No, they are NOT going to do that.
It's 2012. Why are people --and especially someone like Wheaton-- behaving like it's 1994 and they are learning this "web" thing for the first time?
I've seen the same bloody story play up 10 or 20 times. They made a BS change on their license terms, they are is gonna be a small fuss from their users about it and they are gonna revert it.
It's not like Instagram-the-company even intended to do that in the first place -- most likely they screwed up the phrasing but meant something extremely more limited (like: we'd have be able to use your pics when advertising Instagram-the-app itself).
Instead, people are acting like Instagram was really going to sell their photos and not pay them, and like this thing won't be revoked in less than a month.
That is absurd.
Why?
1) The backslash from the users, especially with 2-3 active competitors against the company (Twitter, which added photo filters to its app, being the latest heavyweight).
2) The lawsuits from users their photos they did attempt to sell.
3) It's not a way to make money, anyway. Instagram is not a Getty Images like company -- and limited size pictures with cliched filters is not exactly a stock image market. Getty actually partners with Flickr, which has actual photos of ALL kinds and PAYS the photographer if it uses the pictures, but it's not like anything lucrative came out of it, for either Flickr, Getty or the users.