PSA: You cannot stop Instagram or Facebook from using your photos with a post

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 21
Celebrities and other online personalities are unwittingly circulating a hoax claiming Instagram is changing its privacy policy, one that can supposedly avoided by publicly posting the statement, with it being the latest incarnation of a chain message that has existed for years.




In the last few days, Instagram users have started to post variations of the same block of text to their profiles, claiming there's a rule change happening "tomorrow" where Instagram "can use your photos," with everything ever posted to the service becoming "public," including deleted photographs and messages. The text, though seemingly authoritative with references to a law and the "Rome Statute," supposedly prevents Instagram from having permission to share photographs or messages if posted to a profile.

The image has become more prominent after a number of well-known individuals including US Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Rob Lowe, Julia Roberts, Judd Apatow, Pink, Usher, and others. After discovering the image was perpetuating a hoax, some have elected to remove the image from their social media accounts.

"There's no truth to this post," said Facebook spokesperson Stephanie Otway, while Instagram chief Adam Mosseri posted to his Instagram Stories to alert to the trickery, advising "If you're seeing a meme claiming Instagram is changing its rules tomorrow, it's not true."

An example of one of the images circulating the hoax on Instagram
An example of one of the images circulating the hoax on Instagram. Whoever edited in "Instagram" over "Facebook" didn't do a great job.


The text of the message has circulated in various forms for year, with one Snopes debunking of the hoax in 2012 showing the majority of the current version's text is reused from older versions. Both Facebook and Instagram have been the subject of the hoax in the past, apt considering Facebook owns Instagram.

Indeed, if the text were interpreted as the hoax intended, users would not be allowed to use Instagram at all. Use is not the same as ownership. Facebook and Instagram have to "use" photos and posts as part of the social media mandate of spreading the word of any given user to the willing, and sometimes unwilling.

Instagram, as does other social networks, have language in its terms of use stating it gains a "non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferrable, sub-licenseable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate and create derivative works of your content." The license is a requirement in order for the services to function at all, such as core features like sharing images or sending messages to other users.

In the case of Instagram's terms, it specifies that, despite the user granting the license to use content, it stresses "We do not claim ownership of your content," and that "Nothing is changing about your rights in your content."

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 11
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 885member
    After seeing how fast the Q-Anon hoax spread, there is no hope for the intelligence of humanity. 
    djames4242napoleon_phoneapartCarnagewatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 11
    ciacia Posts: 83member
    "I DECLARE BANKRUPCY!"
    Msd3kwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 11
    Let it spread – it clarifies which of your friends are morons. 
    napoleon_phoneapartCarnagebeowulfschmidtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 11
    blah64blah64 Posts: 941member
    jamesmcd said:
    Let it spread – it clarifies which of your friends are morons. 
    And by that, you mean anyone that actually uses facebook anymore, right?

    That's my definition.
    edited August 21 watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 11
    blah64 said:
    jamesmcd said:
    Let it spread – it clarifies which of your friends are morons. 
    And by that, you mean anyone that actually uses facebook anymore, right?

    That's my definition.
    Some people might go further and say,

    And by that, you mean anyone that actually uses Social Media anymore, right?

    If you assume that each and every word you post on Social Media is fair game to the operators of that service to use in any way they see fit then you should be good to go. If you are happy with say Facebook monetizing a photo that you posted then go read the T's & C's with a contracts lawyer sitting by your side. You may want to think again.

    The Internet is fair game for thieves, vagabonds and higwaymen/women. People are stealing entire collections of work and posting it as their own and getting income from it. That's why I deleted all the photos I had posted anywhere on the internet. The same goes for books published on Amazon. Others have been known to steal it and post it again on Amazon under a slightly changed title. Bar-stewards the lot of them.
    Carnagewatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 11
    Celebrities circulating a hoax...how unusual. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 11
    Everyone and everything on Fakebook is fake. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 11
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,898administrator
    If your post has been deleted twice now, take the hint, please.

    And, we talked about this three years ago on social media, if you really want to get in a pissing match about who was first: AI or a forum-goer on Facebook that we do not follow, nor take any sourcing from.

    Do not interpret this post as an invitation for discussion on the matter in any venue, since you emailed us with a copy and paste of what you said here.

    Edit August 23: Enjoy your ban.
    edited August 23 watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 11
    Instagram, as does other social networks, have language in its terms of use stating it gains a "non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferrable, sub-licenseable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate and create derivative works of your content." The license is a requirement in order for the services to function at all, such as core features like sharing images or sending messages to other users.
    I do not believe the clauses of transferrable, sub-licensable rights are necessary for the service to function, nor should the ability to use, modify, copy or create derivative works be part of the licensing terms.

    I have no problem with granting a royalty-free, non-exclusive license to content I create where the licensor may host, distribute, translate and publicly perform or display said content. The creation of derivative works is protected by other laws and no licensing terms should be trying to override those rights.

    Most of the "social" networks are trying to abrogate the copyright of their users' original content and that is a shameful practice that should be reversed.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 11
    I have lost respect for a lot of people after they posted these on their profiles....YIKES  :#
    watto_cobramacawesome88
  • Reply 11 of 11
    cia said:
    "I DECLARE BANKRUPCY!"
    I have been reading this site for years, though have never commented due to the near futile nature of forum discussions.  But this one, gorgeous, Office derived statement deserves recognition.  It was the first thing I thought off reading the title and again reading through the article.  I was overjoyed to find it as one of the very first comments!

    Thank you, CIA for a great laugh.
Sign In or Register to comment.