Instagram: We Won't Sell Your Photos

We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-12-18 11:03 · Score: 5, Funny

They are OURS, fools!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by alphatel · 2012-12-18 11:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

'it is not our intention to sell your photos' is not the same as "We won't ever sell your photos". History make a note before this is erased from yourself.

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by sneakyimp · 2012-12-18 11:10 · Score: 4, Funny

All your photo are belong to US.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by SternisheFan · 2012-12-18 11:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

'it is not our intention to sell your photos' is not the same as "We won't ever sell your photos". History make a note before this is erased from yourself.
In no way does this mean we won't change our minds tomorrow. Suckers!
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:29 · Score: 0

We don't intend to shove our collective dicks up your ass, now please bend over and lube it real good.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by NFN_NLN · 2012-12-18 11:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."
More like, "We were caught trying to stick it to our users BUT they called us on our shit."
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Jetra · 2012-12-18 11:52 · Score: 1

Nah, they'll just put it in their T&C. "You agreed to it, so you're screwed"
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Instagram says "It is not our intention to sell your photos". Unsaid was "But our intention doesn't matter, since Facebook controls us now, and only their intention matters."
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by wwalker · 2012-12-18 12:03 · Score: 2

It is not our intention...
HA-HA-HA! "We have our dick up your bum hole, but it is not our intention to rape you any time soon!"
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:16 · Score: 0

I don't care if you sell them, just give us a piece of the action.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by hey! · 2012-12-18 12:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't put anything on Google services that I might want to claim copyright on, for similar reasons. Google's TOS includes an unlimited license for them to publish any material that users put on their services:

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.
Here's Google's disclaimer:

Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your Gmail account.
But note what Google does *not* promise to do: avoid harming users' economic interests in their data. Yes, you might still *own* your data, but you give Google practically unlimited permission to do anything it pleases with your data, up to and including binding it in a paper book and selling it.
I'm not particularly concerned they'd do that -- that's sure to be viewed as unconscionable. I believe that what Google wants to do are things that some jury somewhere might construe as "publishing". Unfortunately, that same jury that would exonerate Google based on the TOS would also strip the author of certain special rights authors enjoy for unpublished manuscripts -- secrecy, for example. It is also possible (I hope) that at under future changes in copyright law, Google's having quasi-published a manuscript might effect its copyright term.
Scientists might have similar issues with inadvertently "publishing" data by storing it on some Google service (Gmail for example), thus rendering it unpublishable in an academic journal.
If Google intended to protect the users' interest in their data, they'd qualify the permissions they claim to "publish" your data so it only applied to public facing services. Yahoo does this:

"Publicly accessible" areas of the Yahoo! Services are those areas of the Yahoo! network of properties that are intended by Yahoo! to be available to the general public.
So I avoid GMail and use Yahoo Mail for anything I don't want "published", because Yahoo doesn't claim a right to "publish" emails and their attached documents, but in Gmail Google *does*.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by hobarrera · 2012-12-18 12:38 · Score: 1

"it is not our intention to sell your photos", we'll just add them to the ads we get payed to display.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 13:04 · Score: 0

Oh my God, such drama. Use GPG4WIN for secure email and OTR Off The Record messaging for IM. All the benefits of using their infrastructure but without granting them access to any content. Easy. And no drama!
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 14:06 · Score: 1

In this instance, they would hire an attorney familiar with topology, who can argue that one object cannot be "inside" another unless entirely enclosed by it. thus, "rape" cannot happen. esp. if no action is occurring. similar to Bill Clinton's defense about not having sex, thus more mathematically rigid (no pun intended).
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 14:07 · Score: 0

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.
Of course, if they didn't have those rights, they might be considered to be violating your copyrights when they move your data to a different host. Or send it back to you. Definitely if they add stuff like advertisements or a menu bar to it. Definitely if they send it to someone who isn't you, like a co-author or collaborator.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by jiteo · 2012-12-18 14:16 · Score: 1

More like, " We were caught trying to stick it to our product BUT they called us on our shit."
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Opportunist · 2012-12-18 14:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Nobody has the intention to build a wall"
--Walter Ulbricht, first secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of the GDR, 2 months before the Berlin Wall was built.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 15:26 · Score: 0

You can't just be selling me like I is yo ho!
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 16:48 · Score: 0

Let us get our beaks wet.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 17:59 · Score: 0

Scumbag Slashdot. Rightfully hates ACTA and the imaginary property delusion,
yet when it's something coming from them, suddenly they are all "WE OWN THAT SHIT! DRM! TCPA! ACTA! GAAAH!"
Dumbasses.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by maxwell+demon · 2012-12-18 18:00 · Score: 1

Just as nobody had the intention to build a wall.
(For those who don't know: It's what the head of East Germany claimed just a few days before they started to build the Berlin wall.)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 19:32 · Score: 0

Damn you Americans and your crazy IP laws.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by shellbeach · 2012-12-18 21:15 · Score: 1

I don't put anything on Google services that I might want to claim copyright on, for similar reasons. Google's TOS includes an unlimited license for them to publish any material that users put on their services:

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.
To be fair, if you choose to upload your files to Google, they'd be in a lot of trouble if they didn't have a license to host, store and reproduce them. The rest of their terms could be related to the use they make of things designed to be public, such as user-contributed translations. Google's terms of use were a lot better when there were separate terms for separate products; the enveloping of every single Google product under a single TOS (presumably to save on legal redrafting costs for each TOS) has made things seem a lot dodgier. Or it could be them being deliberately evil ... as always, we don't know. It would have been a lot more reassuring if Google had kept individual and separate TOS for all their products.
But I suspect Instagram did genuinely only intend to do what they say in TFA -- to let users willingly promote companies or products that they like. (God knows why people want to do this, but it seems clear from facebook that some people just can't get enough of being unpaid shills for products ...) Instagram got lawyers to draft their new terms of service, and those lawyers came up with the simplest terms to give Instagram the freedom to do what they envisioned. Problem is, of course, that those terms also permit an awful lot more.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Aighearach · 2012-12-18 23:29 · Score: 1

Contracts aren't valid if you're not getting anything in return. There has to be an exchange. And you can sever your relationship with google at any time. If you delete your accounts so you're no longer getting anything from them, the contract is no longer valid. So you could shut down their ad campaign using your content in a day, at great expense to them.
So your data is a lot more protected than you know, from what you fear. Ownership is key here, as is the lack of lock-in in the google terms.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 00:44 · Score: 0

"Instagram now says 'it is not our intention to sell your photos' and that 'users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos.'"
Who needs to change minds:
Will will not sell your photos. No, we will only sell copies of your photos or a fee to sub-license your photos.
Users own their content. They just grant us a license to it which lets act almost as if we owned it.
Is this the game?
all the best,
drew
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by hey! · 2012-12-19 00:49 · Score: 1

That's assuming you only exchange data with people who have enough sophistication to use encryption that's not baked in.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by hey! · 2012-12-19 00:59 · Score: 1

I'd be OK with Google's terms of service if it were not for one word: "publish". That raises both intellectual property and privacy red flags. Google doesn't need to publish your data to do any of the things you mention. I don't think they're going to print out your data, slap covers on it and put in bookstores, but I do believe they intend to make it public in other ways that affect your rights to claim the data as "private".

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by lipanitech · 2012-12-19 01:05 · Score: 0

"Instagram now says 'it is not our intention to sell your photos' and that 'users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos" I agree with that and thank you for the clarification. But have you ever tried to "delete" an Instagram account by way I say "delete" not "deactivate". Instagram makes it's so easy I am shock a lot easier then Facebook.

--
http://thetechnologygeek.org/
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Metabolife · 2012-12-19 01:28 · Score: 1

The robot rebellion has begun. And we are the robots.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 01:39 · Score: 0

More like we want to collect more pictures with permission before we start selling
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Jason+Levine · 2012-12-19 02:12 · Score: 1

To be fair, companies need to be granted a worldwide license to "host, store, reproduce" your content otherwise you could upload some copyrighted material and sue them for hosting/publishing it. The "modify/create derivative works" is likely for items such as producing thumbnail images or loading them into an online editor. The troubling bit in the Instagram TOS was that they were claiming the right to transfer this license to other parties, sell the images for ads to anyone they wanted, and not share any of the revenue. So far, to my knowledge, Google hasn't changed their TOS to claim that right.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by tilante · 2012-12-19 02:32 · Score: 1

Speaking of that... it should be noted that their proposed terms of service doesn't define "photos" to mean "only photos you uploaded to the service". Thus, they're saying that they have the right to use any photo you have ever taken, regardless of whether you gave it to them or not. Similarly with their bit about using users' likenesses - there's nothing that restricts them to only using photos people have uploaded to them for your likeness. That bit gets interesting for celebrities....
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by slashmydots · 2012-12-19 02:33 · Score: 1

The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure that any changes they make can only apply to newly uploaded photos, as the old ones were uploaded under the old terms. It's like ex post facto for companies. Then, whenever they change it, nobody will use them anymore so it's pretty set.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by slashmydots · 2012-12-19 02:33 · Score: 1

And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."
More like, "We were caught trying to stick it to our users BUT they called us on our shit."
More like: Facebook bought us and Facebook happened
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 02:38 · Score: 0

Wir Sind Roboten
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Luckyo · 2012-12-19 03:09 · Score: 1

Have they changed the policy? Do you still have to agree to it?
Then whatever they say about intentions is absolutely meaningless. They are still free to do whatever it is they allowed themselves to od in their policy, as long as it complies with all relevant local laws. In majority of the West, one can indeed sign away their copyright with a simple agreement.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by cdrudge · 2012-12-19 03:10 · Score: 1

In this instance, they would hire an attorney familiar with topology, who can argue that one object cannot be "inside" another unless entirely enclosed by it. thus, "rape" cannot happen. esp. if no action is occurring.

Todd Akin? Rupurt Mourdock? Is that you?
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Chris+Mattern · 2012-12-19 04:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

More like, " We were caught trying to stick it to our product BUT they called us on our shit."
"So now we're trying to see if meaningless reassurances will smooth things over." What matters is the agreement terms. Until they change, nothing has chaned.
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 04:27 · Score: 0

"Nobody has the intention to build a wall"
--Walter Ulbricht, first secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of the GDR, 2 months before the Berlin Wall was built.
Dead on.
"If you want us to take your claim seriously, then you need to not add language to your ToS letting you sell our photos".
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-12-19 05:04 · Score: 1

Does "delete" actually REMOVE all your submitted content, and scrub your references and indexes in the Instagram databases?
Or does it simply block references to your account profile, deny you login and mark you inactive?
The second is more likely - but I want to know.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by cthulhu11 · 2012-12-19 05:30 · Score: 1

Selling != Licensing
Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos by Opportunist · 2012-12-20 07:04 · Score: 1

Pretty much this. I don't give a shit about anything you say, promise or even swear as long as it's not part of the contract, you may as well save your breath.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

The First Rule by geminidomino · 2012-12-18 11:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Rule #0 of business agreements: If a contract says that the other party CAN do something, proceed under the assumption that they WILL do it.

Re:The First Rule by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-12-18 11:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously. This is an insult to our intelligence. Of course, it'll probably fly because most people haven't had to deal with the inevitable conclusion when they change their mind, or the business isn't growing fast enough and they have to find money somewhere, or enough time has passed that they think they can get away with it, or somebody else is in charge with different notions of what a promise means and is empowered by this clause.
"Oh, no, we won't ever actually do that. It's just in the contract because ... uh ... well, it's just there! Don't worry about it!"

--
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Re:The First Rule by ArcadeMan · 2012-12-18 11:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Rule of Acquisition #5: If you can't break a contract, bend it.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:The First Rule by mirix · 2012-12-18 11:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Just like when they make a new law. Someone points out that this is overly vague or somehow over-reaching, and can be used for $bad_thing. Lawmakers say this is obviously not the intent, and will never be used for such, no need to worry your head about it.
But they intend to use it in that manner soon and often, otherwise it would be rewritten.

--
Sent from my PDP-11
Re:The First Rule by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-12-18 11:42 · Score: 2

Well, it doesn't help that, in the past, we've already seen Facebook using people's personal photos in their third-party product ads.
Instagram/Facebook claims those clauses are going to be rewritten. If that doesn't happen by, say, January 10th - I'd strongly suggest you delete your photos from Instagram and then remove your account.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:The First Rule by Kergan · 2012-12-18 11:59 · Score: 1

Rule of Acquisition #5: If you can't break a contract, bend it.
Color me puzzled... What are the first four? I thought this was the only one. :-)
Re:The First Rule by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2012-12-18 12:01 · Score: 2
Don't forget:
- Rule #52 Never ask when you can take.
- Rule $60 Keep your lies consistent.
--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:The First Rule by argux · 2012-12-18 12:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

There are at least 285 rules of acquisition.
Re:The First Rule by chihowa · 2012-12-18 12:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Of course. They keep saying that 'users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos.' That's not really the issue, though. Nobody claimed that they were taking ownership of the photos, only that you're granting them a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service...
So they've added the right to transfer or sub-license your photos. They've not claimed that they own your photos, but they claim to be able to sell them as they please.
Here's their old ToS:

Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services.
and the new, updated ToS:

Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service's Privacy Policy, available here: http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/.

--
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:07 · Score: 0

Unless they are estopped from doing so by publicly stating that is not their intent.
Re:The First Rule by CastrTroy · 2012-12-18 12:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

The reason they do this is so that they can show your pictures to other users of Instagram without getting sued. Dropbox does the same, because otherwise, they wouldn't be able to implement the shared Dropbox feature. Since you (presumably) own the copyright on whichever photo you upload, technically, if you didn't grant them any rights, they wouldn't be able to create copies, or transmit the image to other users of the system. So, in order to cover their ass against users who would upload a photo and then claim copyright infringement when they shared said photo with other users on the system, it's just easier to create an all encompassing clause which grants them the ability to actually do the stuff they need to be able to do. If in a month they introduce a new feature, that lets you do something else with your photos, or they want to make them into a new thumbnail size, they don't want to have to ask your permission to generate a bunch of new thumbnails. People have tried to sue Google for spidering their site, and I don't know if anybody was successful, but I'm sure it created a bit of a headache for Google to have to deal with it. If they really don't want their stuff indexed, they can set their robots.txt file appropriately. But instead they'd rather bring up a lawsuit. Instagram doesn't want to deal with stupid little lawsuits like this, so this is why they create these clauses.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:34 · Score: 0

Already ahead of you there.
I took my content off of Instagram & Facebook because of this.
Re:The First Rule by skids · 2012-12-18 12:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

or somebody else is in charge with different notions of what a promise means
This usually. People who accuse the "Internet" of "Freaking Out" over such things seem to have no grasp of the fact that we live in a world where people with the approximate moral value system of The Kergen are regular recruits for the decision-making table. Either that or they fail miserably to realize the implications of that.

--
Someone had to do it.
Re:The First Rule by Frosty+Piss · 2012-12-18 13:03 · Score: 1

Rule #0 of business agreements: If a contract says that the other party CAN do something, proceed under the assumption that they WILL do it.
No.
Rule #0 of business agreements: If a contract does not explicitly say they WILL NOT do something, proceed under the assumption that they WILL do it.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 13:27 · Score: 1

Turn in your geek card!
Re:The First Rule by nedlohs · 2012-12-18 13:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

The lawmakers often don't intend to use it for such. The lobbyists who actually wrote it do of course, but they aren't officially the lawmakers.
Re:The First Rule by c++0xFF · 2012-12-18 13:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Their old TOS let them do exactly that already. Go read it again. I'll wait.
The change they made now gives them the rights to not only use the image however they need to implement their services, it also gives them the ability to sublicense user images to others.
Who are these others? I can't think of any reason why another USER of instagram would need a licence for the pictures of other users. So, that leaves other companies that instagram works with, such as advertisers. The new language would allow them to sublicense your images to an advertiser, without asking you and without any compensation. That's what got everybody all worked up.
Fortunately, the blog post seems to suggest that this won't be happening, and they'll be removing, or at least changing, that language. Good for them.
Re:The First Rule by Joe+Decker · 2012-12-18 14:26 · Score: 1

The reason they do this is so ....
I look forward to your justification for why Facebook feels it necessary to strip embedded copyright information from uploaded images.
(Arguably in violation of the DMCA.)
I'll wait.
--Joe

--
I'm a nature photographer.
Re:The First Rule by DonaldGary · 2012-12-18 16:05 · Score: 1

Furthermore, when they get sued for copyright infringement (for using a photo you posted) you're indemnifying them!
Re:The First Rule by LVSlushdat · 2012-12-18 16:17 · Score: 1

Fortunately, the blog post seems to suggest that this won't be happening, and they'll be removing, or at least changing, that language. Good for them.
IF you believe THAT, I have a really nice bridge in NYC I'll sell you for ten bucks.....

--
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Re:The First Rule by geminidomino · 2012-12-18 16:18 · Score: 1

No, that's rule #1. ;)
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 18:09 · Score: 0

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
-- meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454)
Re:The First Rule by chrismcb · 2012-12-18 20:01 · Score: 1

The reason they do this is so that they can show your pictures to other users of Instagram without getting sued.

That is what they want you to think.
Lets compare this to Microsoft's windows live TOS:

When you upload your content to the services, you agree that it may be used, modified, adapted, saved, reproduced, distributed, and displayed to the extent necessary to protect you and to provide, protect and improve Microsoft products and services.
I'm not saying Microsoft's is perfect, but notice how it doesn't say anything about "royalty-free", "transferable", "sub-licensable", "non-exclusive."
I'm not a lawyer, but I would expect (at least in the US) that you don't have to give your explicit request to the provider, for them to share your pictures. You give them implicit consent to share your pictures when you upload them and click the "share" button.
Re:The First Rule by greg1104 · 2012-12-18 20:05 · Score: 1

The new agreement says the pictures are being moved to holy ground?
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 23:56 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
Re:The First Rule by ndavis · 2012-12-19 02:00 · Score: 1

I have to admit I'm curious as to how they bypass certain laws if they do licence these pictures to advertisers.

As an example if I take a photo of a friend I cannot just sell the photo without a model release form. I highly doubt instagram can just bypass this same form and sell a picture of someone I took for advertising purposes If you really want to challenge this take lots of pictures of places whos images are trademarked such as the Flatiron building in NYC and I'm sure one will be used without paying the building which from what I understand cannot be used without the owners permission.

Granted taking a picture of your food would be something that they could use without much issue as long as no person is visible.
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 02:01 · Score: 0

YES! Like where it says they can change the contract at any time without notice.
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 02:37 · Score: 0

See the assurances of people who use the Creative Commons NC license clause but have objections to renaming it to the Commercial Rights Reserved clause on the grounds that they have no intention of making commercial use of their own works in any way (trust us?) in this thread:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-December/008087.html
but then check out the objections to the proposal to solve the trust us issue in the license here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-December/008150.html
in the "As Free As I Keep It" NC license proposal which would build the trust into the license.
all the best,
drew
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 03:10 · Score: 0

Turn in your geek card!
I never heard that rule of acquisition. Which number is it?
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 03:27 · Score: 0

Yeah, exactly. what's with the legal-eze of trying to rewrite it in a convoluted manner.
If they wanted to use it only to show other instagram users your photos, they would have put in the TOS "Instagram is allowed to share your photos ONLY with other users of instagram". The fact that they put in all kinds of world-wide, sub-licensing, and whatever other BS... it's blindingly obvious that their intent is much, much farther than just instagram users.
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 03:55 · Score: 0

That. The contract conflicts with their stated "intent"... guess which one the court actually cares about. Anyone who takes this at face value is a fool.
Re:The First Rule by bingoUV · 2012-12-19 12:28 · Score: 1

Well, thank god the contract does not explicitly say they will not deposit a million dollars in my bank account. I am a millionaire.

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:The First Rule by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 16:11 · Score: 0

100% Awesome! now say it with a Scots accent!
Re:The First Rule by ArcadeMan · 2012-12-20 04:06 · Score: 1

The unwritten rule: When no appropriate rule applies, make one up.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

They still have the rights... by Midnight_Falcon · 2012-12-18 11:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

While they may not intend to exercise their rights, they still HAVE the rights to be able to use any instagram photos in ads, and use that for commercial purposes, etc.

So this is a great example of doublespeak/equivocation -- our contract lets us do what we want, but we promise not to use what it allows us to right now to avoid a PR frankenstorm.

I don't see how the case is closed after this...it isn't so much a case of we let lawyers write a document, as, we're just making sure we're "protected" to keep our "options" open in the future when we might "want" to exercise our rights to "your" photos...

Given Facebook's history on privacy policy shenanigans, I think any reasonably prudent person would not trust Instagram's assertions..

Re:They still have the rights... by sneakyimp · 2012-12-18 11:07 · Score: 1

I think we can assume that they will strike some balance between profitability and user outrage. Obviously, the more users you alienate, the more you risk your ability to profit from a large user base. I, for one, can't wait for our photo-pwning overlords to use my picture as the Rogaine poster child without compensating me or asking my permission.
Re:They still have the rights... by alen · 2012-12-18 11:11 · Score: 0, Troll

Zomg
A free service wants to use some of the content that you upload there
Re:They still have the rights... by tool462 · 2012-12-18 11:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

any reasonably prudent person
I believe that set is disjoint with the set of all instagram users.
Re:They still have the rights... by Lehk228 · 2012-12-18 11:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

not just that, but they could end up without a choice in the matter, if they go bankrupt and are carved up and auctioned off, the contract rights they posess will be one of the things sold

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:They still have the rights... by reboot246 · 2012-12-18 11:32 · Score: 2

Why people continue to trust Facebook et al. is beyond me.

Oh, that's right. They're Facebook users.
Re:They still have the rights... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-12-18 11:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think we can assume that they will strike some balance between profitability and user outrage.
It isn't hard to imagine the day when facebook goes the way of all the others that have come before like myspace, geocities, etc. At some point along that line they will value their ownership of our photos more than they will value their reduced userbase. Then it becomes a simple business decision to liquidate and sell off their copyright in those images to another company, perhaps getty or another stock photo site which has no interest in anything beyond reselling licensing rights to the photos. Photos that have already been conveniently tagged by the suckers^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h former users.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:They still have the rights... by sjames · 2012-12-18 11:56 · Score: 1

It seems to me they wouldn't go out of their way to reserve a right they sincerely didn't intend to exercise, especially when it was so obviously likely to provoke outrage.
Re:They still have the rights... by Swampash · 2012-12-18 12:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually the new bits in the Terms of Use that offend me the most aren't really even related to photos and what Facebookstagram will do with them. It's shit like this:
- We can share not just your photos but anything we know about you with Facebook and then Facebook can share that info with any company it is in a relationship with. Things we know about you include but are not limited to where you are.
- We can show you ads without telling you they're ads. And because we're part of one of the most aggressive tech-savvy ad companies that has ever existed, you won't even know they're ads. You'll just click "like" because we'll use awesome photos that we know you'll like and then we'll sell what we've learned about what you and your friends like, and how easily we got you to like it.
- If you're under 18: by using this service we will treat you as if you have your parents' consent for everything in these terms. You're not legally able to enter a contract but by default we will act as if you have.
I don't care how much backtracking and spin Instagram tries to put on it, I'm out. Photos backed up, account deleted.
Re:They still have the rights... by Frosty+Piss · 2012-12-18 13:26 · Score: 1

...if they go bankrupt...
Are you suggesting that Facebook will go bankrupt? InstaGram *is* Facebook...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:They still have the rights... by Lehk228 · 2012-12-18 15:48 · Score: 1

no AOL^H^H^HGeocities^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMyspace^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFacebook will never go bankrupt

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:They still have the rights... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 17:19 · Score: 0

Zomg a free service wants to be able to sell to third parties the content that you upload there.
Re:They still have the rights... by robogun · 2012-12-18 17:43 · Score: 1

There is no money in stock photos unless your name is "getty". Specifically regarding Instagram/Facebook, the shitty ovreprocessed greasy lensed Iphone snaps of random people are not going to attract any significant sales even if sold by Getty.
Re:They still have the rights... by maxwell+demon · 2012-12-18 18:29 · Score: 1

Even if 99% of the photos are crap, the remaining 1% still are a large number.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:They still have the rights... by robogun · 2012-12-18 19:51 · Score: 1

100% of the photos are crap, no legit client is going to buy a heavily processed cellphone photo with unsigned model releases.
Re:They still have the rights... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-12-18 23:59 · Score: 1

Istockphotos are doing a brisk business towards the lower end of the market, there are a few others as well...
Re:They still have the rights... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 01:47 · Score: 0

Did you see the recent IPO of NYSE:SSTK? There's apparently $800 million worth of money in stock photos.
Your points about overprocessing remain, though. Also add to them a distinct lack of model and property releases, which mean greater risk exposure to the image's user.
Re:They still have the rights... by Jason+Levine · 2012-12-19 02:16 · Score: 1

In addition, they claim the right to sell use of your name in advertisements. I blog under a pseudonym, but I've worked hard to build a reputation with that pseudonym. I don't want Instagram allowing some company to use my pseudonym in their ads (without my permission) just because I used that same pseudonym when I signed up with their service.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:They still have the rights... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 03:34 · Score: 0

The processing is done on their server. What makes you believe they don't have the unprocessed images?
Re:They still have the rights... by Frosty+Piss · 2012-12-19 07:10 · Score: 1

^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Worn-out Neck-Beard code...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:They still have the rights... by maxwell+demon · 2012-12-19 07:19 · Score: 1

So Instagram only allows photos made with cell phones, and only allows photos showing people?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:They still have the rights... by robogun · 2012-12-19 20:14 · Score: 1

I'm so glad all these ACs and people not in the stock business keep chiming in. Look i don't like Instagram any more than you do. I'mm saying their strategy will fail no matter what. So what if all the post is done on their server, or that people load pictures of all sorts of things advertisaers might find desirable, or whatever thing you will reply with next to try to sound smart. It still won't work.
Stock photos have to be DESCRIBED using captioning and IPTC tags. Thise are entered by the photographer or an editor. It is as time consuming as the original shoot. To see how those work, check the returns for a photo search via google images vs any stock house.
Second, no legit client is going to license these toxic (legally ) images EVER. What sort of model release can hold up that is from a click thru EULA with the guy clicking thru signing releases for everyone in the picture? This is an instant legal nightmare.
Third let's not even get into unintended consequences such as an athlete losing his scholarship for their endorsement of a commercial product.
Anyone licensing photos from Instagram deserves every lawsuit they are hit with.

Still have not seen that in the fine print. by jackb_guppy · 2012-12-18 11:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

So when is the new new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service will be shown?

Re:Still have not seen that in the fine print. by ArcadeMan · 2012-12-18 11:35 · Score: 1

You see the JPEG compression artifacts in the footer of their website? It's not JPEG compression artifacts. It's the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service but you a quad-retina display to read it.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

cynic by codegen · 2012-12-18 11:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

The cynic in me sometimes wonders if this is something they do on purpose. Publish new outrageous terms of service and then wait for the internet to explode. Wait a few hours more and then come on with a ready appology. A lot of people have enough invested in a particular site that they won't leave right away, and with an appropriate "apology" are molified. And a lot of exposure is thus gained. But given that other competitors are ready to swoop in, the other part of me dismisses it.

--
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.

Re:cynic by causality · 2012-12-18 11:31 · Score: 2

The cynic in me sometimes wonders if this is something they do on purpose. Publish new outrageous terms of service and then wait for the internet to explode. Wait a few hours more and then come on with a ready appology. A lot of people have enough invested in a particular site that they won't leave right away, and with an appropriate "apology" are molified. And a lot of exposure is thus gained. But given that other competitors are ready to swoop in, the other part of me dismisses it.
That tactic is used in politics all the time, particularly whenever the desire is to expand government. Float an idea and pretend like there's any real debate about what you are going to do anyway. It gives the illusion of legitimacy. If there is a lot of backlash, do it over time in baby steps with carefully crafted excuses as justification; if not, just go for it.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:cynic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:46 · Score: 1

The cynic in me sometimes wonders if this is something they do on purpose.
Yes, it is done on purpose. It's called a trial balloon.
Re:cynic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:33 · Score: 0

They 100% do it on purpose:
Travis Shrugged: The creepy, dangerous ideology behind Silicon Valley’s Cult of Disruption
http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/
Re:cynic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 13:25 · Score: 0

Or even the following scenario:
Vendor: It will cost you both your legs to get that feature and use our service.
Customer: Hell no! I'm going to take my ball and go play somewhere else.
Vendor: No. Wait. We're sorry. We didn't mean both your legs; we just want your big toe instead.
Customer: Ok. I guess since it's just my big toe that you're going to cut off so that I can use your service.
Vendor: Muahahaha! Just like we planned. Got your big toe and you're happy to have us cut it off simply so that you can use our service.

"Mistake" my Ass. by Grog6 · 2012-12-18 11:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

They Got Caught, and had to respond.

There is a business plan on fire in a trashcan somewhere, most likely; or just put off for awhile.

We'll see this again, wait and see. And not as a repost, lol.

--
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani

Re:"Mistake" my Ass. by id+est · 2012-12-19 05:01 · Score: 1

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Q6t7I9Cx5nYJ:instagram.com/about/legal/terms/updated/
To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that 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.

http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening

Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we’d like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question.

Intentions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:06 · Score: 0

Not their intention, doesn't mean their intentions wont change.

Also, maybe they'll give the photos away 'free' to their most profitable advertisers?

Re:Intentions by JasoninKS · 2012-12-18 11:48 · Score: 1

You've got the same general thought I had. "It's not our *intention*...but if it happens, well, the TOS said we can!" Same thing with companies that say they won't sell your email address. Riiiight.

IT WAS A TRICK.. by 3seas · 2012-12-18 11:06 · Score: 1

Their servers were getting ovrloaded ......

Nonsense. by voice+of+unreason · 2012-12-18 11:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

The chapter is closed? Nonsense. They haven't offered to change the contract, they just claim that everyone's misinterpreted it. Which gives you no more rights than you had before. If it's in the contract, it's in the contract. Their PR statements would not affect in the slightest their legal ability to use your photos.

Re:Nonsense. by swillden · 2012-12-18 11:44 · Score: 3, Informative

They haven't offered to change the contract
From their statement: "As we review your feedback and stories in the press, we’re going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos."
We'll have to see what they actually change, but they have said that they're going to change it.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Nonsense. by JasoninKS · 2012-12-18 14:17 · Score: 1

I'm guessing they're just going to change the language into a more confusing form. Same terms, just more confusing so they can try to get away with it.
Re:Nonsense. by AK+Marc · 2012-12-18 14:19 · Score: 1

You don't need to re-write the actual contract. A verbal contract is binding, and a verbal (or email) adjustment to a contract is binding as well, except they likely have a clause that any change must be made in writing and explicitly agreed to by both parties. But in the absence of that, a press release can be considered a legally binding adjustment to the contract. If it isn't, it's a lie for gain (we call that fraud, though fraud is more a political crime at this point, where you have to have pissed off someone before they go after you for it).

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Nonsense. by swillden · 2012-12-18 14:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm guessing they're just going to change the language into a more confusing form. Same terms, just more confusing so they can try to get away with it.
Given the outcry thus far, they'd have to be really stupid to try that. There will be too many people scrutinizing the language, including lawyers, who are ready to interpret any such attempt.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 07:38 · Score: 0

And how many $billions do you need to win that case in court?
The practical reality is that no individual will succeed in overturning the terms of the written agreement on the basis of a verbal contract they claim.
The bigger the corporation, the greater their immunity to prosecution for fraud. There are so many examples in the past few decades that it boggles the mind that people still believe large corporations are liable for fraud.
When is the last time you won such a case against a corporation with the resources of Facebook? Do you know anyone who has?
Re:Nonsense. by AK+Marc · 2012-12-19 09:23 · Score: 1

The practical reality is that no individual will succeed in overturning the terms of the written agreement on the basis of a verbal contract they claim.
I have. Though they caved before court. It was a health club membership where the sales guy "threw in" some features not included or disallowed in the contract. Nor did the contract mention that those features were free for the entirety of the cancellation period, and the service substantially changed after the cancellation period ended. This was in a period where many of the health clubs were being investigated, so there was a feeling that the courts were against them, but that doesn't change the fact that I challenged them with regards to the verbal portion of the contract and won. My cost was $0.

--
Learn to love Alaska

or so they claim... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:07 · Score: 0

Unless and until they change the legal agreement (terms of service or whatever) then they still have the rights in perpetuity to sell or do whatever they want with your photos. doesn't matter what they say informally.

What they say means nothing by Giant+Electronic+Bra · 2012-12-18 11:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is the actual EULA/UA that matters. Until it is properly amended all this announcement is worth is a loud stinky fart.

--
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson

Re:What they say means nothing by AK+Marc · 2012-12-18 14:29 · Score: 1

If they make a statement contradicting the terms of the contract, it is a verbal amendment to the contract, legal in most states, so long as it doesn't have a clause requiring all changes be written. If they are lying, then they are false advertising and committing fraud. So, either way, it's worth more than a loud stinky fart.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:What they say means nothing by Giant+Electronic+Bra · 2012-12-18 15:11 · Score: 1

You may have a point, but it is by no means certain. I'd also assume that any changes in a TOS/UA would probably HAVE to be posted to a specified place on their site, etc, which is pretty usual regs for at least state commercial codes.

--
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Re:What they say means nothing by sFurbo · 2012-12-18 20:49 · Score: 1

Their statement is merely that they don't intent to sell the photos. They can sell the tomorrow, and unless the users can prove that it was their intent when they said it wasn't, there's nothing to do about it. They can be planning to license the photos in stead of selling them. I am sure there is a bucket-load of other loopholes in the statement that I don't pick up.

thats what they say by geekoid · 2012-12-18 11:08 · Score: 1

they intend.

However, if the new policy allows them to do so, and you agree, then eventually they will probably do it.

Lets see them make a clear and official statement in the EULA.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

What the new TOS really mean by h8mx · 2012-12-18 11:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

This article shed some light on the new TOS for me:

What the new terms of service really mean | The Verge

Re:What the new TOS really mean by SternisheFan · 2012-12-18 12:52 · Score: 1

the verge: "You agree that a business may pay Instagram to display your photos in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions without any compensation to you."
That sentence was added to Instagram's terms of service yesterday, sparking widespread outrage —the most panicked analysis claims Instagram just gave itself permission to sell everyone's photos at will. Even the least icky hypothetical scenarios being tossed around are completely icky: your parents leave a comment on a photo of your kid, and five minutes later, they're looking at an ad for a new life insurance policy featuring that same intimate photo of their grandchild. Is this really the future of Instagram? Well, in a way. But it's a lot more like Facebook's current "sponsored post" system than anything else —there's no way Instagram can up and sell your photos to anyone, and advertisers are fairly limited in what they can do with those photos. Here's what's going on. "There's no way Instagram can sell your photos to anyone" Instagram's new terms of service, which go into effect on January 16th, clearly state that your photographs and associated information (like location data) can be promoted by companies without anyone notifying you about the transaction. It's not even hidden in legalese —it's right there in black and white:
"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that 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." http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean
Re:What the new TOS really mean by Alex+Belits · 2012-12-18 15:16 · Score: 1

the verge: "You agree that a business may pay Instagram to display your photos in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions without any compensation to you."

That was not the only phrase changed, new ToS also give Instagram/facebook unlimited and transferable lcense to the images instead of the limited one.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:What the new TOS really mean by chrismcb · 2012-12-18 20:20 · Score: 1

I'm not a lawyer, but I think the Verge completely misses the point. Lets take a look:

you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post...
You give them the right to transfer and sub-license your content (that is publicly available) How does that NOT give them the right to sale it?

Yes there is another clause that talks about using your content as advertising. "you agree that 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
The verge says this doesn't give Budweiser rights to modify your photo (but the aforementioned sure seems to indicate it does) and that it only allows Instagram to display it. But it doesn't limit WHERE it can be displayed.
Finally The Verge says:

Instagram has always had an expansive license to use and copy your photos. It has to — that's how it runs its networks of servers around the world
NO it doesn't have to, it just thinks it does. Yes they are trying to cover their butts (give us ALL the rights) makes it easier. But seriously, you don't need every right under the sun, to redisplay the photo that I told you to redisplay.

Not so fast by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:09 · Score: 0

This reads like something written by their damage control PR people. What they are really saying is that they aren't changing anything. They still want to use the pictures of you in ads shown to people you know. Further, the nowhere did they say they would own your photos non-exclusive license =/= ownership. So, nothing new, just saying the same thing a different way so people don't freak out.

Incredibly evasvie language in that clarification by JoeyRox · 2012-12-18 11:10 · Score: 1

Kevin Systrom is just reiterating what the original ToS said but with evasive and redirected language. "We do not have plans..." Yeah, you don't have plans yet, you asshole.

Too little too late by morcego · 2012-12-18 11:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is a classical example of how a mistake can cost you users forever.
Earlier today, I removed all my photos and deleted my account. After that, I started trying other apps and services, and actually found one I like more than Instagram.

So yeah, I could go back, but I won't, simply because I found something else that I like better and, truth be told, moving back is simply not worth the 5 minutes it would take.

Does this make a big different for me ? Nope, which is why I wasn't even looking for an alternative before. This whole fiasco pushed me to look, and I'm not going back.

--
morcego

Re:Too little too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:25 · Score: 0

...actually found one I like more than Instagram.
Okay, and which one is it?
Re:Too little too late by spire3661 · 2012-12-18 11:27 · Score: 2

Why do you need a special app to take pictures? I dont understand the need to make it complicated. Take picture, use normal tools that dont demand your first born, publish.

--
Good-bye
Re:Too little too late by geek · 2012-12-18 11:29 · Score: 1

What did you move to may I ask?
Re:Too little too late by morcego · 2012-12-18 11:35 · Score: 2

Why do you need a special app to take pictures? I dont understand the need to make it complicated. Take picture, use normal tools that dont demand your first born, publish.
The only reason I used it was because of the how convenient it was to apply filters.

--
morcego
Re:Too little too late by morcego · 2012-12-18 11:39 · Score: 3, Informative

What did you move to may I ask?
2 apps.
1) Streamzoo - Easy and convenient. Very Instagram-like.
2) Pixlr-o-matic - Amazing filters. However, not was convenient. A ton of filters and options are available. Keep your pics on your phone and share using standard services (pic.twitter.com etc).
So I will be mostly using Streamzoo for whatever pics, and will use Pixlr-o-matic when I want some better results.

--
morcego
Re:Too little too late by geek · 2012-12-18 11:40 · Score: 1

Interesting. Thanks. My wife does a lot of photo work as a hobby, going to explore these and see if she likes it.
Re:Too little too late by morcego · 2012-12-18 11:40 · Score: 3, Informative

Streamzoo for daily crap, and Pixlr-o-matic if I want better stuff.
Pixlr-o-matic is much more powerful than what we are used to, with tons of filters and options, making it a bit slower to use. However, it gives great results.

--
morcego
Re:Too little too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:23 · Score: 0

This seems more like a classic example of how a mistake can cost you a user.
(Plus, you'll be back when Facebook buys the alternatives you found.)
Re:Too little too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 13:01 · Score: 0

Excellent, now you can pretend to be artistic better than ever!
Nothing like applying someone else's artistic schmeer on your crumby photos.
Re:Too little too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 13:41 · Score: 1

That photo of my dinner is deep and dark like my soul. You just don't get it pleb.
Re:Too little too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 18:14 · Score: 0

Why do you need a special app to take pictures? I dont understand the need to make it complicated. Take picture, use normal tools that dont demand your first born, publish.
The only reason I used it was because of the how convenient it was to apply filters.
Download one of the many free idiotic filters that you can get for nothing. There are hundreds of them.
Re:Too little too late by chrismcb · 2012-12-18 20:30 · Score: 1

Why do you need a special app to take pictures? I dont understand the need to make it complicated. Take picture, use normal tools that dont demand your first born, publish.
Uhm... instagram is just a "tool." And is easier to use than your "normal tools" probably are, at least for what it does.
Really it is just about convenience.
Re:Too little too late by Jason+Levine · 2012-12-19 02:21 · Score: 1

For me it was more than just the filters. (Actually, it wasn't filters at all since I never used them.) It was ease of use. Click a photo, type a caption, hit send. The photo then would appear in my Twitter stream and I could receive "likes" or comments from other Instagram users.
I'm exploring ways of just uploading the photos to a special section of my self-hosted Wordpress blog. I already have plugins in place to tweet when I make a new post. By using Twitter Cards, I might be able to have the photo appear in a Twitter stream when it is tweeted out. (Like Instagram used to do but recently discontinued.) Of course, Wordpress allows for comments and I'm sure I can find or write a "likes" plugin. Once that's done, I'll essentially have a self-hosted mini-Instagram. (Or at least the parts of it that I care about.)

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Too little too late by spire3661 · 2012-12-19 08:34 · Score: 1

And now you see at what cost that convenience comes.

--
Good-bye

Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:13 · Score: 0

Yes those evil lawyers. Fucking slashdot with its predictable "commentary."

Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by causality · 2012-12-18 11:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes those evil lawyers. Fucking slashdot with its predictable "commentary."
Lawyers are one of the few priesthoods left in Western society. The purpose of a priesthood is to guard information from the uninitiated, so that most people are dependent on the priests.

The Catholic Church of medieval times really hated the idea of a Bible written in the native languages of the laypeople. They preferred Latin, a language that was generally taught only to the clergy at that time. If there is ever a movement to simplify the law and remove the legalese, so that the average person could easily understand and apply it without professional help, you will see a similar outcry from the lawyers.

The difference between a lawyer and a doctor is that the human body is inherently complex. The law is only so complex because men have made it so.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:05 · Score: 0

Lol the law and judge opinions aren't written in LATIN. Tell me more about motorcycle college.
Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:33 · Score: 0

u mad bro?
Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-12-18 12:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

Lol the law and judge opinions aren't written in LATIN.
While that was not the OP's point, it is ironic that you focused on it because it is demonstrably not true.
Modern legal code is littered with latin phrases.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 14:15 · Score: 1

The law is only so complex because men have made it so.
I don't know if this phrasing was intentional, but I think it is quite accurate. That is to say, it is not the lawyers who made the law complex, but rather men, or the general populace, that made the law complex. People in general demand justice and an organized society. If you look at the development of the law in the common law countries, such as the UK and the US, the legal system evolved from a private dispute resolution system that did not typically involve professional lawyers. The accretion of the results of these private disputes became the law, and it is a complex result based on a complex historical record. The professional class of lawyers became necessary because few people are inclined to study that complex history. Sure, if we wanted judges to make decisions based on something besides the historical record, lawyers as we know them today would be unnecessary. To the extent we as a society value the predictability and consistency of legal decision-making, though, something like the professional class of lawyers becomes important in addressing that challenge.
Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Alex+Belits · 2012-12-18 15:27 · Score: 0

And this is why Common Law is an over-patched clusterfuck that should be replaced with a straightforward, well-maintained legal code.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 17:00 · Score: 0

The Catholic Church of medieval times really hated the idea of a Bible written in the native languages of the laypeople. They preferred Latin, a language that was generally taught only to the clergy at that time.

That's quite the understatement. They had the guy, Tyndale, who wrote the first English bible "strangled to death and burned at the stake"!

If there is ever a movement to simplify the law and remove the legalese, so that the average person could easily understand and apply it without professional help, you will see a similar outcry from the lawyers.
The equivalent in modern terms might be shipping the instigators off to Gitmo.
Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 18:51 · Score: 0

Lawyers are one of the few priesthoods left in Western society.
These priesthood groups are growing. Foremost and most entrenched is the medical industry which controls not just doctors but also nurses, the FDA, and games most any system (medithis or that, obama/romney-care).
A recent IRS rule change is to require more training of tax preparers. So that if I wanted to do your taxes for $20, I would have to take 15 hours of their training (or some similar guideline) *OR* be in one of the annointed guilds like many CPAs. See here for a better explanation:
www.ij.org
The TSA recently became a similar guild. They say when we can travel and when we must remain where we are. Teachers unions might be another example.
No... I fear the list of government-blessed guilds is growing.
Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 03:18 · Score: 0

Really? 'Cause I thought that law was complex because it has to distill into written form an attempt to meet justice in all possible pathological and accidental human actions. Good to know that medicine is so complex because it deals with one human, but law could be simple even though it deals with all humans.
-----------
Seriously. IANAL, but while I agree that law(yers) often step past the reasonable, so do doctors, and so do software engineers (premature optimization anyone?). And any legal system is going to be about as complex as the society it is embedded in because all of those interactions are going to be governed by rules --explicit or implicit-- the basis of legal systems in the U.S. (except Louisiana) and elsewhere is usually 'common law' which is roughly speaking the amalgam of previous legal decisions, tradition, and custom. In those systems additional laws get adopted ad-hoc based on responses and initiatives from the legislature, but fundamentally, it is the messy world of human interactions that prove what a law really means.
This means that IF I want to write a "good" law or "good" contract, I'd really need to write good definitions of what I mean. That means I must spend a lot of time making them very clear. Unfortunately, clear actually means detailed, and detailed means soporific.
Now as far as priesthood goes -- contracts can be intentionally written to be unclear, sometimes. That is either the hallmark of a bad lawyer or a scam. In this particular case, I'd make a strong argument that Instagram's lawyers are being very clear. They come straight out and say, that they intend to give themselves the right to sub-license and transfer their copyright license. This doesn't mean that they intend to sell the images (they probably do, though, just maybe not yet) and could be for any specific reason (in theory). However, a good lawyer writing a draft of what they want to do would not restrict the purpose for that sub-license unless they were explicitly instructed to. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyer cautioned their client that if they restrict the purpose of sub-licensing they may -in fact- expose themselves to liability if they don't carefully write the sub-licensing clause!
Thus, we are right back at where we started -- Instagram's contract is very clear and easy to read, but leaves people worried about nefarious activities. They could (if they weren't up to no good, dubious, as noted) clarify the purpose of the clause in legal writing, but in doing so, they would make the contract more limited, but then _THEY (Instagram)_ would be taking on a business risk if they wrote it poorly as opposed to asking their _"FREELOADING" USERS_ to trust them--that is unless they make the contract significantly more complex, and that complexity would in and of itself make it harder for the average user to understand what is going on.
IIRC - Dropbox has somewhat similar issues but uses plain language (they allow themselves to share with 3rd parties, which is the Instagram PR story). The lack of legal language makes them more comfy, but the lack of definitions is scary. For the purpose of the Dropbox agreement, one gives them similar terms that Instagram is claiming EXCEPT that they have to cover everything with a patina of "necessary to provide the service" and the TOS doesn't give any definition about the actual terms of the license, except that they have all rights necessary to do anything they need to do in order to provide the service. I don't know how that plays out in the case of financial need (i.e. in the case of Dropbox deciding that if they don't do X, they will be out of money and unable to continue the service)
There is a reasonable discussion of Google Drive's TOS vs. Dropbox, a more legal-ese written TOS, on the other hand: http://lawinthecloud.com/2012/04/25/google-drive-vs-dropbox-who-owns-your-stuff/ (I know nothing about the site, and can't make legal guarantees). GD makes the licensing clause limited (which, I would imagine would mollify most Instagram users), but Google has been far from innocent in the overreaching TOS wars before too.
Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 04:57 · Score: 0

Nice reading comprehension there. No where did he say our laws were written in Latin. All he used was a comparison to the church which did use Latin.
At least he went to school, you kindergarten dropout.
Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by causality · 2012-12-23 12:28 · Score: 1

Lol the law and judge opinions aren't written in LATIN.
While that was not the OP's point, it is ironic that you focused on it because it is demonstrably not true. Modern legal code is littered with latin phrases.
The AC to whom you are responding demonstrates why it is difficult sometimes for adults to have meaningful conversation. There are always small-minded people like him who not only do not appreciate it (which is their loss), but actively resent it and seek to interfere with it. They choose to be on the noise side of the signal-to-noise ratio.

I suspect that deep down, they have never learned to deeply appreciate much of anything because doing so generally doesn't fit into their ten-second attention spans. Rather than being "just their way of doing things", this is an inferior choice. They themselves know it, if only instinctively, and it comes out in the envious manner in which they try to disrupt others from enjoying it.

There are some sad, sad people on this planet, trying so hard to be self-important. Since they aren't finding real worth within themselves, they have to grasp for it in the outside world of other people. The only method available to them is denigrating someone else. It is too bad that they'd rather continue to act out such impulses, since they lack the introspection and the emotional maturity to recognize them as the character flaws that they are.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

bs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos"

No.. they dont claim "ownership"... they do claim a perpetual and unlimited rights though... which is all the benefits of ownership, with none of the liabilities.

Re:bs by AnttiV · 2012-12-18 11:50 · Score: 1

Why is parent not modded up? This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the summary. They do say exactly that. Saying that you don't have "ownership" of something means *nothing* if you simultaneously claim perpetual and unlimited rights to said something.

"Not our intent" is weasely legalspeak by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:20 · Score: 0

Intentions change.

"We won't SELL your photos..." by TuringTest · 2012-12-18 11:21 · Score: 4, Funny

"...we'll only RENT them for the duration of an ad campaign".

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.

Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-12-18 11:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

After we're done turning them over to any TLA with the words "defense", "security", "intelligence", or "investigation" in their names.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." by DanielRavenNest · 2012-12-18 12:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Time to open the Office of Defense Intelligence Security Investigation
Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." by memnock · 2012-12-18 13:10 · Score: 1

'... and either way, you will not receive credit or compensation for our use of your photos.'
Makes me glad I don't use Instagram or Facebook. Fuck 'em.

--
"To stop the terrorists."
Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." by maxwell+demon · 2012-12-18 18:24 · Score: 3, Informative

The term is not "rent", it is "license". As you read every time you "buy" some software, music, movie, etc: "This product is licensed, not sold." And the right to sublicense they explicitly added to the terms and conditions, so they cannot credibly claim that they don't intend to do that.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 01:37 · Score: 0

ODISI (said as "Odyssey") actually has a nice ring to it.
Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 02:07 · Score: 0

Make it the Intelligence Defense Investigative Offices of Transportation Security
Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 03:02 · Score: 0

...a subsidiary of the "Department of Redundancy Department."

They would, of course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:21 · Score: 3, Funny

However there has yet to be a picture on Instragram that's worth paying for.

Wow by ozduo · 2012-12-18 11:21 · Score: 0

someone actually bothered to read their terms before they clicked through

--
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.

Fatal flaw with biological storage by Dogtanian · 2012-12-18 11:22 · Score: 5, Funny

I actually had a great, if somewhat unusual, method of backing up my photographs- I got a deer to memorise them. I know it sounds weird, but it turned out to be quite effective, at least with the males (does, on the other hand, were less reliable). I trained it to understand basic commands and in response, it scratched out a basic reproduction of the requested image, eventually improving to quite impressive quality after a period of time.

In this way, I came to realise that I was using their brain as a sort of basic computer memory. This worked very well until I realised that my contract with the owner of the deer meant he had the right to reuse anything they had memorised.

Of course, this was not acceptable, so I no longer store my photos in stag RAM.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).

Re:Fatal flaw with biological storage by Culture20 · 2012-12-18 11:44 · Score: 1

You should switch to wild ram RAM. They're open range.
Re:Fatal flaw with biological storage by causality · 2012-12-18 11:49 · Score: 3, Funny

I actually had a great, if somewhat unusual, method of backing up my photographs- I got a deer to memorise them. I know it sounds weird, but it turned out to be quite effective, at least with the males (does, on the other hand, were less reliable). I trained it to understand basic commands and in response, it scratched out a basic reproduction of the requested image, eventually improving to quite impressive quality after a period of time. In this way, I came to realise that I was using their brain as a sort of basic computer memory. This worked very well until I realised that my contract with the owner of the deer meant he had the right to reuse anything they had memorised. Of course, this was not acceptable, so I no longer store my photos in stag RAM.
This is why drugs are not for everyone.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Fatal flaw with biological storage by PRMan · 2012-12-18 11:56 · Score: 1

Isn't a RAM a sheep?

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:Fatal flaw with biological storage by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:20 · Score: 0

I just checked, but your name doesn't appear to be DeerAnalogyGuy.
Re:Fatal flaw with biological storage by nephorm · 2012-12-19 04:10 · Score: 1

I actually had a great, if somewhat unusual, method of backing up my photographs- I got a deer to memorise them. I know it sounds weird, but it turned out to be quite effective, at least with the males (does, on the other hand, were less reliable). I trained it to understand basic commands and in response, it scratched out a basic reproduction of the requested image, eventually improving to quite impressive quality after a period of time.
So what you're saying is that they learned your pictures by hart?

Too Late by Bob9113 · 2012-12-18 11:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Instagram already showed us who they are on the inside. How they feel about their users. That they see them as cattle to be slaughtered and sold in whatever way most suits their customers, the advertisers. The only thing that has changed is they got caught and so they are going to hide their disdain for a while until this storm blows over.

It is not this policy that is unacceptable, it is their attitude. They have shown that they cannot be trusted, and it is our duty -- as the silent hand of the free market -- to put them out of business as a warning to others.

Delete your Instagram account, and never darken their door again.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Verify, then Trust by WillAffleckUW · 2012-12-18 11:34 · Score: 1

The fact is, they intended to sell them.

When they do it is another detail.

Trust? About as far as we trusted the Soviets.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Riots in Sweden by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:36 · Score: 0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20774640

This is just the start

Re:Riots in Sweden by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:15 · Score: 0

so a picture on insta after the 16th of jan is "owned" by instagram... even if they decide not to sell it... that means instagram/FB are liable for its contents?
Re:Riots in Sweden by WGFCrafty · 2012-12-18 12:58 · Score: 1

They were rioting over something completely unrelated to this EULA article.... you dolt.

Damn lawyers by Monoman · 2012-12-18 11:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's why I often wish laws, contracts, etc could contain sections written in plain/common language explaining the intention/spirit of the document. Of course it would never work but I can dream.

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.

Re:Damn lawyers by PRMan · 2012-12-18 11:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

The only entity I know that does this is the NHL rule book. There is an accompanying "Situation Guide" which explains the original intent of the rule and some situations in which is should and should not apply.

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:Damn lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:58 · Score: 0

please explain the intention/spirit of your comment
Re:Damn lawyers by dpidcoe · 2012-12-18 12:25 · Score: 1

It could work if it was written in a logical language. Unfortunately, most languages are so full of potential double meanings and/or implied meanings that even slight changes in context can completely turn around the implications of what was said. Coincidentally, that's also one of the main reasons why plain spoken english as a computer programming language is asking for trouble.
The other problem of course is that lawyers want to stay employed.
Re:Damn lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 15:11 · Score: 0

In this case it's not a misinterpretation but instagram flat out lying about the contents of the contract. Which they could also do in a commentary next to it.
Re:Damn lawyers by Cro+Magnon · 2012-12-19 01:54 · Score: 1

So, should we start writing legal documents in Lojban?

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Damn lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 02:43 · Score: 0

That is exactly why legalese exists. What good is common language when the statement can be interpreted multiple ways? What good is intent when the law is more broad?
If they write a law that says "all your base are belong to us" and say the intent is to only have "all bases used for terrorist activities may be acquired at any time by this country". What good is the intent? Because the law is perpetual; the intent is momentary.
Re:Damn lawyers by dpidcoe · 2012-12-19 05:40 · Score: 1

I'd be extremely curious to see if legal documents in Lojban end up being different than legalise english in terms of length and clarity. Any Lojban speakers feel like translating a few?

All your photo are belong to us. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 11:38 · Score: 0

'users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos.' This is good news for Instagram users."

That word "good", I do not think it means what you think it means.

If it is still in the EULA they will still be selling your photos at some point. If you agreed to a EULA with that clause and they change the EULA to remove the clause, they can still sell your photos.
They do not want to own your photos, as the under 18 nudes would send them to prison. They just want to be able to sell the photos.

Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing by dltaylor · 2012-12-18 11:43 · Score: 1

You must have missed the Jack Daniel's article:

http://idle.slashdot.org/story/12/07/23/129216/jack-daniels-shows-how-to-write-a-cease-and-desist-letter/

Attorneys, particularly IP attorneys, operate in a world almost totally disjoint from humans. Sometimes, their actions are reasonable and useful, but, mostly, the game is rigged to keep them flourishing at the expense of 99.999% of humans.

Believe us! by faustoc4 · 2012-12-18 11:48 · Score: 1

We promise we won't sell your photos, even though the new TOS say we can, take our word

Instagram does not claim any ownership by Dracos · 2012-12-18 12:09 · Score: 1

...is legally distinct from "Instagram does not claim any distribution rights". I'm also sure there are legal workarounds for "sell".

Just like ISPs and mobile carriers legally and torturously redefine "unlimited".

Re:Instagram does not claim any ownership by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:24 · Score: 0

The TOS does not use the word "sell" in this context. They use the word "pay". I'm not a lawyer, but seems significant as it would allow renting/licensing/etc of the photos to other entities. Whereas "sell", I suspect, implies transfer of copyright/ownership.
Instagram is taking offense to the media's specific usage of the word "sell"...

well yeah. by roc97007 · 2012-12-18 12:14 · Score: 1

> And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."

Well, yeah, because we know how lawyers think.

I am not an Instagram user (and that looks unlikely now) but I'm hoping that someone checks the revamped agreement.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

It would have been easy to say by Trashcan+Romeo · 2012-12-18 12:43 · Score: 2

And prudent - given how big a PR hit they've already gotten for their ambiguous language. So interpret the absence of "We won't ever sell your photos" to mean "We'll sell your photos whenever we feel like it".

Re:It would have been easy to say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 13:39 · Score: 1

Interpret it as :
"We are going to sell your information anyway but we just realized that we couldn't get away with that at this moment yet..."

Language by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 12:50 · Score: 0

Laws should be written in a computer language, not as human languages. This allows a static definition of the law, and allows bloat to be condensed by refactoring. The hard part is translating human actions into the equivalent computer language relevant variable value.

I think the word for that is "busted" by Grayhand · 2012-12-18 13:16 · Score: 2

Amazing how often these are claimed to be innocent mistakes. I'd call bullshit on that one. They know exactly what's in these contracts they just hope you won't notice. Since they weren't even required to notify you if they were to be used your first clue would be your vacation picture of the Grand Canyon appearing on a billboard. Odds are 99 out of a 100 would never know. I think getting outed this early on sent them back to the drawing board. What do you want to make a bet they offer an option next year so you can click on a box agreeing to allow your photos to be sold and you get a small percentage. That was probably the long range plan all along but they figured they could get a few years of collecting a 100% of the royalties before they had to surrender and offer you a cut.

Location by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 13:22 · Score: 0

"along with any associated metadata"

So did they delete the language allowing Instagram to log your location data for mining?

It's not really over... by EmagGeek · 2012-12-18 13:26 · Score: 1

They can issue all the press releases they want saying they don't intend to sell your photos.

But, if the language of the policy says they can, they can, and they likely will.

It doesn't matter what the press release says. It matters what the legal document says.

not mutually exclusive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 13:30 · Score: 0

"users own their content" and the data holders are not mutually exclusive
but most people would probably be reassured by their meaningless response

All Your Face by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 13:37 · Score: 0

All Your Face
All Your Face
Are Belong to Us!

I still don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 14:03 · Score: 0

I still don't trust them anymore. They tried to sneak a fast one past us. Their app and service isn't THAT good and certainly isn't indispensable so I'll just quit using it. That way I don't have to be cautious about what they try to sneak past us next time.

You'd think tech companies would learn from the last 20 times this has happened...

They'll give you a signed document... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 14:43 · Score: 0

but there may be a problem with notarization

Our bad... by theendlessnow · 2012-12-18 14:43 · Score: 1

Sorry about the mixup.

Sincerely,
Flickr

If you're not paying for it by jampola · 2012-12-18 15:06 · Score: 1

You're the product.

I mean, really, if they were gonna play ball, they should change the clause which stipulates that they can't, in fact, sell your photos. At least replace it with something more ambiguous!

Never believe anything by Hentes · 2012-12-18 15:12 · Score: 1

until it's been officially denied.

Re:Never believe anything by maxwell+demon · 2012-12-18 18:12 · Score: 1

until it's been officially denied.
Only if the denial is legally binding.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

If they didn't change the TOS wording by Nyder · 2012-12-18 15:49 · Score: 1

then it is their intention to sell photos or do whatever they can with them to make money.

If it wasn't there intention to do that, then there would be no need to have the TOS termed like it is.

--
Be seeing you...

Just Noticed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 17:23 · Score: 0

Sharing 'news' or 'stories' to Facebook, the post had no attached image file !

Looks like 'Facebook' will become, operationally, 'no image or Face' Book.

Dang. No more pretty pictures King Zuck fumbling for change at a highway toll gate ! :(

Intentions? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 17:41 · Score: 0

Meanwhile, how about a law that makes it legal to shoot Instagram execs, lawyers and majority shareholders? I mean, it's not like we intend to murder them so what harm could it do?

'it is not our intention ...' by l3v1 · 2012-12-18 19:30 · Score: 1

"it is not our intention to sell your photos"

Since their terms&conditions can change any day to any direction, what they say it's their intention, doesn't really matter. If the legalspeak text they put up there can beinterpreted in a way that would mean they can sell the photos, then any lawyer will defend this "right" of theirs if they'd ever sell those photos and you'd go after them for doing so.

--
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

(shock) by argStyopa · 2012-12-18 23:16 · Score: 1

Wait, so posting my pictures over a free service (ie owned by someone else) might mean that person uses those pictures for their benefit?

OMG that's crazy!

Really, do we even HAVE common sense any more? If a kid back in pre-digital-days high school said "hey, I will cheerfully distribute all your pictures to who ever you want - you just give them to me, tell them who gets them, and I'll make copies and hand them around!" To suggest that this person wouldn't have looked at them, enjoyed them, or even figured out a way to make $$ off them would have been stupid-naive, yet this is apparently where we are as a society?

--
-Styopa

Re:(shock) by Jason+Levine · 2012-12-19 02:24 · Score: 1

I don't begrudge them the opportunity to make money and selling the photos for ads is actually a good idea. The way they went about it though was all wrong. Instead of "all your photos can be sold for ads by us to anyone and we won't share the money", they should have made an opt-in system that let people receive ad proposals from companies. Users could then accept or deny these requests and Instagram would share in the payments. Everyone would win under this system and there wouldn't have been a huge outcry.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:(shock) by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-12-19 02:24 · Score: 1

Hey douche bag, they changed the terms of the agreement. So it went from, your photos are your property and we wont' touch them, to we own your photos and can do whatever the hell we want.

Moron.
Re:(shock) by argStyopa · 2012-12-26 06:50 · Score: 1

It just makes my point all the more relevant.
You hand all your pictures to someone, and then are surprised that they might change the rules to their benefit?
And you call me a moron? Hahhaahah.

--
-Styopa

liars by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-18 23:22 · Score: 1

I believe it when they fire the legal team responsible, get rid of this agreement and write a new one school kids understand.

subject by Legion303 · 2012-12-18 23:46 · Score: 1

And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."

You misspelled "We tried to get away with it and got caught." Happy to help.

Re:subject by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-12-19 02:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, love the commentary.

Hanlon's Razor exception by gmuslera · 2012-12-19 01:40 · Score: 1

If were lawyers involved, then attribute it to malice, not stupidity.

Sorry, We Got Our Hands Caught in the Cookie Jar.. by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-12-19 02:22 · Score: 1

Yes everything people were "freaking out" about was true. They were just hoping you did not notice.

Selling photos? Not the real problem... by It+doesn't+come+easy · 2012-12-19 02:27 · Score: 1

Everyone is concentrating the possibility that Instagram might sell or otherwise make a profit on content uploaded to the service. That is nothing compared to this:

You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Service or otherwise have the right to grant the rights and licenses set forth in these Terms of Use; (ii) the posting and use of your Content on or through the Service does not violate, misappropriate or infringe on the rights of any third party, including, without limitation, privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, trademark and/or other intellectual property rights; (iii) you agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owed by reason of Content you post on or through the Service ; and (iv) you have the legal right and capacity to enter into these Terms of Use in your jurisdiction.

One should realize the bold part of the text above means that if Instagram uses the content that you upload in any way that incurs fees of any sort, YOU get to pay the fees. So forget about the fact that Instagram might use your photos to make a profit. Any fees that end up being owed will be paid by YOU. Pull out your checkbooks, everyone!

--
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.

NatGeo might be leaving them by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 03:22 · Score: 0

National Geographic is suspending their use of Instagram and may close their account because of the terms of service. It seems they and presumably their lawyers have looked past your rhetoric and decided the new terms of service are not good for them.

Instagram, it would seem you have a credibility problem.

Capitalism Says by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 04:13 · Score: 0

If FB, Instagram etc go to the trouble of getting these particular rights, it is because they intend to monetize them. That is what companies do, otherwise the rights serve no purpose

Break a deal... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 04:24 · Score: 0

...face the wheel!

Of course they can't sell them. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 04:54 · Score: 0

But do to the new rules they can license them to others for money that you will never see.

Re:Selling photos? Not the real problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 05:34 · Score: 0

Actually, the "...owed by reason of..." bit clears away your claim. If Instagram takes an action, the results of which incur a fee of any sort, *they* are still on the hook for those costs. On the other hand, if you have a license which allows you to publish a photo at a cost of $1 per view, then you are responsible for paying the royalties due when the image is displayed on the service.

Mum, Dad! Don't touch it! It's ... by Lorem_Ipsum · 2012-12-19 06:00 · Score: 1

evil! But of course, some people will just have to continue using Instagram and Facebook, even though all past actions demonstrate that FaceBook deserves its reputation as a Mostly Evil (TM) corporation.

--
--- Void where prohibited. Your mileage may vary. ---

Ultimately, intentions are irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 07:10 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter what their intentions are. Their intentions will change with time and, if they are bought out, the new owner may have very different intentions: probably to maximize the value of their investment. Ultimately, all that will matter is what the contract allows them to do and how much money can be made from doing it. Don't be lulled into accepting a bad contract by their good intentions.

Too Late and missed the point by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-19 07:54 · Score: 0

Instagram, or any large corporate body, does not have intentions or attitudes.

What they have are mindless, heartless, amoral processes and procedures for maximizing the power and wealth of those who control them. The people who are involved in executing those processes and procedures, who do, often, have minds, hearts, morals, intentions and attitudes, are almost always pigeon holed so that they are unaware of the broader consequences of their actions. This allows them to innocently carry out their functions withint the organization without misgivings or liability. Where the existing pigeon holes do not provide adequate blinders, the pigeon holes and organization are modified until they do.

Of course, those in control aren't liable because they don't do anything themselves, and they are above the law.

It is not their attitude that is unacceptable it is the nature of large corporations and the legal systems that support and enable them.

Slashdot Mirror

Instagram: We Won't Sell Your Photos

234 comments