Slashdot Mirror
Class-Action Lawsuit Goes After Instagram Terms of Service Changes
New submitter Alex Belits writes "Users of the Instagram image sharing service owned by Facebook filed a class action against Facebook for the recent change in Terms of Service."
The changes that were supposed to take effect on January 16, 2013 declared for Facebook an unlimited right to use and license users' photos, added an arbitration requirement for legal disputes, and more. Guess the lawyers involved here weren't impressed enough by Facebook's hasty back-pedaling on this front; the company did explicitly disclaim ownership interest in the uploaded photos after a wave of complaints, but left in place certain other clauses in the new terms.
They're suing Instagram for proposed, and now recanted, ToS changes?
I think Instagram's shenanigans were sneaky, and their backpedaling was disingenuous, but this type of suit is another reason our court system has become a laughing stock.
It wasn't even back-pedaling, just word soup. They never claimed ownership, just a license to use them as they wished, and their later statement never went back on THAT.
When Facebook uses the content we create for free it's bad, but when we use other people's content for free RIAA is bad!
They can simply refuse the new term of service, and their photo will not be covered by the new TOS meaning instagram/FB won't be able to use them anyway. Naturally they lose usage of their photo but hey, so is life when you trust some random company with your stuff when you are obviously the "product" of that company. But i see no cause to sue the lawsuit will prolly be rejected at judge level.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/instagram.png
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If you don't agree with the terms, don't use it. No one's forcing you to.
I don't have, and never will have, a Facebook account due to privacy concerns (data mining, etc.), and concerns over use/abuse of users' writing/photos/whatever.
Anyone can use your photos/whatever for whatever they want - the general consensus seems to be that if it's on the internet, it's free to use. ZDNet got called out on a photo lifted from another website in a recent article/blog entry in the comments to that article. The author/blogger's response was 'Oh, is that where that came from?' I don't agree in any way with big media's take on copyright, but at least give credit, or better yet, ask permission, for something you're using.
If you don't want people using your photos, don't post them publicly on the internet. Try this: open a browser window to images.google.com, and drag a photo from another website onto the input field. Look at how many places it shows up! Try it with some of your Facebook photos - you may be surprised!
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
When we're using other people's content for free to make money it's bad
FTFY.
... are as litigious as their masters.
http://www.xkcd.com/1150/
http://xkcd.com/1150/
Anyone who expects stuff like this for free should think twice.
Then again, anyone who uses Instagram is an idiot, but that's a different story.
So this guy's name is "A. Noyes". I find that fitting somehow.
(I usually don't go for the ad hominem humor, but can't help myself in this case, sorry)
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
http://xkcd.com/1150/
If you agree to terms like, "The other party can change this agreement in any way at any time and there's fuck all you can do about that", well... you deserve what you get.
I think it's fine to agree to that, but then, don't go crying about the results. You made your bed, you sleep in it. Everyone gets to decide on their own whether that is acceptable. I and many others have decided it is not, so I do not use such services. If you decide it is, then stop fucking whining about what YOU AGREED TO!
Just introduce a $10/month fee for users who wish to maintain complete ownership over their own content.
Facebook is not forcing anyone to use Instagram and they are not obliged to provide "apply-this-effect-to-your-pet-photo-and-think-you-are-Salvador-Dali" service free of charge. They need to make money somehow, so either give Facebook right to use your photos or pay up.
This will shut up the entitled free users and I bet %99.99 would not be paying a dime and would rather their "Art" be licensed to Facebook.
I dont have an Instragram account, so i didn't pay too much attention to the hype around the ToS changes. What I did gleam from it was the change saying Instagram could sell your images without paying you a dime or even letting you know about it. That's essentially what Facebook's user agreement says without expressly saying so. You own the content, but they sub-license it. IE. They do what they want and you're screwed.
...book of lies?
The Instagram move has to be the most brain dead decision from the tech world since Google Buzz.
In both situations any ordinary person would be asking themselves
"How could they NOT think that this decision would upset their users, big time?"
To be un-PC, not everyone who works in tech, especially management has an autism spectrum disorder.
That leaves management surronding themselves with and reweard synchophants.........yes men, who insulate them from reality, letting them make assinine decisions like this one.
They deserve to be sued.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sycophants
And the business world is packed with ToS changes that give the user the shaft. Companies like Facebook are really desperate to get some revenue to at least convey the idea that they are profitable, at least to postpone their myspaceification.
Nobody is expecting anything for free. They are expecting that Instagram will serve up advertisements. The xkcd comic misses the mark, because in a correct analogy Chad would be getting paid by companies to post their advertisements in line of sight of the garage entry way while our protagonist - and everyone else, including but not necessarily limited to his friends - stops by to look at his stuff. Also, in the comic, Chad didn't post ads announcing that people are free to put their stuff in his garage.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
When Facebook SELLS the content we create for A FEEit's bad, but when we USE, BUT DO NOT SELL other people's content for free RIAA is bad!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So your buddy Joe lets you borrow his car whenever you want. He has a GPS and his car is so efficient he actually makes money by selling the GPS data on which stores you went to. One day he tells you, "If you want to keep using my car you have to let me take pictures from any angle of you or your stuff at any time you're in the car and sell them".
He regularly sends you long, long boring letters that you both know you don't read and this stipulation is hidden inside one of them.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
"Ok ok we won't sell your photos....but we still own them."
You have a point, but nobody should really be surprised, since facebook has done this kind of crap before.
Furthermore, the fact that people aren't abandoning instagram/facebook en masse just proves that in the end they don't care and are too lazy to change.
Because when you sign up for an account, you agree to the current TOS. The current TOS includes verbiage that states that they can change the TOS and what you can do if you don't like the changes.
This one won't go anywhere.
You have a point, but nobody should really be surprised, since facebook has done this kind of crap before.
Furthermore, the fact that people aren't abandoning instagram/facebook en masse just proves that in the end they don't care and are too lazy to change.
Or they simply don't know. Does your grandmother know about Instagrams TOS?
"Users of the Instagram image sharing service owned by Facebook filed a class action against Facebook for the recent change in Terms of Service."
No, they did not. Class action is only such when court certifies. And only a tiny fraction of PROPOSED class actions (as this PROPOSED is) gets to be certified.
Stupid journos.