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."

Comments

We Won't Sell YOUR Photos

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

They are OURS, fools!

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos

[alphatel]

'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.

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos

[sneakyimp]

All your photo are belong to US.

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos

[SternisheFan]

'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

[NFN_NLN]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[hey!]

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*.

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos

[Opportunist]

"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.

The First Rule

[geminidomino]

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

[19thNervousBreakdown]

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!"

Re:The First Rule

[ArcadeMan]

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

Re:The First Rule

[mirix]

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.

Re:The First Rule

[argux]

There are at least 285 rules of acquisition.

Re:The First Rule

[chihowa]

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/.

Re:The First Rule

[skids]

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.

Re:The First Rule

[nedlohs]

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

[c 0xFF]

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.

They still have the rights...

[Midnight_Falcon]

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...

[tool462]

any reasonably prudent person

I believe that set is disjoint with the set of all instagram users.

Re:They still have the rights...

[Lehk228]

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

Re:They still have the rights...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:They still have the rights...

[Swampash]

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.

Still have not seen that in the fine print.

[jackb_guppy]

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

cynic

[codegen]

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.

"Mistake" my Ass.

[Grog6]

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.

Nonsense.

[voice of unreason]

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.

What they say means nothing

[Giant Electronic Bra]

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

Too little too late

[morcego]

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.

bs

[Anonymous Coward]

"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 won't SELL your photos..."

[TuringTest]

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

Fatal flaw with biological storage

[Dogtanian]

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.

Damn lawyers

[Monoman]

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.

Re:Damn lawyers

[PRMan]

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.

Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing

[causality]

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.