Instagram aren't flogging your photos (because they're probably rubbish)

Many people have been kicking up a huge stink at Instagram, after the photo microblogging service changed their T&Cs. Suddenly, everyone thought that their photos of cats, lunches and needy self-taken near-nudes were going to be sold to advertisers.

A mass exodus was planned to Flickr, which no-one likes using apart from five Mac users who take photos of graffiti.

In response to this, they've tried to clear things up with a message called 'Thank you, and we're listening'. IG co-founder Kevin Systrom told users: "It is not our intention to sell your photos," and that "legal documents are easy to misinterpret".

"The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement," Systrom wrote. "We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question."

Basically, IG isn't claiming ownership of users' photos and privacy settings aren't being changed. And besides, no-one seems to care that pretty much everything else on the internet has very similar T&Cs.

Either way, there is very little chance of this affecting you because it is likely that your shared photographs are either awful or terribly boring. Don't expect to see that average sunrise photo you took to appear on a Nike billboard advert any time soon.


  • lolwut
    What is any company going to do with photos of bearded guys with hipster glasses and super close ups of plants anyway?
  • jiggle
    exactly! everyone got so worked up but it is no different to the facebook t&cs, or any company that you bought from before the rules for 3rd party marketing opt-in changed (which have only begun to be enforced in the last year or so). just go live in a hut in the woods with the foxes.
  • joggie
    There is one thing how common users understand it, totally another how lawyers interpret it.

What do you think?

Your comment