There’s been a lot of furor online over the last two days about Instagram’s new terms of service. I won’t get into the full details of what the changes mean (plenty of other posts have been written about that) but what’s causing outrage is the idea that Instagram will now be able to sell, and/or use in advertising, users’ images.
I’ve been a happy Instagram user for well over a year now, and, beyond January 16th (the deadline for canceling an account without accepting the new terms of service), I’ll still be an Instagram user.
Why?
Well, first, because I love the way that Instagram lets me communicate, share, and connect with others. It’s become such an incredible tool for me, both personally and professionally. But, mostly, I’m sticking around because I understand that Instagram is a business.
And, to use a favorite quote of mine,
“Businesses exist to make a profit, and are entitled to do so.”
(Rafi Mohammed, The 1% Windfall)
Instagram as it stands now, is not sustainable. It costs money to run. Engineers, developers, servers. At some point, someone needs to figure out how to extract value (ie. money) from the users, since the users have been extracting value from the service. And while I’m not convinced that selling peoples’ images is the right path to profitability, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s one attempt by Instagram (ok, Facebook) to figure out how to get paid for the service they provide.
The Internet, over the last handful of years, has set up the unreasonable expectation that we shouldn’t have to pay for things. Services, content, you name it. And it’s caused us to value things less and less. Like spoiled children, we just expect everything to be handed to us, yet we react in rage when we’re expected to give something back in return.
I understand the potential implications of Instagram selling users’ images, and I’d like to see the service search for another answer when it comes to how to make money. Premium services, paid upgrades, or some yet unthought of solution. But I’m also not naive enough to think that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Flickr (which uses a freemium model), LinkedIn, and all the other platforms that we use to connect and grow our businesses (or just connect with our friends) are doing this altruistically. They are businesses.
Businesses that provide something of real value for their users.
As a designer maker, and educator, I expect to be paid (well) for the things of value I provide for others. Why shouldn’t Instagram (by which, I mean the people whose work makes the service possible) deserve the same?
what’s causing outrage for me isn’t that they might use my images in advertising. it’s this: “By displaying or publishing (“posting”) any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, full paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content”
i’m sorry but i don’t grant those rights to ANYONE, not even my paying clients!
julie – I could be wrong, but what I remember hearing from someone who works for another site (could be Pinterest or Etsy, can’t remember which) that type of language has to be in the terms of service for any site where you upload images, others they wouldn’t be able to even simple things like modify the size of the image to post to the service. I’m not saying it’s right, but I am saying I think it’s pretty standard.
Well, damn. I see an afternoon of reading ToS’s in my future. LOL
“b. How Pinterest and other users can use your content.
You grant Pinterest and its users a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, store, display, reproduce, re-pin, modify, create derivative works, perform, and distribute your User Content on Pinterest solely for the purposes of operating, developing, providing, and using the Pinterest Products. Nothing in these Terms shall restrict other legal rights Pinterest may have to User Content, for example under other licenses. We reserve the right to remove or modify User Content for any reason, including User Content that we believe violates these Terms or our policies.”
I just ran through several popular site’s ToS and wasn’t thrilled by what I found. (http://bit.ly/V5sCpR)
Exactly, Megan. I just posted similar thoughts on twitter (another “free” app that its users will eventually have to pay for in one form or another.) I do agree with Julie about the rights to content use being total crap, but that reminds me of the whole Pinterest uproar andtheir poorly worded TOS and will likely be fixed due to the outcry.
Just let me pay for a premium version of instagram and I’ll be on my merry way.
Twitter is already doing “promoted” advertising posts that show up in your feed. Annoying, but I can see how they’re necessary and I don’t mind them since they’re not using my image or content to do so.
But businesses cannot make a profit on someone else’s intellectual property unless they pay for it. Business requires investment. Hasn’t social media negatively affected creatives enough?
I agree Instagram needs to sustain itself and we can’t expect everything for free, but as you mentioned there are other ways.
I can’t speak for every platform, but I know Flickr requires users to allow or not allow their images to be used by others.
Wonderful interview laeids! I love hearing how 2 different businesses can produce positive results even if they did not produce income. And I agree, if you are passionate about something, it will overcome any lack in business training or schooling. Love how you keep re-inventing yourself and following your heart. Great job Rena, there is SO much to talk about with the amazing SueBdo!!
I think better business planning would have created a choice for its customers. They are *the* hot app right now, they could have gone fremium or (maybe even donation based) and turned a profit. This move feels like a floundering attempt from a drowning business, not the star network backed by the largest social biz on the web. I fear this ‘all or nothing’ stance is going to do more harm than good. And that makes me sad – cause it is a marvelous little toy. =D
Given that this is a move to bring them into line with the ToS for images on Facebook (who owns Instagram), I see it more like the result of a 500lb gorilla throwing its weight around because it knows it is popular enough that most people will stay anyway.
I have no problem with Instagram making money- they (and any other free service) can advertise to me to their heart’s content. That’s totally fair. Or they can cease being free and charge for their services, that’s fair too.
… but I have no intention of giving them my intellectual property to use however they see fit, for free. I don’t even sell that right, but if I did, it wouldn’t be cheap.
Now, I was never a big Instagram user anyway, and never really go into the social media side of things (plus I’m just not a fan of using filters anyway) so my tolerance for that kinda thing might be exceptionally low. I do put up with facebook’s crap because it’s a tool I use all the time, though I really don’t like that it can show my friends ads with my false stamp of approval. (At least, I guess, most facebook users are aware that that’s happening and don’t put much stock in it.)
got* into the social media side (of Instagram. I use other social media all the time.)
Let’s not forget, the folks at Instagram made their money…this is all ultimately Facebook now trying to make their investment pay off…
Instagram was a way for me to share on-the-go pics of my family with family and friends. These are things I really don’t want sold. So although I haven’t decided if I’ll keep using Instagram (probably not) I do know I won’t use it to take and share any pics I don’t want used without my permission.
Personally, I have no problem paying for something of value and would happily pay a fee to avoid the ads and all this unpleasantness.
This is an interesting perspective, but I wonder how you’d feel if they used one of your photos for an advertisement with the tag, “Instagram PhotoEditor makes sure you never post something this ugly.”
This doesn’t apply to your photos, of course, but it’s something to consider.
Though I guess it doesn’t matter anymore now that Instagram caved!
I like that you bring a voice of reason to the masses. I think calling us out as spoiled kids is right on – perhaps not quite fair – but true. We don’t recognize value until it’s gone. I reflected a lot about Instagram’s value in my life today as well and hit it from a more emotional perspective on my blog: http://hilaryhess.com/2012/12/why-im-staying-with-instagram/
I’m sticking with it!
I agree, we are spoiled kids a lot of times. How can we want to use their service for free yet not allow them to use what we created with their service for free? I kind of assume that anything I upload could get lost in the shuffle and be up-for-grabs (or up for scrutiny) so I hold back what I need to. I’ll stick with Instagram, keeping in mind the changes.
Facebook’s Instagram can become the Ebay and Amazon of stock imagery. But, Facebook should do this Not on the backs of its customers — the artists — but instead by saying unambiguously, nonlitigiously: “We have your backs, we will help you and share reasonably in the profits of your work.” This will build, not break, a brand promise that Facebook ought to re-avow to each of its clients. I’d feel better about this if Google took this on…