#quitstagram

Instagram refusal to parts of new policy after user outrage

Facebookwillaltersome of thewordingin its new terms of instagram policy serviceon itsphoto-sharing site Instagram, afterusers interpreted the new policy as giving the social networking service the power to sell their uploaded photosor related information.

Uproar emerged over a clause in the new agreement revealed Monday. It will set totake effect in mid-January."We may share your information as well as information from tools like cookies, log files, and device identifiers and location data with organizations that help us provide the service to you ... [and] third-party advertising partners," states the clause."To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business may pay us to display your user name, likeness, photos, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.Many users threatened Instagram to leave the photosharing service, interpreting that their photos could be used in advertising with no reference to the person who owns the picture and with all payments going to Instagram.Facebook attempted to"eliminate the confusion"in a statement issued Tuesday."It was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing," wroteKevin Systrom, one of Instagram's co-founders. "To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear."Instagram will also "remove the language that raised the question" about whether a user's photo could be used as part of an advertisement.The company also said:

Instagram users have ownership rights over their photos.

No changes have been made to the site's privacy settings.

Outrage followed new Instagram policy announcement

The backlash after newInstagram Policyannouncement was plentiful and harsh.New York-based photographerClayton Cubbitwrote on his account about the policy amendment, calling it "Instagram's suicide note.Another user tweeted: "Moving photos to Flickr for the time being flic.kr/p/dBR8wP"In his market watch blog,The Big Picture, Barry Ritholtztitled his posting "Facebook Destroys Instagram" and criticized the company for "abuse of privacy and data mining about its users."

'The problem with Instagram and indeed with its parent company, Facebook, is that it is working by a form of deception: users are sucked in.'David Murakami Wood, sociology professor

Queens Universitysociology professorDavid Murakami Woodcalls the move 'dishonest'."The problem with Instagram and indeed with its parent company, Facebook, is that it is working by a form of deception: users are sucked in and upload all kinds of content, and then the company changes the rules and says we will own all of this (unless you tell us otherwise by a certain date)," saidMurakami Woodin a statement.MurakamiWoodis a professor working at the university'sSurveillance Studies Centre."It's particularly deceptive because they present it as minor terms of service changes. What we need is transparency on the part of these companies so users can make informed decisions. Informed consent is a basic principle of data protection and privacy provision."In Instagram's statement,Systromwrote that the two policies "help communicate as clearly as possible" the rules governing the site's community.

Other online services allow photo sharing

Facebook bought Instagram in Aprilwhen the photo-sharing service was about2years old. It claimed33 millionusers at this time.Recently,Carolyn Everson, Facebook's vice-president of global marketing solutions, said: "Eventually we'll figure out a way to monetize Instagram."The new terms of service have prompted a boom in a number of other online services, such asrecollect.comortheopenphotoproject.com, that offer to let people download their existing photos on Instagram into another archive.Other photo-sharing sitesare also getting a slight bump in users, such asFlickr.Some users are not as upset. UserNeil McCormicktweeted: "Just flipped through some of my @instagram pics. I will be honest if you can sell those, more power to ya. I would love to hear your pitch." Related :

Instagram can now sell your photos without knowing you

Twitter offered $525 million deal to buy Instagram before FB

Facebook Revealed new Privacy Controls

Facebook looking to buy Microsoft's Ad Technology

Facebook launched new messenger app for Android OS

Instagram refusal to parts of new policy after user outrage

Facebookwillaltersome of thewordingin its new terms of serviceon itsphoto-sharing site Instagram, afterusers interpreted the new policy as giving the social networking service the power to sell their uploaded photosor related information.

Uproar emerged over a clause in the new agreement revealed Monday. It will set totake effect in mid-January."We may share your information as well as information from tools like cookies, log files, and device identifiers and location data with organizations that help us provide the service to you ... [and] third-party advertising partners," states the clause."To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business may pay us to display your user name, likeness, photos, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.Many users threatened Instagram to leave the photosharing service, interpreting that their photos could be used in advertising with no reference to the person who owns the picture and with all payments going to Instagram.Facebook attempted to"eliminate the confusion"in a statement issued Tuesday."It was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing," wroteKevin Systrom, one of Instagram's co-founders. "To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear."Instagram will also "remove the language that raised the question" about whether a user's photo could be used as part of an advertisement.The company also said:

Instagram users have ownership rights over their photos.

No changes have been made to the site's privacy settings.

Outrage followed new Instagram policy announcement

The backlash after newInstagram Policyannouncement was plentiful and harsh.New York-based photographerClayton Cubbitwrote on his account about the policy amendment, calling it "Instagram's suicide note.Another user tweeted: "Moving photos to Flickr for the time being flic.kr/p/dBR8wP"In his market watch blog,The Big Picture, Barry Ritholtztitled his posting "Facebook Destroys Instagram" and criticized the company for "abuse of privacy and data mining about its users."

'The problem with Instagram and indeed with its parent company, Facebook, is that it is working by a form of deception: users are sucked in.'David Murakami Wood, sociology professor

Queens Universitysociology professorDavid Murakami Woodcalls the move 'dishonest'."The problem with Instagram and indeed with its parent company, Facebook, is that it is working by a form of deception: users are sucked in and upload all kinds of content, and then the company changes the rules and says we will own all of this (unless you tell us otherwise by a certain date)," saidMurakami Woodin a statement.MurakamiWoodis a professor working at the university'sSurveillance Studies Centre."It's particularly deceptive because they present it as minor terms of service changes. What we need is transparency on the part of these companies so users can make informed decisions. Informed consent is a basic principle of data protection and privacy provision."In Instagram's statement,Systromwrote that the two policies "help communicate as clearly as possible" the rules governing the site's community.

Other online services allow photo sharing

Facebook bought Instagram in Aprilwhen the photo-sharing service was about2years old. It claimed33 millionusers at this time.Recently,Carolyn Everson, Facebook's vice-president of global marketing solutions, said: "Eventually we'll figure out a way to monetize Instagram."The new terms of service have prompted a boom in a number of other online services, such asrecollect.comortheopenphotoproject.com, that offer to let people download their existing photos on Instagram into another archive.Other photo-sharing sitesare also getting a slight bump in users, such asFlickr.Some users are not as upset. UserNeil McCormicktweeted: "Just flipped through some of my @instagram pics. I will be honest if you can sell those, more power to ya. I would love to hear your pitch." Related :

Instagram can now sell your photos without knowing you

Twitter offered $525 million deal to buy Instagram before FB

Facebook Revealed new Privacy Controls

Facebook looking to buy Microsoft's Ad Technology

Facebook launched new messenger app for Android OS

Instagram refusal to parts of new policy after user outrage

Facebookwillaltersome of thewordingin its new terms of serviceon itsphoto-sharing site Instagram, afterusers interpreted the new policy as giving the social networking service the power to sell their uploaded photosor related information.

Uproar emerged over a clause in the new agreement revealed Monday. It will set totake effect in mid-January."We may share your information as well as information from tools like cookies, log files, and device identifiers and location data with organizations that help us provide the service to you ... [and] third-party advertising partners," states the clause."To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business may pay us to display your user name, likeness, photos, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.Many users threatened Instagram to leave the photosharing service, interpreting that their photos could be used in advertising with no reference to the person who owns the picture and with all payments going to Instagram.Facebook attempted to"eliminate the confusion"in a statement issued Tuesday."It was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing," wroteKevin Systrom, one of Instagram's co-founders. "To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear."Instagram will also "remove the language that raised the question" about whether a user's photo could be used as part of an advertisement.The company also said:

Instagram users have ownership rights over their photos.

No changes have been made to the site's privacy settings.

Outrage followed new Instagram policy announcement

The backlash after newInstagram Policyannouncement was plentiful and harsh.New York-based photographerClayton Cubbitwrote on his account about the policy amendment, calling it "Instagram's suicide note.Another user tweeted: "Moving photos to Flickr for the time being flic.kr/p/dBR8wP"In his market watch blog,The Big Picture, Barry Ritholtztitled his posting "Facebook Destroys Instagram" and criticized the company for "abuse of privacy and data mining about its users."

'The problem with Instagram and indeed with its parent company, Facebook, is that it is working by a form of deception: users are sucked in.'David Murakami Wood, sociology professor

Queens Universitysociology professorDavid Murakami Woodcalls the move 'dishonest'."The problem with Instagram and indeed with its parent company, Facebook, is that it is working by a form of deception: users are sucked in and upload all kinds of content, and then the company changes the rules and says we will own all of this (unless you tell us otherwise by a certain date)," saidMurakami Woodin a statement.MurakamiWoodis a professor working at the university'sSurveillance Studies Centre."It's particularly deceptive because they present it as minor terms of service changes. What we need is transparency on the part of these companies so users can make informed decisions. Informed consent is a basic principle of data protection and privacy provision."In Instagram's statement,Systromwrote that the two policies "help communicate as clearly as possible" the rules governing the site's community.

Other online services allow photo sharing

Facebook bought Instagram in Aprilwhen the photo-sharing service was about2years old. It claimed33 millionusers at this time.Recently,Carolyn Everson, Facebook's vice-president of global marketing solutions, said: "Eventually we'll figure out a way to monetize Instagram."The new terms of service have prompted a boom in a number of other online services, such asrecollect.comortheopenphotoproject.com, that offer to let people download their existing photos on Instagram into another archive.Other photo-sharing sitesare also getting a slight bump in users, such asFlickr.Some users are not as upset. UserNeil McCormicktweeted: "Just flipped through some of my @instagram pics. I will be honest if you can sell those, more power to ya. I would love to hear your pitch." Related :

Instagram can now sell your photos without knowing you

Twitter offered $525 million deal to buy Instagram before FB

Facebook Revealed new Privacy Controls

Facebook looking to buy Microsoft's Ad Technology

Facebook launched new messenger app for Android OS

Instagram refusal to parts of new policy after user outrage

Facebookwillaltersome of thewordingin its new terms of serviceon itsphoto-sharing site Instagram, afterusers interpreted the new policy as giving the social networking service the power to sell their uploaded photosor related information.

Uproar emerged over a clause in the new agreement revealed Monday. It will set totake effect in mid-January."We may share your information as well as information from tools like cookies, log files, and device identifiers and location data with organizations that help us provide the service to you ... [and] third-party advertising partners," states the clause."To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business may pay us to display your user name, likeness, photos, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.Many users threatened Instagram to leave the photosharing service, interpreting that their photos could be used in advertising with no reference to the person who owns the picture and with all payments going to Instagram.Facebook attempted to"eliminate the confusion"in a statement issued Tuesday."It was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing," wroteKevin Systrom, one of Instagram's co-founders. "To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear."Instagram will also "remove the language that raised the question" about whether a user's photo could be used as part of an advertisement.The company also said:

Instagram users have ownership rights over their photos.

No changes have been made to the site's privacy settings.

Outrage followed new Instagram policy announcement

The backlash after newInstagram Policyannouncement was plentiful and harsh.New York-based photographerClayton Cubbitwrote on his account about the policy amendment, calling it "Instagram's suicide note.Another user tweeted: "Moving photos to Flickr for the time being flic.kr/p/dBR8wP"In his market watch blog,The Big Picture, Barry Ritholtztitled his posting "Facebook Destroys Instagram" and criticized the company for "abuse of privacy and data mining about its users."

'The problem with Instagram and indeed with its parent company, Facebook, is that it is working by a form of deception: users are sucked in.'David Murakami Wood, sociology professor

Queens Universitysociology professorDavid Murakami Woodcalls the move 'dishonest'."The problem with Instagram and indeed with its parent company, Facebook, is that it is working by a form of deception: users are sucked in and upload all kinds of content, and then the company changes the rules and says we will own all of this (unless you tell us otherwise by a certain date)," saidMurakami Woodin a statement.MurakamiWoodis a professor working at the university'sSurveillance Studies Centre."It's particularly deceptive because they present it as minor terms of service changes. What we need is transparency on the part of these companies so users can make informed decisions. Informed consent is a basic principle of data protection and privacy provision."In Instagram's statement,Systromwrote that the two policies "help communicate as clearly as possible" the rules governing the site's community.

Other online services allow photo sharing

Facebook bought Instagram in Aprilwhen the photo-sharing service was about2years old. It claimed33 millionusers at this time.Recently,Carolyn Everson, Facebook's vice-president of global marketing solutions, said: "Eventually we'll figure out a way to monetize Instagram."The new terms of service have prompted a boom in a number of other online services, such asrecollect.comortheopenphotoproject.com, that offer to let people download their existing photos on Instagram into another archive.Other photo-sharing sitesare also getting a slight bump in users, such asFlickr.Some users are not as upset. UserNeil McCormicktweeted: "Just flipped through some of my @instagram pics. I will be honest if you can sell those, more power to ya. I would love to hear your pitch." Related :

Instagram can now sell your photos without knowing you

Twitter offered $525 million deal to buy Instagram before FB

Facebook Revealed new Privacy Controls

Facebook looking to buy Microsoft's Ad Technology

Facebook launched new messenger app for Android OS