Slashdot Mirror
Instagram: We Won't Sell Your Photos
hugheseyau writes "Earlier, we discussed news that Instagram introduced a new version of their Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that will take effect in thirty days. The changes seemed to allow Instagram to sell users' photos, and many users were upset. 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.' This is good news for Instagram users."
And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."
They are OURS, fools!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
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..
So when is the new new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service will be shown?
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.
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
Their servers were getting ovrloaded ......
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.
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
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
This article shed some light on the new TOS for me:
What the new terms of service really mean | The Verge
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.
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
"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.
"...we'll only RENT them for the duration of an ad campaign".
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
However there has yet to be a picture on Instragram that's worth paying for.
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).
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
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! --
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.
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
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.
We promise we won't sell your photos, even though the new TOS say we can, take our word
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.
...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".
> 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.
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.
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".
They were rioting over something completely unrelated to this EULA article.... you dolt.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry about the mixup.
Sincerely,
Flickr
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!
until it's been officially denied.
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...
"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.
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
I believe it when they fire the legal team responsible, get rid of this agreement and write a new one school kids understand.
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.
If were lawyers involved, then attribute it to malice, not stupidity.
Yes everything people were "freaking out" about was true. They were just hoping you did not notice.
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.
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. ---
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