Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Instagram Terms of Service Controversy Prompts Class Action Suit

By - Source: Venturebeat | B 24 comments

Instagram's terms of service controversy has caused one angry user to sue.

Instagram was quick to backpedal last week in response to user outrage after its term of service agreement was altered to be interpreted in a way that would allow the photo-sharing service to sell user posted pictures.

The terms of service controversy irked California Instagram user Lucy Funes so much that she filed a lawsuit in San Francisco federal court against the service. According to Finkelstein & Krinsk, the law firm representing Funes, customers can refuse Instagram's terms of service, at the cost of losing their profile and the rights to the photos they've posted to the site. "In short, Instagram declares that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law and if you don't like it, you can't stop us,'" states the complainant.

Reuters pointed out that the new terms of service allows bars users from suing the company. However, the new terms of service isn't set to kick in until next month, hence why Funes is able to file the suit now.

Facebook has released the following statement in response to the litigation: "We believe this complaint is without merit and we will fight it vigorously."

 

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 24 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    wildkitten , December 28, 2012 6:55 PM
    Here is the problem, when people use these "free" products, the companies aren't acting like charities, they have to find ways to make money or there is no product. Now I agree with the people who don't want their photos used in ways they don't like, but instead of getting mad and suing, here's another way of not worrying about it...DON'T USE THE SERVICE.

    This is why I don't use things like Instagram, Facebook and such. If I want to use a service, I will look for one where I have to pay to use it because those services typically allow the user to decide how things are done. As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for. But this is just another example of entitlement mindset. These people want to use Instagram, they want to use it for free and decide what the rules are.
  • 4 Hide
    joneb , December 28, 2012 8:01 PM
    You are wrong, people pay for I-Tunes music and Kindle books but they can lose their paid for content to those companies too. Whats wrong are the big companies are now bullies and tyrants and I believe working outside the law often as no matter what there are in their terms and contracts there are laws of the land that are above and beyond them even when there is a virtual landscape as such. The only goods I will buy in a virtual setting are games that will be played out eventually and never music or movies or books that can be taken off me again even though I paid for them.
  • 6 Hide
    azgard , December 28, 2012 8:22 PM
    With the massive amount of TOS POS shoved down consumer's throats it won't be able to be ignored much longer and your going to see severe restriction's on the abilities for companies to use blanket term's that essentially free them of any and all liability while forcing the customer to assume any and all liability and at the same time forfeiting legal recourse.
  • 5 Hide
    Blessedman , December 28, 2012 8:51 PM
    Life would be so much easier if the Mayans were correct
  • -8 Hide
    otacon72 , December 28, 2012 9:31 PM
    jonebYou are wrong, people pay for I-Tunes music and Kindle books but they can lose their paid for content to those companies too. Whats wrong are the big companies are now bullies and tyrants and I believe working outside the law often as no matter what there are in their terms and contracts there are laws of the land that are above and beyond them even when there is a virtual landscape as such. The only goods I will buy in a virtual setting are games that will be played out eventually and never music or movies or books that can be taken off me again even though I paid for them.


    Companies can change their ToS anytime and anyway they want. If you don't like it then don't use the service. This lawsuit is completely ridiculous and is going to get tossed out.
  • 1 Hide
    f-14 , December 28, 2012 10:22 PM
    Quote:
    Facebook has released the following statement in response to the litigation: "We believe this complaint is without merit and we will fight it vigorously."


    knuckleberg better pray i'm not on the jury then not to mention the artist association is going to come down on fRapedbook like a guillotine when they find out patented work is laid claim to by knuckleberg
  • -5 Hide
    AndrewMD , December 28, 2012 10:45 PM
    f-14knuckleberg better pray i'm not on the jury then not to mention the artist association is going to come down on fRapedbook like a guillotine when they find out patented work is laid claim to by knuckleberg

    Yeah, I hope you're not in the jury either... bonehead comments like this is what is wrong with this country.

    Having your artwork or work displayed on a free service or a website is going to get it on these services without said services doing it themselves. The liability falls on the customer that put up said images for display. Of Course if said item is popular and has gained the attention of said service, they will take it down themselves.

    Just because you are not successful like Mr. Zuckerberg is not his problem or my problem or anyone else's problem, it is solely your own problem.

  • 4 Hide
    thecolorblue , December 28, 2012 10:50 PM
    otacon72This lawsuit is completely ridiculous and is going to get tossed out.

    hardly
  • 0 Hide
    thecolorblue , December 28, 2012 10:55 PM
    AndrewMDJust because you are not successful like Mr. Zuckerberg is not his problem or my problem or anyone else's problem, it is solely your own problem.

    nobody gives a $h!t about the poorly designed man-in-the-middle-attack "service" that zuckerberg has put together known as Facebook... his success at making lots of money has nothing to do with anything.
  • -2 Hide
    wildkitten , December 29, 2012 12:41 AM
    jonebYou are wrong, people pay for I-Tunes music and Kindle books but they can lose their paid for content to those companies too. Whats wrong are the big companies are now bullies and tyrants and I believe working outside the law often as no matter what there are in their terms and contracts there are laws of the land that are above and beyond them even when there is a virtual landscape as such. The only goods I will buy in a virtual setting are games that will be played out eventually and never music or movies or books that can be taken off me again even though I paid for them.

    This isn't even a good comparison. With Instagram, Facebook and the like, you are using a free service to do "social" networking and uploading your own content to these things. So people think these companies are charities providing their service for free and someone else is supporting these companies out of their own pocket? If so, that's ignorant. Of course they want to control your content that you upload so they make money off it.

    iTunes and Amazon, you are PURCHASING content. You know if you buy a song off iTunes you can play it on one of five authorized computers and put it on your iPod or iPhone if it has DRM, other devices as well if not. You know when you buy content from Amazon that you have to have registered devices to see it. That is something totally different that what Instagram, Facebook and other social sites do. This is why people need to read and understand what they agree to when they click the Agree button, but they never do till later.
  • 0 Hide
    wildkitten , December 29, 2012 12:44 AM
    azgardWith the massive amount of TOS POS shoved down consumer's throats it won't be able to be ignored much longer and your going to see severe restriction's on the abilities for companies to use blanket term's that essentially free them of any and all liability while forcing the customer to assume any and all liability and at the same time forfeiting legal recourse.

    You're likely right, but the moment these companies can't make money from someone's content, is the moment they either close up or start charging and you will see the same people complaining.

    Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want Instagram to have rights to my content either, but that's why I don't use them. To many people want their cake and be able to eat it too and let someone else pay the bills for it.
  • 0 Hide
    wildkitten , December 29, 2012 12:51 AM
    f-14knuckleberg better pray i'm not on the jury then not to mention the artist association is going to come down on fRapedbook like a guillotine when they find out patented work is laid claim to by knuckleberg

    Here's the problem, to use Facebook, one must Agree to the TOS. Problem is, very few actually read the TOS, they just click that Agree button and check the box that asks if they read it.

    Now who do we hold responsible for this? Do we hold the company responsible for providing the service and creating a TOS we don't like, or do we hold the person responsible for Agreeing to the TOS then not wanting to abide by it?

    I personally think Facebook and Instagram and all these free (anti)social network TOS's are horrid, but my solution is not to use them. No one has a right to use Facebook. No one has a right to use Instagram. They are doing nothing wrong. Is it invasive? Absolutely. Are they forcing anyone to use their service? Absolutely not. It's like a person who signs a variable rate mortage and then whines and complain when their interest rate goes up and tries to use as a defense "but i didn't read the contract". Well tough. You are responsible for your own actions.

    If these people didn't want Instagram to retain rights to the content if they cancel their account, they should never have clicked Agree in the first place.
  • 0 Hide
    abbadon_34 , December 29, 2012 12:53 AM
    TOS are laws, and certain rights can never be signed away not are all signed contract valid and legally enforcable under all circumstances. That said, they already changed them back, seems like a waste of time.
  • -3 Hide
    wildkitten , December 29, 2012 12:57 AM
    thecolorbluenobody gives a $h!t about the poorly designed man-in-the-middle-attack "service" that zuckerberg has put together known as Facebook... his success at making lots of money has nothing to do with anything.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack
    The man-in-the-middle attack...in cryptography and computer security is a form of active eavesdropping in which the attacker makes independent connections with the victims and relays messages between them, making them believe that they are talking directly to each other over a private connection, when in fact the entire conversation is controlled by the attacker

    If you are going to make an analogy, at least know your definitions. Facebook is not a man in the middle attack service. People know quite well they are using a service that will retain rights to content placed on their service and if people who use it don't, then they are the fools because they claimed they read the TOS when in fact they didn't.
  • 2 Hide
    JackFrost860 , December 29, 2012 2:27 AM
    Lucy Funes, you are my hero; You are the Shepard protecting the sheep from the wolves.
  • -4 Hide
    fuzzion , December 29, 2012 5:22 AM
    abbadon_34TOS are laws, and certain rights can never be signed away not are all signed contract valid and legally enforcable under all circumstances. That said, they already changed them back, seems like a waste of time.


    If i Steal your car and return it to you after 3 days, is that ok?
  • 0 Hide
    thecolorblue , December 29, 2012 9:02 AM
    wildkittenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attackThe man-in-the-middle attack...in cryptography and computer security is a form of active eavesdropping in which the attacker makes independent connections with the victims and relays messages between them, making them believe that they are talking directly to each other over a private connection, when in fact the entire conversation is controlled by the attackerIf you are going to make an analogy, at least know your definitions. Facebook is not a man in the middle attack service. People know quite well they are using a service that will retain rights to content placed on their service and if people who use it don't, then they are the fools because they claimed they read the TOS when in fact they didn't.

    you understand how to use wikipedia, congratulations to you.
    but your mind is small... and FACEBOOK IS A MAN IN THE MIDDLE ATTACK.

    http://youtu.be/HJCczbSF-B8?t=15s
  • 1 Hide
    thecolorblue , December 29, 2012 9:09 AM
    almost nobody understands how their information is used by the likes of Facebook or for most other internet "services" for that matter. The fact that people like wildkitten feel obliged to spam this forum with steaming piles of crap-infested-diatribes that serve only to defend the wholesale spying of hundreds of millions of computer illiterate people tells you that we have a lot of work to do to free ourselves from the bastards that seek to track and spy on everyone everywhere, all the time.

  • 1 Hide
    beayn , December 29, 2012 12:20 PM
    wildkittenHere is the problem, when people use these "free" products, the companies aren't acting like charities, they have to find ways to make money or there is no product. Now I agree with the people who don't want their photos used in ways they don't like, but instead of getting mad and suing, here's another way of not worrying about it...DON'T USE THE SERVICE.This is why I don't use things like Instagram, Facebook and such. If I want to use a service, I will look for one where I have to pay to use it because those services typically allow the user to decide how things are done. As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for. But this is just another example of entitlement mindset. These people want to use Instagram, they want to use it for free and decide what the rules are.


    People know these services are supported by advertising and such. The services are offered as FREE due to advertising. The problem is they change their terms of service AFTER they have gained a huge userbase. Take Facebook for example, there is no alternative pay service that everyone uses. Everyone you know would also have to pay for that service, and why would they do that when already established on Facebook? So even if you wanted to pay for the service, you don't have the option if you want to actually socialize on a social network.

    A large percentage of the world uses social networks for communication now. Just because you have no problems not using Facebook, doesn't mean someone else won't find it useful or desirable to use since everyone they know is on it. Changing their TOS after everyone is accustomed to using it so that they can use all your content without your consent is not right.

    Allowing said companies to do such things sets a precedent for the others. Next thing you know, EVERY service does this and the consumer has zero rights while at the same time, advertising (the way they made their money to start with) is still shoved down your throats.

    Also consider that "The cloud" is getting big, but not because consumers want it, but because the companies want it. They want access to all your private stuff so they can send targeted advertising. Now if you start letting them change their TOS after they have all your shit because they forced The Cloud down your throat, are you just going to tell everyone not to use the services? Even when their TOS says that when you cancel the service you lose access to and rights to your account and all its contents?

    Do you see where this is going? I think it's good that people speak up NOW rather than later.
  • 0 Hide
    wildkitten , December 29, 2012 8:37 PM
    beaynPeople know these services are supported by advertising and such. The services are offered as FREE due to advertising. The problem is they change their terms of service AFTER they have gained a huge userbase. Take Facebook for example, there is no alternative pay service that everyone uses. Everyone you know would also have to pay for that service, and why would they do that when already established on Facebook? So even if you wanted to pay for the service, you don't have the option if you want to actually socialize on a social network. A large percentage of the world uses social networks for communication now. Just because you have no problems not using Facebook, doesn't mean someone else won't find it useful or desirable to use since everyone they know is on it. Changing their TOS after everyone is accustomed to using it so that they can use all your content without your consent is not right.Allowing said companies to do such things sets a precedent for the others. Next thing you know, EVERY service does this and the consumer has zero rights while at the same time, advertising (the way they made their money to start with) is still shoved down your throats.Also consider that "The cloud" is getting big, but not because consumers want it, but because the companies want it. They want access to all your private stuff so they can send targeted advertising. Now if you start letting them change their TOS after they have all your shit because they forced The Cloud down your throat, are you just going to tell everyone not to use the services? Even when their TOS says that when you cancel the service you lose access to and rights to your account and all its contents?Do you see where this is going? I think it's good that people speak up NOW rather than later.

    But after they change it, the user then has to Agree to it. If Facebook lost users, perhaps that would teach them not to change their TOS to objectionable things. The problem is people think being on Facebook or Instagram is some right they have and that they can't live without being on these services.

    And the TOS that says they keep the rights if you cancel your account is the TOS already in place that was agreed to. If someone doesn't like it, perhaps they should have read it.

    Do you actually see where this is going? I think it's a good idea people READ FIRST rather than Agree and read later.
Display more comments
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter