Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf1138\cocoasubrtf470 {\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 ArialMT;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red26\green26\blue26;\red0\green0\blue239;} \margl1440\margr1440\vieww10800\viewh8400\viewkind0
\deftab720 \pard\pardeftab720\sa240
\f0\fs24 \cf2 (Image source: {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "http://instagram.com/"}}{\fldrslt \cf3 \ul
\ulc3 Instagram}})\ \pard\pardeftab720\sa240
\b \cf2 BY MIKAH SARGENT \b0 \
Photo-sharing service Instagram is backpedaling after making {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK
"http://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/"}}{\fldrslt \cf3 \ul \ulc3 controversial changes to its
terms of service.}}\ The problematic clause said...\uc0\u8232
\b \'93 \'85 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.\'94
\b0 \uc0\u8232 \u8232 So in an effort to remedy the issue, {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "http://blog.instagram.com/post/38421250999/updated-terms-of-service-based-on-your-feedback"}}{\fldrslt
\cf3 \ul \ulc3 Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom announced in a blog post}}\'a0...\uc0\u8232
\b \'93Because of the feedback we have heard from you, we are reverting this advertising
section to the original version that has been in effect since we launched the service in
October 2010.\'94 \b0 \uc0\u8232 \u8232 This announcement came
after Instagram released a clarification earlier in the week, promising users it had no intention
to sell their photos. {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "http://gigaom.com/2012/12/20/instagram-changes-course-and-reverts-to-original-terms-of-service-for-advertising/"}}{\fldrslt
\cf3 \ul \ulc3 GigaOM}} and {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/19/how-to-explain-your-privacy-policy-and-terms-of-service-changes/"}}{\fldrslt
\cf3 \ul \ulc3 TechCrunch}} have the details.\uc0\u8232 \u8232
\b \'93Instagram originally released the updated terms on Monday, setting off a firestorm of
complaints from users who disliked the new terminology \'85 The update on Tuesday said
the company was listening to its users, had no intention to sell their photos, and would
not retain ownership over the images.\'94\uc0\u8232 \u8232 \'93Basically it wanted to be able
to use photos\'97specifically like your profile photo within Instagram to be able to target
ads, not sell your photos to an outside service.\'94 \b0 \uc0\u8232 \u8232 But despite the clarification,
many users were still confused by the new terminology, pushing Instagram to revert to
the old Terms of Service. {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/20/3790312/instagram-reverts-to-original-terms-of-service-after-public-outcry"}}{\fldrslt
\cf3 \ul \ulc3 And a writer for The Verge says reverting may be worse than sticking
with the new terms.}}\uc0\u8232 \u8232 \b \'93The 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. The language the company's going back to is so broad that such
use isn't out of the realm of possibility \'97 and in that sense today's development
is actually a loss for users.\'94 \b0 \uc0\u8232 \u8232 Instagram says users
can rest assured their filtered photos are safe\'97the photo-sharing service has stated
it will seek permission for future advertising plans. However, the reverted terms won\'92t
take effect until January 19, 2013.\'a0\ }