The past few days have been eventful to say the least for Instagram and Instagram users. On Monday, Instagram proposed new changes to its privacy policy and terms of service that sent users on a war path. Just as remarkable was Instagram's rapid response and backflip following the outcry.
In a post uploaded to the Instagram blog a few hours ago, Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom acknowledged the response from Instagram users and promised to 'fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion' around the proposed changes.
The changes that sparked this series of events were scheduled to come into effect on 16 January 2013, and included the following new terms being added to Instagram's terms of service:
- 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, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service's Privacy Policy, available here: http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/.
- Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, 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. 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 language used in section 1 is essentially identical to that used in the terms and conditions of Instagram's new parent company, Facebook. (We've previously written about Facebook's terms and conditions in the context of the viral Facebook copyright post.)
Although the licence set out in section 1 is arguably broad enough to give Instagram the right to use posted images in advertising without compensating the user, this licence is qualified by reference to Instagram's Privacy Policy. Presumably, Instagram chose to explicitly spell out its right to commercialise images in section 2 because section 2 is not qualified in this way. Also, although the reference to metadata in section 2 appears as something of an afterthought, it is significant because it refers to information such as where the photo was taken and the type of device used, which is embedded in the image.
Although the licence set out in section 1 is arguably broad enough to give Instagram the right to use posted images in advertising without compensating the user, this licence is qualified by reference to Instagram's Privacy Policy. Presumably, Instagram chose to explicitly spell out its right to commercialise images in section 2 because section 2 is not qualified in this way. Also, although the reference to metadata in section 2 appears as something of an afterthought, it is significant because it refers to information such as where the photo was taken and the type of device used, which is embedded in the image.
0 comments:
Post a Comment