As Nilay Patel points out, this is very different from Instagram selling user content to third-parties without any rules on how its used. Instead, it’s closer to what Facebook (FB) does with sponsored posts. Makes sense, given that Facebook owns Instagram.

But I do have to wonder if this is the first step toward social media killing off the traditional stock imagery business. And if I’m The Carlyle Group (CG), which paid $3.3 billion to buy Getty Images just two months ago, I’d be nervous.

Imagine, for a moment, if Instagram had made this offer to users: You can opt in to a program that lets us sell your photos to third parties, and in exchange we will give you 10% of the revenue. You’ll also get photo credit, if the image is sold to a news agency.

Wouldn’t this present a major challenge to a company like Getty? Particularly on the digital side, where Carlyle already has acknowledged the company needs to step up its game.

To be sure, Getty offers images taken by professionals. But who’s to say that a couple amateur sunset shots aren’t just as good? Or that one smartphone shot from next month’s presidential inauguration won’t come out great? Or, again, those Awesome Pretzel Chicken Tenders?

And if Instagram is able to sell its photos for significantly less than Getty — and perhaps offer a similar subscription service — then social media could seriously eat into the stock photo business.

Again, Instagram isn’t going there. Yet.

A Getty spokeswoman said that the company would have some related comments tomorrow, but could not share any thoughts today.

Sign up for Dan’s daily email newsletter on deals and deal-makers: GetTermSheet.com