Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Instagram Reverts Back to Old ToS After Backlash

By - Source: Instagram | B 21 comments

The world will no longer end thanks to Instagram reverting back to its old Terms of Use.

Instagram said on Thursday that it has reverted back to its previous Terms of Use language due to all the feedback the company received after the changes it made earlier this week. The company claimed that it failed to communicate its intentions clearly, and is focused on setting things right once again.

On Monday the popular photo sharing service updated its Terms of Use with language that would go into effect on January 16. The update stated that "you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

Say what? That's right, and it doesn't stop there. "If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf," the new Terms stated.

Naturally the statement about making money off an Instagram member's username, likeness, and photos without compensation caused quite a poop storm. The backlash was immediate, and Instagram followed up on Tuesday claiming that it had no intentions of selling anyone's photos, and had no plans to retain ownership.

"I’m writing this today to let you know we’re listening and to commit to you that we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion," stated co-founder Kevin Systrom. "As we review your feedback and stories in the press, we’re going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos."

Later in an update on Thursday, he clarified that Instagram users own their photos, not the social platform. It clearly states this in the Rights portion of Instagram's Terms of Use, saying that "Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service."

Now the controversial section of Instagram's Terms of Use has been reverted back to its original state. "Going forward, rather than obtain permission from you to introduce possible advertising products we have not yet developed, we are going to take the time to complete our plans, and then come back to our users and explain how we would like for our advertising business to work," Systrom said on Thursday.

"I’m proud that Instagram has a community that feels so strongly about a product we all love. I’m even more proud that you feel empowered to be vocal and approach us with constructive feedback to help us build a better product," he added. "Thank you for your feedback."

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Display all 21 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 3 Hide
    sacre , December 21, 2012 3:04 PM
    It was intentional and they were hoping it would slide. I'm guessing they received threats of somesort and now are stepping back.

    Of course they're going to BS their way out of this by saying "that it failed to communicate its intentions clearly".

    Screwed up company should be shot down.
  • 2 Hide
    WithoutWeakness , December 21, 2012 3:15 PM
    "Naturally the statement about making money off an Instagram member's username, likeness, and photos without compensation caused quite a poop storm."

    The end of this sentence had me laughing at my desk.
  • 3 Hide
    iknowhowtofixit , December 21, 2012 3:23 PM
    Who does Instragram think they are, Apple?
  • 5 Hide
    unoriginal1 , December 21, 2012 3:37 PM
    What is the difference between this
    "you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

    and this?
    "Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service."

    It's just a reword :/ . It's like instagram first said We are going to **** you in the *** then was like... Oh you guys got mad? Our fault sorry sorry let us be clear. What we really meant was We are going to make sweet love to you in inappropriate places. (sorry if my examples offended anyone)
  • 3 Hide
    dextermat , December 21, 2012 3:40 PM
    Instagram : blacklisted check!
  • 1 Hide
    wemakeourfuture , December 21, 2012 3:48 PM
    iknowhowtofixitWho does Instragram think they are, Apple?


    First of all they are now owned by Facebook, so:

    1. They think they're Facebook, ie. get as much information about people as possible and try to use people's personal info/pics to make money even if its to sell it to very shady 3rd-party companies.

    2. Next they'd think they are Google who is index, analyzes more information about people outside of Facebook. Ie. tracking people locations on their Android phones, analyzing people's emails, etc, etc.

    3. And a far distant we could consider Apple...
  • 2 Hide
    mrmaia , December 21, 2012 4:24 PM
    Seems like people love some hypocrisy. They know their stuff will be sold, it was written there, and when they make it clearer there's a "poop storm". They reword it while keeping the same meaning and everyone calms down. Keep photographing your food, people.
  • 0 Hide
    wannabepro , December 21, 2012 5:07 PM
    In the words of Julian Smith's Grandma.
    .

  • 0 Hide
    wannabepro , December 21, 2012 5:07 PM
    Too late NOOB
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9m9hcEnYeM
  • 1 Hide
    CaedenV , December 21, 2012 5:15 PM
    all that really needs to be said: http://xkcd.com/1150/
  • 0 Hide
    -Jackson , December 21, 2012 6:04 PM
    Meh? It's not like they don't sell your information already..
  • 1 Hide
    hitman400 , December 21, 2012 7:18 PM
    iknowhowtofixitWho does Instragram think they are, Apple?

    Oh the contrary, Youtube, which came pre-installed with previous iOS versions, NEVER had any advertisements whatsoever. It wasn't until Google released there piss-poor youtube app that they started jacking people with Ads.
  • 0 Hide
    Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer , December 21, 2012 7:51 PM
    I really can't believe they thought they were going to get away with this... :p 
  • 0 Hide
    professorturtle , December 21, 2012 8:47 PM
    Well - it's too late. I've deleted my IG account and moved it all to Flickr. I won't be returning.
  • 0 Hide
    f-14 , December 21, 2012 9:17 PM
    don't worry facebook will find a way to force this down all instagram users throats

    best thing you can do is pull all photos and info now and or patent everything you have on the site and eliminate your accounts with facebook/instagram now while you still can.
  • 1 Hide
    IndignantSkeptic , December 21, 2012 11:54 PM
    Can someone explain to me what is so clever about Instagram?
  • 0 Hide
    Kami3k , December 22, 2012 1:09 AM
    hitman400Oh the contrary, Youtube, which came pre-installed with previous iOS versions, NEVER had any advertisements whatsoever. It wasn't until Google released there piss-poor youtube app that they started jacking people with Ads.


    Because Youtube was costing Google money. Youtube wouldn't exist if it wasn't for that move.
  • 0 Hide
    Kami3k , December 22, 2012 1:23 AM
    IndignantSkepticCan someone explain to me what is so clever about Instagram?


    Nothing.
  • 0 Hide
    NuclearShadow , December 22, 2012 4:39 AM
    What I never understood about such a practice is what if someone uploaded a photo that they did not have ownership to? As a example though as unlikely as it is they upload a photo of Micky Mouse and Instagram then begins to sell that picture or use it for their own purposes?
    Surely this could not be a legal act. While it is unlikely to happen with widely known people or characters it is bound to eventually happen to lesser knowns. Another issue is pictures of others that you did take but the person never consented to being put on Instagram or possibly even pictured at all.

    The entire practice seems to not only be morally wrong but a issue that tip toes on a minefield of legal issues.
  • 0 Hide
    makaveli316 , December 22, 2012 3:09 PM
    I'm i the only one who doesn't use instagram and knows enough about it, so he can say "what a useless piece of crap"?
    I mean, since when a photo sharing site/app is so relevant?
Display more comments
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter