Instagram to Sell User Images in Facebook’s Latest Privacy Gamble

[SKYMTL]

The latest in a string of privacy-related controversies for Facebook comes from its newest acquisition, Instagram.

Facebook has announced that all public photos submitted to the photo sharing app can be sold to advertisers without specific consent or notification. The service already angered more than a few customers by blocking direct photo embedding in Twitter posts – now it has angered far more. The backlash on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere has been strong.

Read more here: Instagram to Sell User Images in Facebook's Latest Privacy Gamble | Hardware Canucks

On a personal note, my girlfriend is now watermarking ALL of her images on Instagram.

[Nodscene]

I don't really think this would hold up in any court of law. Of course who knows how long it would take before someone actually did that is another story.

[sswilson]

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Read more here: Instagram to Sell User Images in Facebook's Latest Privacy Gamble | Hardware Canucks

On a personal note, my girlfriend is now watermarking ALL of her images on Instagram.

Sounds like a great idea, I wonder how hard it would be for somebody to come up with a plugin/skin to automatically watermark before posting to websites like that.

Originally Posted by Nodscene

I don't really think this would hold up in any court of law. Of course who knows how long it would take before someone actually did that is another story.

I'm not sure about it not standing up in a court of law, you've agreed to the conditions when you used the service. Pretty much any online service you post publically to has the same "once you put it up it's the property of the site" rule, it's just that this is the first time it's been so conspicuously monetized.

As I said in the Rants area when I posted about this, I'm really glad I deleted my facebook account after the last stealth privacy rule change.

[SKYMTL]

Originally Posted by sswilson

Sounds like a great idea, I wonder how hard it would be for somebody to come up with a plugin/skin to automatically watermark before posting to websites like that.

Already available. She's using it on her Note II and it is quite intuitive:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...atermark&hl=en

[sswilson]

Cool! Great idea, and an example of a single/simple function app being sold at a reasonable price.

[Eluder]

Good thing I never bothered to use this service. Nothing to worry about from my standpoint. Seems real shady for facebook to do this though, maybe it's time to cut my account on fb.

[SKYMTL]

Oh, FB will get worse. They are introducing auto play video ads in early 2013....

[Nodscene]

In a way it doesn't always matter whether you have agreed to the terms of service. There are a lot of different types of contracts that are non-enforceable but here is a good example that would have bearing if a case like this went to court.

"If you look at many online terms of service, they reserve the right to change the terms at any time. Some force you to re-agree to the terms -- but others don't. In the past, courts have ruled that if someone didn't agree to the changed terms, the new terms could be found to be unenforceable, but a recent decision has gone much further, effectively saying that the entire terms of service are void if they claim they can be changed at any time. Sent in by Blake, the ruling said that Blockbuster's online terms of service were "illusory" and unenforceable because it included a clause saying it could change the terms at any time. So, even though the term it was trying to enforce was in the terms that the person agreed to, the court found the entire terms unenforceable. This is quite a ruling that could have a pretty major impact on any online service that has terms that insist they can change at any time. While it's just a district court ruling and may be reversed on appeal, it's something anyone running an online service should pay attention to."

Court Rejects Online Terms Of Service That Reserve The Right To Change At Any Time | Techdirt

Originally Posted by sswilson

I'm not sure about it not standing up in a court of law, you've agreed to the conditions when you used the service. Pretty much any online service you post publically to has the same "once you put it up it's the property of the site" rule, it's just that this is the first time it's been so conspicuously monetized.

[chrisk]

That was quick:
Facebook-owned Instagram backs away from controversial changes after backlash - thestar.com

Facebook-owned Instagram has backed away from controversial changes to its terms of use policy that many interpreted as allowing the popular photo sharing and editing service to profit from its users' photos.

The proposed changes, which were supposed to come into effect on Jan. 16, were announced on Instagram's blog on Monday and caused an uproar online, with some users vowing to boycott the service.

[sswilson]

Originally Posted by chrisk

That was quick:
Facebook-owned Instagram backs away from controversial changes after backlash - thestar.com

Unfortunately their response sounds more like damage control than an explanation of what they really intended to do with the re-written policy (like they don't have an army of lawyers writing this stuff).

In my books all it means is that they got caught this time, they'll be stealthier next time.

This is exactly why I deleted my facebook account. It wasn't so much any specific rule change, it was the perception of the death by a thousand cuts that was their ever changing privacy policy / settings. My impression was that they were just going to keep making changes until folks got tired of jumping through hoops to protect their privacy and thus eventually just let FB do what they wanted to with the data.