Instagram change terms of service, can sell your images

[davidc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767537

In a nutshell Instagram, owned by Facebook, now have the license to sell any photograph on their service to whoever they want without any requirement to pay the photographer. A move that many think given the size of Facebook, is likely to be replicated on Facebook itself after they trial it on Instagram.

I thought a lot of Instagram, the vast majority in fact, was lomography-lookalike garbage and utterly pointless but it was still interesting seeing what effects you could get. But I've cancelled my account now - I'm the tiniest of drops in the ocean but just don't agree with it.

[Mike Farley]

Unfortunately this is just the latest in a series of rights grabs which a number of well known names have attempted over the years. Normally such action is followed by an outcry, after which the company responsible backtracks. Possibly the same will happen here in afew days.

Thanks for informing everyone here.

[Mike Farley]

This story is getting a lot of coverage. It was on Newsnight yesterday evening, apparently, and made the front page of this morning's Metro. What's the betting Facebook/Instagram will have climbed down by Xmas?

[davidc]

They already have backed down

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20777616

[Mike Farley]

We're a funny old lot, us the public. When a company says something along the lines of "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" we instinctively think that they are going sell our copyrighted material without paying us. I cannot think how we managed to form such a mistaken impression.