News Column

Instagram Won't Sell Your Cat Photos After All

Dec. 26, 2012

Alejandra Matos, Star Tribune (Minneapolis)

Instagrammers are still recovering from their "Terms of Use" coma.

Instagram released its new confusing and unclear terms of use last week, saying that beginning Jan. 16, photos could be used in advertisements without users' consent.

That outraged some users who did not want their cat photos shared by Friskies.

Instagram followers immediately took to social media to revolt against the popular mobile photo-sharing service.

Users threatened to quit. Some actually did.

But Instagram backpedaled, saying it would clarify the language since its intention wasn't to sell users' photos.

It's still unclear whether a mass Insta-pocalypse will happen, but if it does, our smartphones may see less of these popular hashtagged images (for better or worse):

#foodporn: So long, photos of juicy steaks, fresh-baked cookies and healthy diet salads. That meatloaf will never look as good as it did with the Lo-Fi filter.

#selfie: The photos of your cousin in quirky hats, wearing über-red lipstick or sporting a new haircut will thankfully live only on Facebook -- or MySpace (yes, it's back).

#catsagram: Where will we get our fix of cats in hats or rolled up in mats?

#sunsets: The sunset of the city skyline, the first snowfall and the eye-catching fall colors -- all superstars of Instagram -- may no longer bring a ray of sunshine to our eyes.

Those selfies are scary enough, Instagram. Don't freak people out with confusing terms, too.



Source: (c)2012 the Star Tribune (Minneapolis) Distributed by MCT Information Services