mobile photography technology, culture and community

Instagramers start class action lawsuit


Instagram users are fighting back against recent changes to the social photo-sharing service's Terms of Service, scheduled to go into effect January 16.

A proposed class action lawsuit was filed in a San Francisco federal court Friday, reports Reuters

The lawsuit claims breach of contract against Instagram, following ToS changes announced last week that specifically seemed to imply it would begin selling users' images. Though the app maker seemed to retract that statement once Instagramers responded strongly to the proposed changes, the new lawsuit seems further proof users remain concerned about the direction the app is taking since Facebook's acquisition earlier this year.

We recently broke down steps to take whether you decide to keep or delete your Instagram account.


Total comments: 19
By lucidmedias (Jan 1, 2013)

Instagram is extremely public and popular.. but it's still a private company. Companies need to make money, Instagram is not a right, they don't owe you a place to deepen your social presence. You're using it by choice. Same thing with Facebook. Genius population sheeping tool.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
By KodaChrome25 (Dec 29, 2012)

Copyright law says if I take a photograph, I own the copyright to that image. So why would IG say they can do what they want with that image?

Here's why: it's a smoke-and-mirrors, look-over-here tactic. While a lot of folk are in an uproar about their move, the real change to the ToS says users of the service cannot sue IG.

So no matter what they do, no matter what plan they come up with to screw people over, people have no recourse.

By lucidmedias (Jan 1, 2013)

So don't take your photograph with Instagram.

Samuel Gao
By Samuel Gao (Dec 28, 2012)

Well, they should say starting Jan 16, all NEW photos will be used. That way, it's up to the users to take down their own things..

By drummercam (Dec 26, 2012)

If the "big bad government" were collecting private information on citizens -- demographic, social, financial, etc. -- people like the right-wing Tea Party "get government out of out lives" crowd would be in a vigilante uproar. But if corporations do it for profit, it's all apparently okay. It's good to see a reaction against corporations. They are invading privacy far worse than the government can do or cares to do.

1 upvote
By JDThomas (Dec 28, 2012)

This isn't even a valid comparison. If you don't want a corporation to invade your privacy you don't have to use their services, plain and simple.

By rhit (Dec 30, 2012)

And if you don't like a country invading your privacy, you can move. Perfectly valid comparison.

By JDThomas (Dec 31, 2012)

Yeah, picking up and moving your whole LIFE is exactly the same as signing up for an iPhone app.

Not to mention how difficult is is to actually to another county and become a legal resident.

Your statement is completely ridiculous.

Alan Brown
By Alan Brown (Dec 26, 2012)

infantile.. Hmmm

suppose one of your images gets used in something advertised (online for all the world to see) which goes against all that you hold dear?

Suddenly people are viewing you and your beliefs (right or wrong) in a different way.

people lose out in interviews because they can't keep their (internet) mouths shut when they 'lose it' temporarily. Too late then. it's out there for employers to make global judgments on your character; no matter if or how you have gotten a grip since. Give a dog a bad name eh?.


By MrPetkus (Dec 27, 2012)

It's not your Instagram. It is a construct developed solely to generate revenue. Opt in and accept terms of service that are subject to change. Somehow you're worried that images from someone's ministry or non-profit is going to sell condoms? Good names will be irrevocably tarnished?
And yet you're cognizant of the fact that every Flickr post, tweet, and Facebook update may be read and scrutinized out of context by you or your children's future employers. What makes you then think Instagram is some protected space? A class action lawsuit is infantile.

Alan Brown
By Alan Brown (Dec 27, 2012)

well, yes. A person who makes a statement about his boss being a (insert something inappropriate here) has used his own volition.. that up to him and he takes the consequences for it.. As I already stated..some can't keep their (internet ) mouth shut. This move (monetizing someones personal property) is out of the control of the user.. big difference.

I don't have an account with this company but I would remove my images. That's a personal thing.. people don't have to do anything about their's if they don't want to.

Peace :)

By MrPetkus (Dec 26, 2012)

A collection of infantile instagrammers who can't tolerate the thought of removing their content after investing their lives in the service. The naïveté is staggering. The social media giants have been slowly desensitizing users to privacy concerns in a calculated long-term play. A service like Google Latitude would have spawned near unanimous alarm 10 years ago whereas today concern is reserved for the tinfoil hat crowd. The waters are routinely tested with Terms of Service rewrites that increase in both frequency and scope. This isn't our online community, it's the providers. Their storage, bandwidth, and infrastructure.

Amadou Diallo
By Amadou Diallo (Dec 26, 2012)

While the merits of suing a provider whose services are free seems rather thin at first glance, the broader issues raised by monetizing user-owned content represent the biggest challenges to both web businesses and consumer advocates.
The real question for users is how do we want to pay for online services? With money, as in the pre-Internet days? Or with our content?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 45 seconds after posting
By atdp (Dec 26, 2012)

Sure ...
It's also fair in case of selling , the owner should share the $$$ in somehow. After all the whole idea is sharing .

By Biggiep (Dec 26, 2012)

This makes no sense. Nobody pays anything to use Instagram, so what exactly are the damages?

Jason Edwards
By Jason Edwards (Dec 25, 2012)

This is BS. It is their service and if they want to change the TOS then that is up to them. Its your responsibility as a user to decide if you want to continue using the service. To file a lawsuit is such BS. Just quit using the service.

By goblin (Dec 26, 2012)

"...Its your responsibility as a user to decide if you want to continue using the service..."

Well, their idea was to give themselves the option of using your pictures even AFTER you discontinue using the service...

1 upvote
G Davidson
By G Davidson (Dec 27, 2012)

I'm amazed so many people are defending Instagram, or at least their proposed changes, on this. So far as I know, no social networks have tried using their user's images as stock photography, as the wording seemed to imply.

If something like that became the norm, photographers would lose the chance to have their presence in areas of society that are fast becoming ubiquitous. Even Instagram themselves, in their famous apology claimed they would never do such a thing. They may be running a business and offering a service, but that doesn't make ethical issues redundant. What kind of world do people want to live in??

By ryanshoots (Dec 27, 2012)

You get what you pay for. What have you paid for your Instagram account?

You must have known eventually they'd have to end the gravy train. Servers and bandwidth aren't free. The "internet" is not a basic human right, nor is unlimited pic hosting with no plan to use either your photos or your info to turn a buck a right. The plan is to get you somewhat dependent on a service and then change the terms to be to the providers advantage. Instagram's mistake is they miscalculated the level of dependance.

Either live with the terms or go elsewhere and that is precisely what Nat Geo seems to be thinking.

A class action is stupid. Apparently, they found a law firm that is thinking along the lines of "any publicity is good publicity"

1 upvote
Total comments: 19
About us