Racked is no longer publishing. Thank you to everyone who read our work over the years. The archives will remain available here; for new stories, head over to Vox.com, where our staff is covering consumer culture for The Goods by Vox. You can also see what we’re up to by signing up here.
Cozette McCreery's response, via Instagram
The new terms, announced late Monday night, forced users to give 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." Instagram isn't claiming copyright or ownership of your arty selfies, but they do get to use them however they like, without your permission and without compensating you for use. The only opt out would have been to delete your Instagram account.
Yesterday saw a mini backlash from the fashion community. Style.com reports that industry heavyweights such as Nina Garcia and Coco Rocha, two of the most powerful presences in fashion social media, took to their respective platforms to vocalize their complaints.
Coco Rocha wrote a piece on her Tumblr blog titled "Instagram—World's Worst Modeling/Photography Agency?" where she declared, "As a model, I'm horrified by Instagram's proposed new terms of service. As a human being I'm outraged."
Nina Garcia also weighed in with the tweet above.
In response to the negative feedback, Systrom posted a retraction of sorts on Instagram's blog in a post titled "Thank you and We're Listening"
From the start, Instagram was created to become a business. Advertising is one of many ways that Instagram can become a self-sustaining business, but not the only one. Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we'd like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead 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. 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.
As Mashable points out, the updated terms were actually pretty darn clear, stating explicitly "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."
But the quick response and the promise to change the terms should go a long way to sooth everyone's ruffled feathers.
· Instagram CEO's Promise: No Photos to Be Used in Ads [Mashable]
· Instagram Can Now Use Your Selfie in Ads Without Asking [Racked]