“To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, 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. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata) on your behalf.”
Many users took that clause to mean Instagram could now sell user photos to the highest bidder—something that the Facebook subsidiary, during the subsequent controversy, did its utter best to dispel. The reverted terms read as follows:
Followed by this subclause:
“Some of the Service is supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Service or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you.”
As argued by some publications, however, the original terms were arguably more detrimental to users.
“The proposed tweaks made it very clear that advertisers, for example, couldn’t just stick their logo on one of your photos and use it as an Instagram ad,” Bryan Bishop wrote in a Dec. 20 posting on The Verge. “The language the company’s going back to is so broad that such use isn’t out of the realm of possibility—and in that sense today’s development is actually a loss for users.”
The question is whether, by reverting to the old policies, Instagram can stop angry fans from leaving the service.