the slimy TOS. blech

This can't hold up.
 
I agree. Luckily I have only 10 pics on the service and don't foresee using it further. But yes, they could do what you hypothesize if the user agrees to the terms and conditions of the app.
 
Holy Crap, Instagram is going to sell all my Instragram photos? 
... BOTH of them?!?!...
(Never did figure out an app to make your photos look like crappy Instamatic shots. I guess I shot too many REAL crappy Instamatic shots as a kid. I'm glad to have quality images now...)
 
I can see it now. You take a picture of a friend and they end up on ad for hemorrhoid cream. 
 
What do you care you still live at home with people you adopted, your strange mr crusher, lol
 
Thankfully, I always had the "Share with Flickr" switch On.

Leaving Instagram couldn't be easier.
 
Their using unsuspecting tech weak folks to xsploit for profit !
 
I deleted my Instagram. 
 
The only rational solution is to immediate smash any smartphone or tablet you see. After all, if it ain't workin' if can't be postin'. 
 
This is just what FaceBook did with their advertising and lost a case in court and paid a large fine. It would seem that  Instagram doesn't keep up on legal cases or maybe they figure they can make more than the fine will end up being. You wonder about the people that run companies who make such decisions. Anyway not Instagram anymore and with the number of sites that offer similar services don't imagine I will be.
 
I'm guessing this will be undone within a week.  People have the right, especially celebrities, to control how their image is used.  And you're right +Wil Wheaton , if a company grabs an image of Kaley Cuoco and uses it to promote a product she'd never actually endorse, she'd be one very rich girl once her lawyers got done with them.
 
Good thing on Google you're not the product, and they don't use your personal information because you're paying them for the services you use .... oh. 
 
Seriously, that sounds like a Facebook idea.  Just reading the description makes one think "that sounds like something Facebook would come up with".
 
Most won't take this seriously, until the image of someone's wife, girlfriend, or sister ends up on an advertisement for birth control or herpes medication.  
 
Wil wheaton :) sheldons worst enemy turned friend haha and yeah I don't think instagram should be allowed to do that 
 
Yes Pat I can see some serious problems with who and what are tied together with such a program. No way they can sort things beyond random matches based on maybe age or something like that. It's a disaster waiting to happen and I for one will be glad to see it. 
 
Excellent thinking.  Needs to be passed on to Google.
 
it doesn't matter who owns the photo or what rights the owner of the photo has given to instagram/FB/flickr, you cannot use identifiable photo unless the person in the photo has given permission (=model release)
 
why do you say instagram, didn't facebook buy them? so basically they are doing what facebook said they were gonna do all along...?
 
You know, if you really want some privacy, you could always write things down in an old fashioned note-book.
 
I am glad that never used instagram for anything serious ! May be a good reason for Flickr to come back to existence again. Flickr, listening ?
 
No.

If we have to remember to set a "do not track" option everywhere (in every web browser on every computer and device we own), we've accomplished nothing. I understand that tracking is a good thing sometimes, but it should be an opt-in, not opt-out.
 
I knew something was up. I saw the new rules and regulations they posted with the new update, but i havent read them. Shitty way to do business. 
 
Shut up Wil, you're stealing our secrets!! LoL!  Honestly, all the messages, or photos you post are being harvested and used in any way the companies can to make a profit.  Best bet, if you want to post about something, make it generic and not TOO personal.  Just make it lighthearted and don't give away too much information.
 
Facebook already did this, and since Instagram is owned by Facebook I am not at all surprised. What do celebrities do when their Facebook images are used without their knowledge? I don't imagine its any different..
 
Who the hell is surprised that a company that is owned by FB is going around and skirting people's privacy and using it to make money?  Good enough reason to ditch them both for being #asshats  
 
Nice post. It really is getting hard to be a crazy world.
 
Now to go share it using a dodgy app I found. :)
 
In the 21st century, your personal information is currency. Spend it wisely.
 
I personally do not use Instagram or other info harvesting apps. i follow my apps closely (almost paranoid ocd close) and as i see one about to take personal info in a direction i don't want, i remove myself and as much of my info i can and stop using said app. i also do not synch my address book on my phone with my Outlook or Google+ i do it all manually so there is no question that things are not being shared.
 
Just wanted to note that I was the 1,000th +1. No big deal.
 
doubt there'll be any shitstorm. you can be sure the ua you agreed to by using instagram lets them do anything they want with the images and forbids you from suing them on top of that. not saying this with approval, but.
 
The Internets thinks I live somewhere I lived many years past most of the times.  In fact Hulu uses the feed from that area because I can see the ABC 11 transparent logo when watching stuff like Castle and Revenge.  I agree with you though.  It is a potential issue that needs addressing.
 
Just wanted to note that I was the 1,029th +1. No big deal.
 
How would that help them if anything the peoples photos they will be mad and drlete their stuff
Kayla H
 
Im not surprised to see this happen, but I hope instagram enjoys showing off my random knitting photos. 
 
Facebook bought them. This should come as no surprise.
 
Just read & posted about this myself. Not as eloquently as +Wil Wheaton has here, though. It's enough to prompt me to delete my existing Instagram account. 
 
Well now that they're part of Facebook if you don't like what they're doing, move everything to google drive and let google do the same thing. Read the tos for that, it's similar.

Don't want others using it, don't post it or find a great lawyer with a big heart and decent rates.

DocMurdock
 
This just in: Will Wheaton LOVES Cuke Classic!
 
Don't you love how celebrities post things on here, yet don't respond to responders responses?  I have never seen once a time that a celebrity has posted an intelligent response (let alone a response) to any of their posts. Please prove me wrong Wil.
 
Schedule Chocolatenip cake recipes
 
Rather presumptuous of them. You, Will, can reasonably expect to be compensated for the use of your likeness, and have the means to fight it if it's used without your permission. As a nobody, I don't have that status. 
 
i did not have instagram on my phone.. probably never happened LOL
 
So I dont understand why the fuss about dumping your instagram account and then posting you're doing that on Facebook?  Uh hello Facebook is the one who started doing it first.  Seems a little silly doesnt it?  Its like protesting coffee while your in a Starbucks holding a latte.  lol
 
I won a case where my image was trying to be monetized, it's called Rights of Publicity. I don't know if that protects general public or just actors / hosts though? Wonder what Instagram agreement says to skirt this law. How about SAG protection for its members? Again these thing may not be something that cover gen pop, but I think at least Rights of Publicity should.
 
Oh its much worse than that...... other advertisers can pay instagram to use your photos in association with their products. Nice to know your photos could be the next face for hemroid cream.
 
Snapseed all the way!
 
Thank you for pointing that out, Wil. I unfortunately hadn't thought of that... :/
 
Dam I'm finna delete mine now
 
And that is another thing that kind of explains my point.  The responders never read the responses that the people write.  They just sit on their soapbox and post their opinion without reading whatever anyone else has to say.  I wish people would just take the time to listen to other people's opinions and discuss them.
 
Lol all these accounts being deleted. That's what they want you to do. So you relinquish all rights to those photos once you delete your account. Deleting your account does not delete those photos. 
 
Being a free service, they should have the right to recoup the investment some how.
This should not affect normal people.
Where it is troublesome is with dealing with "Famous People" who may be under contract. They are probably breaching that contract by using it.
 
+Melanie Castle is onto something here +David Garrelts.  The new TOS only applies if you are still using the service after that date.  Which will create a bit of a quandary and a legal risk for them.  If you still have an account but haven't used it after the TOS effective date and they aren't smart about it, they could end up losing a lot of money...
 
+John Hurley the problem is the linear fashion by which g+ sorts replies. It really needs threaded posts where you can respond to a specific user father than getting dumped to the bottom of the heap.
 
+Robert DeLuca you should be allowed to say yes these photos may be used for whatever you like and these others may not. Because who can really say they trust the judgement of Facebook employees and the like? 
 
Well, this answers the question of what would happen when facebook bought them.  +Wil Wheaton just another confirmation of your opinion on facebook and why we shouldn't use it.  
 
+Thom Miller I may take a photo of my morning constitution as a parting gift.
 
Have you read the TOS on other sites and services? They are all very similar to what Instagram has been using and will be using in their new TOS on 1/16/13.

FYI, Twitter, just like Instagram, states that while you own your content: 
"You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.
Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services."
 https://twitter.com/tos
 
I enjoy reading this with a lisp...
 
Change photo privacy ops then check Instagram T&C under article 1 on Proprietary rights in contect that mentioned Private photo wont be distributed outside instagram
 
Best bet if you want to limit companies from using your photos is to get photo manipulation software and put a "Copyright So-and-so" watermark across each photo like the art photographers do. The watermark renders your photo essentially worthless for advertising purposes. If a family member or a friend in the photo wants to make a print of it for a photo album, they can ask you to send them the original image as a file.

I think a lot of us are going to end up transitioning to open source applications that are non-spying and available for free. Making them open-source and free is a way to ensure that you don't have what happened with Skype, where you have a useful service that's fairly private, then it gets bought by Microsoft.

The only way to keep that from happening is to make the software public domain and no longer subject to getting owned by some greedy corporation who can slap a nasty EULA on it.

The truth about more and more software is that if it is not free, it will be used to screw you over in some way, shape or form. The truth about more and more of our digital life for the digiterati is that the only way to protect yourself is to participate in writing open source, free stuff that doesn't do nasty things to you.
 
Same as most of the other sites and services..masses don't care about it
 
This is getting ridiculous. I'm sticking to Google plus. Instagram has gone downhill since Facebook bought them out. 
 
As far as FB/Instagram goes... as a public figure, I would urge caution on what you share via a company that pays its bills by invasion of privacy... not much more you can say about that..

Now the cell phone app, i've never thought about that.  It's been a while since i've read through the eula for the android/ios SDK, but i'm pretty sure the level of data mining you refer to is "against the rules"...    That said... any developer with malicious intent could fulfill your fears there, no different than malware on your computer.
 
HAHA SUCKERS! Instagram/Facebook should've never been trusted.
 
They're just following the way Facebook does things.
 
How does the creator's intellectual property rights come into play? Does creator warrant that model releases are available in all his/her photos? Is it revocable?
PJ C
 
I never cared about instagram. Thank goodness I didn't sign up for it.
matt p
 
Streamzoo is much more user friendly
 
Tired of the digital frontier legal garbage. Yet another cool tool to avoid. 
 
To be honest I think that the terms of use would indicate that any content uploaded to Instagram either becomes theirs or they would have a non-exclusive license to use without further reference to the author.

I guess that no one forced you to upload your personal data to a third party (in this case Instagram) server as it could have been stored locally in your personal device without further ado. If the adverts are for Instagram, to show that it's being used by everyone from the famous to the infamous, and it's user terms and conditions indicate what I stated above, then good luck to any celebs who try to make a big deal out of it. Excellent post by the way.
 
Umm they are attempting to enter into this contract with potential minors. That's a legally non enforceable situation. Besides that, petty horrible TOS for the rest...
 
Do we feel a sense of entitlement using a free service, which for many builds value to our own personal brand - and even monetize ourselves?
 
Nothing is private online if it ever really was...
 
I was listening to a piece on the radio that referenced COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act).  Americans get incredibly sensitive about the idea of a business or government abusing their children's privacy, but rarely take any action or even any interest in wholescale commercialization of their own personal data.  This is unfortunate, as adults have a lot more to lose.
 
Lol good thing for instagram that half of their users wont understand the magnitude of this. 
 
Relax people, don't expect everything to be free forever. People need to bring home the bacon, is this that unacceptable?
 
I got Instagram but not much people uses it.....
Then why must I download.... Hahahahaha
 
Unfortunately anything that makes it online is there for good thanks to caching and each thing has its own address there is no security :( wonder why I haven't had a FB account for over 4 yrs now. What a voyeristic world we live in.
 
Time to post a bunch of pictures of me picking my nose :) 
 
Is this really legal? Will it be in the user agreement and if so if you do not agree , will you be locked out of the app? Also, what about pics taken before the change? Will they be grandfathed in? So many question s I have
 
Just deleted it from my Android phone.
 
I think that this is problematic on privacy. More and more of our lives are becoming quite public, especially with social media where everyone is a reporter.

Now it is hard to argue privacy on things that happen in a public setting, but now days even private settings are not so private. Used to, if someone took pictures during a private event, they might be shared by handing out physical copies or by emailing copies to others who were there. At most said event might get discussed with friends and family.

Now these pictures and discussions get plastered all over Facebook and other social media, right in the open for the whole world to see. You may not even be on such sites, but due to friends and family using them, significant portions of your life still may be public. This is no different than a reporter that manages to get into some high profile private event, then writing all the details in an article for the world to read.
 
>Implies orange pictures of cake and man-hole covers are personal, precious, and valued.
>Continues to store 1000s of them publicly on The Internet Tubes.
>Pays $0 to Instagram in return for the joy of feux-Polaroids.
>Forgets Instagram's sole purpose is public consumption.
>Lashes out in self-absorbed rage at the brazen arrogance of Instagram for attempting to remain viable.
>Welcomes you to the present.
 
i could not agree with you more, +Wil Wheaton . actually, as i was reading the first couple of lines, my head was already going to the exact destination you found. it is predictable, and preventable.
 
Oh it will work really simply Will.  People will realize what instagram is doing delete their photos and close their accounts.  Oh I am sorry, I was in sane normal world there for a second ...
 
If you're unhappy with Instagram, check out OpenPhoto. http://theopenphotoproject.org/

"The OpenPhoto Project is free open source photo sharing and management software for the web and mobile devices."
 
Hopefully this will kill the Vintage Photo Filter fad once and for all. Most smartphones take great (or at least decent) snapshots. I never saw the point in making them look bad by using silly photo filters.
 
I agree, something that is cool and usefull but now not worth using anymore. The privacy problems are getting worse every week, Europe  goes a little overboard with theirs but we do need something more like what they have, just to stop this kind of crap.
 
The shit with the email address has happened to me multiple times. I was shocked when I got advertising mails from social networks with old school mates of mine as friend suggestions even though I had never had any contact with the sites. All just because some assholes gave my contact data to them.
 
TOTALLY agree!! I don't use instagram for a reason
 
Unfortunately the same freedoms we enjoy with the internet are the same freedoms that allow this kind of thing to happen, and be an acceptable business practice.
 
It's a perfect example of a social disease, to paraphrase Bernie Taupin.
 
For the small portion of this post that actually discusses Instagram, I guess it just doesn't bother me that much that they'd use a pic of mine for an advert. I guess if I received enough income to live of off the residuals of my past work (like some people on G+) it might concern me.
 
+richard slemaker when Instagram can freely use your image in advertisement for a penis pump, you might think differently.
 
Regarding addressbooks...  Suppose you provide the minimum amount of information necessary to obtain the use of a service, but other users can fill in the blanks?  To often, the choice seems to be to not join a service or concede everything.  Being careful about what you volunteer means nothing if your friends and associates serve up the rest.

Google, in transitioning its Picasaweb users to Google+ photos changed the way face tagging was handled.  Picasa users had a few years before Google+ to think of face tagging as an organizational tool, like labeling the back of a physical photo.  Google+ however will notify any person tagged in an uploaded photo and provide them access to the photo along with rights to control its sharing, or detagging.  It's a stumble in the right direction as far as privacy is concerned, but a headache for picasaweb users making the transition. Who knew cousin Bob's ex-girlfriend would gain access to the private family photo album when Mom faced tagged her photo from two years back?
 
So Facebook have found yet another way to piss off their users...... Oh well, what do you expect from a free service. 
 
if i were an Instagram user, i'd export and download all my photos, delete them from my account and then close my account. Facebook certainly isn't doing anyone any favors when it comes to privacy. in fact, i don't even upload photos to Facebook most of the time: i link to my Flickr account instead, so Facebook can't use them. it's slightly less convenient, but worth it to me to have more control over the privacy of my photos.

as far as filters go, between Snapseed and Pixlr Express i've got all the photo editing capabilities i could possibly want on Android. 
 
If a service is free, you're not the customer.  You're the product.
Bud L
 
But you still get the people that do it 'just to see my pic in print/in an ad'     Like when news outlets mention a story and say have a pic of it send it in.  How many less news photographers are there these day over 5 years ago?
 
Have not used them and now I have a better reason not to. I'm tired of giving my good content away. Instead - I'll post them on MY website.
 
+Wil Wheaton Here's my article with some more details on what's going on: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/

But briefly, if I take a photo of you, and you're famous enough to be able to raise a right of publicity claim against someone else making a commercial use of that image, you'll likely still be able to raise that against Facebook and whoever tries to license the photo from Facebook. So Kaley and Melissa still have some options.

But that comes with some caveats: California recognizes a right of publicity claim, but not all states do. Another caveat is that the right of publicity does not apply to editorial use. So TMZ could still license it and publish a nice spread of what Kaley and Melissa are up to.
 
Instagram once features one of my photos on their account and didn't give me any credit. Looks like it will be happening more. 
 
+Wil Wheaton I agree with you and I'm glad I never became an Instagram user. Not a fan of Facebook either.
 
I was wondering when we would get that, TheFacebook feeling from this acquisition. 
 
Facebook owns instagram. How could anyone not see this coming?? 
 
Stop complaining and don't use Instagram or Facebook.

Problem solved.
 
It's the reason I use google+ and avoid anything Facebook! 
 
Facebook buying Instagram, making Flickr look good since 2012.

Just saw some of p4a. Nice stuff. I like the work you do Mr. Wheaton.
Tim P
 
It will be worse that you think since they will probably use an algorithm to find pics because there is literally no way to even guess how many shots of NAKED peeps parts could end up appearing all over the app, just when it pulls non "tagged" stuff 
 
Hey Will Wheaton,, Big Fan! Love you on Star Trek so much!!!
 
Exactly, we do need an assault on these liberties that companies are taking with our privacy without our consent. 
 
I am not (your) lawyer, and I haven't closely analyzed the whole document, but I think Instagram might have a problem if they tried to use photos a user takes of someone else in an ad.

Say I take a picture of +Wil Wheaton.  If I post that picture to Instagram, paragraph 4 of the "Rights" section of the ToU doc says that I (1) own the content (which I do, because I took the picture), and (2) my posting doesn't violate any publicity rights (which it doesn't, because I'm not using it for a commercial purpose).  I don't owe any royalties because I created the picture myself.  So I've lived up to this paragraph of the "Rights" section of the ToU.

Paragraph 2 of the "Rights" section says that I agree that they can use my picture without any payment to me.  That's fine with me, too.

However, Instagram using the picture in an ad would implicate Wil's rights of publicity.  Nothing in the ToU says that I agree that I have the rights to use the image for a commercial purpose, and I'm not the one using it for a commercial purpose, so I don't think the indemnification clause would apply, either.

So, I think that, unless Instagram gets a model release from Wil, they're not going to be able to use my picture of him in an ad without opening themselves up to liability under Wil's rights of publicity.
 
I thought this was the same/same for Facebook.  Once you upload a photo it's theirs.
 
And that's the coffin nail. Deleting my content and posting this as a notice to other instagram users.
 
So it ok for average joe steal music from the Internet but its not ok for big company to steal your photos?
 
Finaly, being unphotogenic and having no friends is becoming advantage :D
 
Man you were great in Eureka! I know that's a bit off topic here, as far as the whole Instagram thing, yeah that wouldn't surprise me. I lived Instagram when it came out ( it was my FB alternative ) but once FB purchased it, I knew it was doomed!! God I miss Eureka! Warehouse 13 is ok, but I would take Dr. Parrish arguing with Douglas over it any day! 
 
Good point about the address books .. well not much of an issue for me since i'm in the phonebook anyway and anyone who tries can prolly find my contact info fairly easy (I used to be self-employed ;))
 
When money is involved ethics will always suffer . 
 
Mr Wheaton I think your concern is that Sheldon (from the Big Bang Theory) will find out where you live and do something to you and your meemaw. 
 
Deleted my account this morning. 
 
If its true what I've heard then I'm not surprised. If Facebook have taken over Instagram then it will be true. Bye Instagram.
Roman J
 
Hi i really like your inpreshion of jarjar binkes on the big bang thiry.
 
Shared the info before, yesterday. This is, how you're able to fuck up good applications. Easily.
 
W......O.....W.....AWESOME.....I.WISH I COULD ALSO PURCHASE THE SAME MODEL.........DREAM CAR......
 
we went from no cameras in our phones, to uber crappy ones, all the way to the megapixel ones of today just to take pictures like it's 1955?? WHY?  
 
How many of you are on #Facebook? How many of you have managed to pull friends onto #Google+ most ofy friends won't jump. Just shows the level of intelligence they have to keep looking at news feed that constantly shows "Like For Love" and "ooh finished the washing,what will I do now"


 
I try to be very careful, especially on FB, I don't play games, and any app, or anything, that wants me to grant permission gets denied. I don't care if it is a legitimate sweepstakes or something from someone I trust, I just don't do it. Recently I went to update Google Search on my Nexus 7, and it had a new permissions request, to allow access to the camera. And it may not notify me when it was using it. WTH? Why does a search engine need access to my camera without letting me know? Needless to say I did not apply the update. 
 
+Wil Wheaton A good thing to remember is that when using a "free" service (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google+...) you're the product. It's just a question of how blatantly they will package you and sell you - not whether or not they sell you.
 
I'm going back to stone knives and bear skins...though, I just got the iPhone 5 and am having such fun playing with it. I'll drink on it.
 
+Kimmo Jaskari - if you following Will, he's complaining more deeply. You have a phone, using a product, which has access to your address book. In this case not YOU are the "product", but all of your contacts! Which is quite crazy.
 
I know YouTube had a clause in their terms that stated any video could be used for promotional purposes. 
 
This sort of privacy change is likely inevitable. The question is how many scandalous situations must occur before the society/law catches up to the digital age.
 
+Zsolt Menyhárt Oh, I think our entire society is crazy. We sell our precious living time on this Earth in return for keeping our privileges to eat and have shelter... talk about crazy. But that said, my original comment stands. We're all the product, and if we permit Instagram or Facebook to take our contacts and using them too then it's on us to make them stop. 
 
You seriously have to hope any developer obeys Wheaton's Law
 
I can't see that complying with the Data Protection Act that we have here in the UK. Whoever the data user is or app publisher is, deserves a visit from the Information Commissioner's Office.
 
try being a digital artist and protecting your work while it's supposed to be about sharing

I've been coping with this issue for years...and I'm talking about works that take months to complete, not a point and click snapshot...I don't have a team of $500 an hour lawyers to help either.
 
Aren't these the same rules for Facebook too now? I always set everything to private, and why I love G+, it's very easy to set your presence, Facebook, and its affiliate sites make it deliberately hard to know their rules, and your own security. Sadly the only real way to be sure that you are safe, is to not be 'social'.
 
Maybe if everybody. takes there photos off of instagram. deletes their account maybe instagram will listen.
 
Instagram account deleted. Thanks for the heads up. 
 
Instagram is bought by Facebook, that many times over showed they don't respect user privacy. That's why I never started using it.
 
Haha..deactivated my account coz I was tired of looking at others dinner plates.
 
In this day and age, its no longer the privy of criminals and spys; the use of aliases. Innocent people with a modicum privacy will need to get with the program.

 
maybe Apple will buy Facebook (and thereby also Instagram) and in doing so, create a mechanism where they can charge you to see material that you created!
 
I fail to see what the big deal is...it's social media. I mean, you're taking these pictures and posting them on the Internet for free, but you expect compensation when the people that provide your free service decide to use what you've already put out into cyberspace for anyone to see
 
After reading the new Instagram TOS, I've decided to wait to the beginning of January to see if they change again..  If not I delete all my images, and upload a protest image instead.
 
I suppose I am lucky that I don't do much social networking... I don't touch Facebook, and I rarely post on G+ (this being one of the few times). I always found the nature of social networking to be obtrusive, and have refrained from posting photos or anything of personal nature. Signing on to one of these systems always has a ToS that nobody reads, and maybe people should. Especially with those social companies that have gone public. Majority share holders are only concerned with their own pockets. Looks like the future outlined by terribad scifi films is becoming true. Big brother isn't the government, but a corporation :(
 
And that's exactly why I don't use #WhatsApp . It's not that I'm afraid to share my own phone number with a company, but I do not want to automatically share the phone numbers of all my (business) contacts and reveal their connection with me and thus help build a social graph that is well beyond my own, limited control.
 
Secretly copyright photos b4 uploading them to Instagram. That'll teach them! Not all photos are 'instant', which I guess is what they base their logic on.
 
Do other services (like Twitter or Flickr) have similar terms of service concerning photos? I would be surprised if it were only Instagram who has such terms of service. 
 
Hey Wil.....Just Water Mark each photo  or Photos. Then it is owned and can not be used unless compensated. Email adress , or just a simple name on the photo.
 
you'll be fine if you only post ugly people and boring things!
 
well it is owned by facebook now, one had to see this coming
 
I am pretty sure Facebook does the same thing, in time G+ might do the same thing.
 
Indeed. It was always destined to become full of suck.
 
Kjetil Greger Pedersen, I did read the TOS and like any company they can change it when they want, but you are right for now they are not.
 
There are two kinds of rights with respect to photographs of people.  The first is the copyright for the photograph itself.  When you sign up to these services, this is the right that you typically sign over.  However, people in a photograph also have rights to the distribution of their likeness.  Unless the photographer gets a waiver signed, there is no way for the service to be assigned those rights (because they belong to the person whose photograph is being taken).  This has been tested in court many times (most notably when Corel chose a picture of a woman's face from a clip art library for the cover of their box, circa 2000.  She successfully sued Corel.  Sorry... can't find a link handy).

So if someone uses your likeness for advertising without your permission, you can still sue -- even if that person owns the copyright to the photograph in question.  Note that there are the usual exceptions for things like news, satire, etc.  

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice... :-P
 
I see a lot of "g+ doesn't do this"... Beware. I had an issue with the mobile app. There was recently an update. I allowed it to go through & before I was asked, it started uploading EVERY picture & video from my android phone. Once I figured out how to navigate the updated version, deleting them wasn't TOO big an issue but it took a few minutes. (& I mean it uploaded everything lol) If I hadn't been looking at it in that split second, I never would've noticed the upload. It happened automatically, as soon as the update installed. Just an FYI.
 
+Raja Swaminathan In the article they write that they don't sell ads. Okay. But I'm not talking about ads in WhatsApp. I'm talking about the giant social graph they build with their app. When you install WhatsApp, they fetch all your contacts' phone numbers from your phone. Maybe more. Of course, this way they can automatically show you all your friends that also have WhatsApp installed. But they also have all the data. And when they are running out of money (they need lots of servers and some personnel, and the iTunes app is pay-once and for the Android app almost no one bought their subscription because it keeps working anyway), your data is the only asset they have. 
 
Facebook has a similar clause regarding images. As a photographer, it is my goal to make money from my work and not give it away for free. It is much akin to likeness rights....
 
I think thay should inform the users.
 
This is why I have nothing to do with Facebook or anything connected to them.
 
It is a free service, what do you expect?
 
Finally. Maybe we'll finally see all those duck faces put to good use. I dunno what product though... Suction cups? Aflac? Chapstick? The possibilities are endless! 
 
considering ending my account on instagram.. 
 
You are right. We are turning into commodity, sold without even our consent. 
 
+Harald Bongartz From the blog post - "At WhatsApp, our engineers spend all their time fixing bugs, adding new features and ironing out all the little intricacies in our task of bringing rich, affordable, reliable messaging to every phone in the world. That’s our product and that’s our passion. Your data isn’t even in the picture. We are simply not interested in any of it."

The app is paid on iPhone and free for the first year on Android, and $1 per year after that. Given the user base of millions, I'd say it makes them a tidy amount of money without ever getting into data mining or advertising.

I'd say the danger of that (data mining, social graph etc) happening is if they get taken over by Facebook (there was a recent rumor) or Google. But millions of people have already made their deal with the devil as far as their personal data is concerned by using these services for 'free', so Whatsapp isn't a special case here.
It will get worse as younger people get online, they won't see anything wrong with sharing their social interactions with a big company unlike us who actually remember a time when data mining wasn't so pervasive.
 
While I don't expect a lot of privacy online, I do want anonymity. Companies like Facebook and Instagram are abusing our reputations by using our images with no real consent. Facebook lawyers will crawl up your colon if you abuse their corporate repetition - for example, if I implied that facebook endorses my work when they don't.

Why isn't my reputation protected by law? Oh, wait - it is. I just can't afford to protect it in practice.

So thanks, Facebook. Making the world worse one violation at a time.
 
I couldn't agree more with this post. We live in a world where personal privicy is a luxuary and not a right. We have to keep track of who can do what with what. At some point in the future there will be an anti-digital movement that will fracture society.
Nhat Le
 
Hmmm I better start deleting all those drunk n nude photos of myself. What happens if someone decided to put together a photo book using these pics and title the "embarrassing moments caught on camera". Now I hope no young underage kids decides to be stupid enough to post these types of photos up on instragram. 
 
Hands OFF WhatsApp you F'tarded FB. You are the Apple of social networks. EVIL....!!
 
+Julian Sammy Anonymity on the net is a myth. The physical infrastructure of the internet is in the hands of big corporations and governments, all it requires is a legal takedown for them to get hold of the server logs of whichever site you thought you were anonymous on. Look at the cases against Bittorrent users, or even against individual participants of Anonymous.

Unless we all start using darknets running on our own mesh networks rather than public ISPs, we can be tracked at will. In the short term, all you can do is minimize your digital footprint, though if you're on Facebook you've already lost that ability.
 
13 year old are squealing, "OMG, OMG, MOMMA, IM GONNA BE ON TEEVEE, SQUEEEEE". I'm sure with they're all broken up about the possibility of being semi famous.

Honestly, if you're on Instagram anyways, you probably deserved it for being lazy and not using a proper camera, you dirty little hipster. 
 
I never saw the point in instagram. I never used it, and never will.
 
It completely amazes me as to how much we tolerate given our new found freedom in this this digital age. 
 
Really doesn't seem legal.
 
All that is going to spreadall over Google facebook Twitter all network media. And you not going to get payment for it 
 
There's a way to work around this. Just watermark your pictures. 
 
It has always been the same basic idea with all social media - "it is you that is for sale"
 
Guaranteed:  there will be people who opt-out by deleting their accounts and still end up finding their pics sold.

Oh yes.  There will be fallout.  This is Facebook we're talking about, after all.
 
It only happens if ur profile is Public. Change ur setting to Private. Facebook included. 
 
It's somewhat ironic that Google has used Wil Wheaton's G+ post in their weekly email marketing campaign.
 
Lol.. get a lawyer that helps you understand 
 
Your information being shared does not only happen if you have things set to public. I ordered cards from Moonpig a few days ago, and it actually asked me to give my FRIENDS' email addresses so that it could email them and let them know the cards were on their way. Sorry what? Ask for MY email address, ok, I am ordering stuff, but asking for someone else's private information is well out of order. No one has any business giving my email address out to a company.
 
+Jarrod Dixon (caveat, I don't use Instagram) - That's hardly an ideal solution.  I'm certain that there must be plenty of people whose ideal usage of Instagram includes public sharing of their photos.  

This is a sea-change event for Instagram, and saying "Just make your profile private" isn't even a Band-Aid on the cut, it's more like ignoring the cut and stabbing yourself with a drawing pin.
 
How funny.. even Google is selling our data too.. 
 
should be a barrel of laughs once they get sued.
 
People need to get on Google play and rate this app accordingly to make others aware! *
 
Ahhh... Gotta love Facebook's greedy ways!
 
Nobody gives a shit about someone's heart shape in their foamy latte or their latest meal. That's what Instagram has become anyway. People take photos of something, slap a filter on and BOOM they're a professional photographer. No thanks. 
 
Couldn't care less... but good post anyway.
 
TANSTAAFL

Every web app that appears to be free is not.  The developer may not have exactly figured out what the cost will be, but eventually there will be a cost.  The changing cost is an attempt by the developer to monetize the relationship with the customer.  The developer is free to revise the cost of that relationship as often as they like.  The customer is obligated to re-evalutate and determine if the relationship is acceptable or end the relationship.
  
It's economics.  Humans tend toward assuming that a free application is an entitlement and they can get insulted by the notion that something that was once free is now going to cost them something. That's just the developer trying to tweak the cost to their gain.

If you don't like the proposition, walk away. Find another way to get what you want for a price that you are willing to pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
 
Once Facebook/Instagram has something you post using their "services", they can do with it whatever they want... and you have no legal recourse because you agreed to their terms and conditions!

If Instagram wants to edit a bunch of photos to make a photographic human centipede, there's nothing you can do because you agreed to the terms and conditions!

If Instagram wants to edit a bunch of photos to make a fake sex tape starring every "celebrity" using their service, there's nothing the "celebrities" can do about it because they agreed to the terms and conditions.

Welcome to slavery, people!
OEL M
+
1
2
1
 
There is in EU some like private invasion of image for commercial purpose? You can video tape some officer giving some beat with some batton to some unarmed defenseless man. But you can to take some picture from somebody for commercial use without his permission humillate or mocking him or showing it on youtube . You could be accountable for any harm or damage to somebody reputation...you could be prosecuted before a lawsuit in Court. 
 
+LEONEL MAZA incorrect, sadly.

Photographs and videos cannot be considered "defamatory" because they are merely captured footage of real events.

Also, any inherent rights you have to your own image have been signed over to Facebook/Instagram the moment you ticked that box to agree to their terms and conditions (like signing a release to appear on TV)

That's the way things are, and nobody's going to change that any time soon because companies like Facebook have all the money, and therefore all the representation.
 
+Wil Wheaton ...my thing is, when Facebook buys another company or product, eventually, you're going to lose not only your rights, but any privacy you thought you had in it for Facebook's profit.  I'm with you; I never used Instagram, but I know a LOT of people that do.  #TeamGoogle  
 
Anyone using an online service is paying for it one way or another. 'there ain't no such thing as a free lunch' - tanstaafl
 
I'm getting the last laugh with instagram.  All of my photos suck.  Good luck doing anything with those terrible photos instagram.  
 
They have to make their money somehow. With Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc ... you are the product. You may use the service and see yourself as the "consumer" but that is an illusion. You're the product that these services use to attract advertisers so they can make money. A consumer pays for a service. The consumer in this relationship is the people willing to pay for their advertisements to be seen or, in Instagram's case, a company willing to pay for photos.

To be frank, people agree to all this sort of thing when they sign up for the services. Most people just don't bother to read the agreement and just click on past. That is why, when they find out what it means, they get all bent out of shape. They're angry, not just because of what it means, but because they realize that they were irresponsible to not have read the agreement at the beginning.

So, yes +Wil Wheaton, if celebrities use it and post some pictures of themselves then those photos can be used for advertising. They don't have to agree per "photo shoot" like a celebrity would normally do when entering into such an agreement because that is a term of using the service itself. I'm sure someone will take it to court at some point but since the service is free, and entirely voluntary, I doubt they're going to get far. They choose to upload those photos knowing full well what the rules are so it is easy for a judge to see they consented to the use of those photos.
 
+David Hill That assumes that people would be able to understand the EULA if they actually bothered to read it. In many cases, even tenured law professors can't decipher the legal inference of an EULA.
 
+Simon Stuart, you cannot sign away law in a contract: If Instagram uses a portrait photo in a commercial setting without model releases from the subject, lawsuits will happen.
 
Terms of service are made so that you don't read them Check out Amazon's TOS, they say that anything you put on their cloud server is theirs, even after you leave the service. Needless to say, I don't use their service.
 
+Tor Iver Wilhelmsen  You can sign your rights to your own image away, and it's not a violation of EU law... that is what I was referring to.

As I said before, that's why TV networks make you sign a release to show your image on TV... same principal when agreeing to the Facebook/Instagram EULA.
 
Don't want something about yourself shared or online to be available to others, then simply don't put it online. period.
 
+Dennis Suitters its abut other people - you don't have the ability to grant Instascam the rghts to anything third party.
 
I think I used Instagram only one time, but I'll probably delete my account in protest, anyway.
 
+Alan Cox, I was just stating an old fact, from years ago. I do agree with you though. My concern, is that deleting your account, they state that you can not use the same username at a later time. Now, if they keep that on record, are they really deleting any content that we've posted?
 
+Ryan Prior It is copyrighted. And by agreeing to Instagram's terms you grant them a license to your work. You think Facebook would forget how copyright works? 
 
Citizens of the Internet: if there is no charge for the product, you are the product.
 
Good post, +Wil Wheaton . People in show business get this.  Your image/likeness/info is your property and you should be fairly compensated for its use.  Period.  Companies that use your image/likeness/info without asking your permission or compensating you are stealing from you.  Eventually, we are going to have to get elected leaders to step up to this and define this as a crime. 
 
+Michelle Hyde So if I submit something to an online entity, you're suggesting I should expect to not have (any) rights over it?

And somehow #Apple is awarded a patent for a "rectangular shape with curved corners." ???
 
welcome to the new world +Wil Wheaton can't say I didn't see that coming, everyone wants the money they assume is theirs without any regard for privacy or intellectual property.
 
+Simon Stuart If they can't understand the EULA and are worried about their intellectual property or likeness then they shouldn't sign up for the service. It really can be that simple except they feel the social/professional pull of using the service and toss their rights out the window to take advantage.
 
+Levi Richardson I would expect that if you're going to sign up for a service you understand what you're getting into instead of complaining when someone points it out later.
 
I'm curious, does Facebook already have this in their ToS? 
 
We should all get together and take bottom pictures and upload to instagram in protest.  Then they can promote like the assholes they are becoming.
 
This happens all the time now, and it is not at all cool. I was looking for a car in the SF Bay area, and then moved to be with my ill mother in SC (changed my CC billing address). After about a month I got a call from a Bay Area Honda dealership on my mother's phone, which I never use and never gave to anyone. Clearly, someone gave them the new address and they did a reverse lookup. I'm pretty sure it was my bank, who also pre-approved a car loan. 
 
Only if you fail to mark the photos private. They have the right to use photos you mark as public. Easy fix.
 
Yep, Zuckerberg is desperate to get some kind of revenue stream going.
 
DAMN YOU WIL WHEATON!!!!!  nothing more just wanted to say that.  Totally agree with you.
 
There's a flip side to this.

Companies actually do have an interest in keeping data you mark as private, private. This is particularly true for companies like Facebook and Google. And they actively work to make sure that is the case.

Compare that with your friends who you send private data to - like your contacts or a personal email. Do they have a password protected computer and phone? Do they use two-factor auth? Do they encrypt their phone or their home directories?

I'm guessing the answer is no to most of those for most people.

I've received frantic emails from at least three friends saying they had been robbed and needed me to wire them money. In all three cases it was a scam. In two cases it was because their phone had been stolen and the thief used the info on the phone to send the phishing mail. In the other their web mail password had been compromised somehow.
 
Well, for a pesonal photo that shows yourself I think they can do it when it is in the ToS. When other people are on the photo it would require a model release (when used for commerical purposes) and you cannot give a model release for someone else by accepting ToS.
 
+Andrew Hayes how do you figure? They paid a billion dollars for the company that offers a service for free...you don't think they knew EXACTLY how they were going to monetize it from the get go?
 
I also don't use Instagram as well as Facebook. I have already about this to people with whom I am connected. 15th Jan 2013 is the last day.
 
I do not even know what instagram is....... now will never try. thx for letting me know about this : )
 
This news is music to Snapseed and Google+ ears
 
+Wil Wheaton The scariest part is that Facebook's policies are retroactive. Meaning the new terms of service apply to everything that's already been uploaded through the service. Think about that.

You can't just stop using instagram. You have to manually delete everything you've already posted. I left Facebook a long time ago. It took 9 hours to delete my account.

If you close it without deleting everything first, then you lose access to everything but they can still continue using everything however they want. 
 
A lot of the time with apps, developers don't want access to things like your call history or contacts, but unfortunately to get access to the phone state, to tell if you're connected to the internet through wireless, over 2/3G or not at all, you have to. All the permissions are lumped in together. An app I'm building at the moment asks users to allow it to have access to their call history, purely to find out if they're connected to the 'net. It doesn't want or need call history, but there's no way of me not getting access to it if I want to know if it can contact a server to update its content.
 
Again, does anyone know if Facebook already has this in their ToS? Is this new news?
 
This is exactly why I stopped using Facebook, I don't trust Zuck enough to keep from doing crap like that.
 
"Just as we have a "do not track" option for our webbrowsing habits,..." 

You do realize that the "Do Not Track" options on browsers is simply a signal to websites of your "preference" yes?  Even "Do Not Track" add-ons are simply blocking cookies and signalling your "preference."  The websites being "notified" can still track you because so much of the legal code is still murky concerning application to the internet.  I don't know of very many cases currently, or previously, being adjudicated in the courts.  The courts, U.S. especially, are so slow and behind the times on these issues; that governments are treating the "internet" as some sort of medium where Constitutional rights don't apply: unless, of course, you've bought enough politicians like the MPAA and RIAA.
 
If one does not like these new TOS, the solution is simple: stop using Instagram. Delete it from your phone and use a rival service (the new Flickr app for iOS is wonderful).
 
Family member asked me to join Instagram last summer. I gave in due to the constant nagging on how great and fantastic it is. So, I joined and the first thing that came to mind, "what the heck is this piece of crap, I have no use of it, I already have google+" Two months later, deleted the useless junk due to inactivity and had to remove that extra clutter in my phone. 
 
streamzoo just an slow app , & they disable your account after a while & sell & steal your pics
Add a comment...