back to article Instagram BOWS to pressure, revises T&Cs – a little

It looks like Kim Kardashian might not have to dump her Instagram account after all, now that the social photo-sharing firm has revised the updated terms and conditions of service that caused so much uproar among users earlier this week. On Monday, Instagram announced new T&Cs, effective January 16, that seemingly granted it …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Steve Foster


    Does anyone actually care what some minor non-celebrity thinks?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      Look, they still get what they want, they get exactly the terms and conditions they were going for.

      It's common practice to throw something totally outrageous into the terms and conditions (Facebook) which causes a near riot and then remove it.

      So while everyone breaths a sigh of relief and thinks they have been listened to, they sneak up behind you and bend you over with subtle onerous changing.

      You still get fu**ed but in a more gentle way.

  2. Philip Lewis
    Thumb Up

    @Meh ...

    No. Who is Kim Kadashian anyway? Sounds like an islamic terrorist to me - but I digress.

    The usefulness of "minor celebrities" in this case is that they can generate the necessary publicity to shame evil organisations into behaving better than they had intended to do. That would be a good thing IMHO. So, while I hope KK is not a terrorist, it's good she is on the bleeding edge generating the noise. Someone has to be.

    1. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

      Re: @Meh ...

      Who is Kim Kadashian anyway

      Isn't (s)he a character from the latest Star Trek spin-off ?

      1. Pascal

        Re: @Meh ...

  3. Allison Park
    Paris Hilton

    She should do porn

    Oh that's right she already did. She should go back to doing porn. That was the one thing I think she was good at doing.

    Same goes for you Paris.


    1. g e

      Re: She should do porn

      Paris... Pr0n

      Is that for people with a fetish for stick-women? #EatingDisorderporn

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just a little bow

    I note that they've retained the extra rights, ie transferable, sub-licensable.

    Still, it seems that many such sites do the same, so their only crime was to be sneaky about it.

  5. Ben Tasker Silver badge

    want to be really clear: Instagram has no intention of selling your photos, and we never did," he wrote. "We don't own your photos – you do."

    No, we never planned on selling them (we can't do that, we don't own the copyright), we were simply going to license them to third parties (See t&c's clause blah)

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Instagram, Really?

    The next big news story?

    35mm film cameras! (iPhone owners will be frothing at the mouth at the thought)

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My photos are on my own site where I can control their use - and thats where they stay.

  8. JeffyPooh

    "My photos are on my own site..."

    QotW: "My photos are on my own site where I can control their use - and that's where they stay."

    LOL. What's the URL? Is your own site on the Interweb?

    1. asdf

      Re: "My photos are on my own site..."

      >LOL. What's the URL? Is your own site on the Interweb?

      Having access to and being allowed to make money on pictures are too very different things. Thus why we have copyright laws.

  9. PirateKing

    Kim K is quitting because she is not being PAID for her instagram photos.. do some research.. you pay her $$$ and she will TWEET about you.. so for her its all about the money.. just ask Kris Humpheys... the dude shucked out big bucks for her wedding ring, 72 days later they split.. and SHE kept it... scuttle butt on the net is they are STILL married... (research this one if you care) but would that not be a kick in her butt to find out she is still legally married to Kris H with all her partying?

  10. PirateKing

    its all about money.. you pay her enough and she will TWEET about you... she is not getting any $$$ for her INstagram photos..

    for her its all about the $$$ nothing more,

  11. asdf

    best way to say it

    With free web services please keep in mind you are not the customer. You are the product they sell to advertisers (their real customers). With that in mind the motivations of this T&C makes more sense.

  12. Wallyb132

    Funny how it works...

    These companies decide to show their true colors and let their users know they're shit and that their privacy / rights is worth less than an advertising dollar. They all of a sudden decide that they're above all that is holy and start granting themselves rights to your copyrighted material, and its perfectly ok, because its written in the T&C's...

    Adobe tried this same shit not too long ago* with their T&C's for Photoshop express, giving themselves complete and irrevocable control over your content...

    The end result for Adobe was the same as well. Revise the T&C's and tell the public "you misunderstood our intentions, we never intended to use your content for any ill mannered purpose, we love our customers, we wouldnt do that."

    Bullshit... The only thing that was misunderstood was Instagram thinking they could slide this past the public unnoticed, because nobody reads the T&C's anyway, right? or that the general public is too stupid to realize what they're agreeing to.

    These T&C's are written and reviewed by lawyers, very carefully, a misunderstanding, my ass! It states their intentions right in the T&C;s. To say it was a misunderstanding is a bigger insult to its users than the fact that they tried to pull this crap in the first place. The CEO should save face and just be honest and say: whoops busted, my bad! sorry, wont try that again...

    Instagram's Updated T&C's:

    "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."

    "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."

    Adobe's Photoshop Express T&C's from their attempt to pull this shit:

    Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

    Adobe tries to go a little farther than Instagram did, but the general spirit is still the same.

    *Apparently, my perception of time is badly skewed and "not so long ago" turns out to be 5 years ago...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020