Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Technology Your Rights Online

Instagram: We Won't Sell Your Photos 234

Posted by Soulskill
from the perhaps-now-the-internet-can-stop-panicking dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Instagram: We Won't Sell Your Photos

Comments Filter:
  • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:03PM (#42331457) Homepage Journal

    They are OURS, fools!

    • by alphatel (1450715) * on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:09PM (#42331531)
      '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.
    • by sneakyimp (1161443) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:10PM (#42331539)
      All your photo are belong to US.
    • by TuringTest (533084) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:21PM (#42331617) Journal

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

    • by wwalker (159341)

      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!"

    • by hey! (33014) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @07:32PM (#42332235) Homepage Journal

      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*.

      • 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

      • by Aighearach (97333)

        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.

    • "it is not our intention to sell your photos", we'll just add them to the ads we get payed to display.

  • The First Rule (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geminidomino (614729) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:03PM (#42331459) Journal

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 19thNervousBreakdown (768619) <davec-slashdot.lepertheory@net> on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:29PM (#42331693) Homepage

      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by skids (119237) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @07:58PM (#42332415) Homepage

        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.

    • by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:32PM (#42331721)

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

    • Re:The First Rule (Score:5, Informative)

      by mirix (1649853) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:38PM (#42331773)

      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.

    • 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.

    • Re:The First Rule (Score:5, Informative)

      by chihowa (366380) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @07:05PM (#42332037)

      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.com]:

      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.com]

      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/ [instagram.com].

      • Re:The First Rule (Score:4, Interesting)

        by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @07:23PM (#42332167) Homepage
        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.
        • Re:The First Rule (Score:5, Informative)

          by c++0xFF (1758032) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @08:34PM (#42332677)

          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.

          • 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.....

        • by chrismcb (983081)

          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.

    • 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.

  • by Midnight_Falcon (2432802) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:03PM (#42331461)
    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..

    • 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.
      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:35PM (#42331741)

        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.

        • by robogun (466062)

          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.

          • Istockphotos are doing a brisk business towards the lower end of the market, there are a few others as well...

    • by tool462 (677306) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:13PM (#42331561)

      any reasonably prudent person

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

    • by Lehk228 (705449) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:27PM (#42331677) Journal
      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
      • ...if they go bankrupt...

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

        • by Lehk228 (705449)
          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
    • by reboot246 (623534)
      Why people continue to trust Facebook et al. is beyond me.

      Oh, that's right. They're Facebook users.
    • by sjames (1099)

      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.

    • by Swampash (1131503) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @07:05PM (#42332031)

      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.

  • by jackb_guppy (204733) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:03PM (#42331463)

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

  • cynic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by codegen (103601) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:05PM (#42331467) Journal
    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.
    • by causality (777677)

      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.

  • "Mistake" my Ass. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Grog6 (85859) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:05PM (#42331469)

    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.

  • Their servers were getting ovrloaded ......

  • Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by voice of unreason (231784) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:06PM (#42331487)

    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. (Score:4, Informative)

      by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:44PM (#42331829) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • 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.
    • by AK Marc (707885)
      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 o
  • by Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:08PM (#42331501)

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

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      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.
      • 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.

      • by sFurbo (1361249)
        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.
  • 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.

  • by h8mx (2713391) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:08PM (#42331511)

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

    What the new terms of service really mean | The Verge [theverge.com]

    • 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 y

    • by chrismcb (983081)
      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 thin

  • Too little too late (Score:5, Interesting)

    by morcego (260031) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:13PM (#42331559)

    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.

    • 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.
      • by morcego (260031)

        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.

      • by chrismcb (983081)

        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.

    • by geek (5680)

      What did you move to may I ask?

      • by morcego (260031) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:39PM (#42331791)

        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.

        • by geek (5680)

          Interesting. Thanks. My wife does a lot of photo work as a hobby, going to explore these and see if she likes it.

  • bs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:16PM (#42331581)

    "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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:21PM (#42331621)

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

  • by Dogtanian (588974) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:22PM (#42331633) Homepage
    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.
    • by Culture20 (968837)
      You should switch to wild ram RAM. They're open range.
    • by causality (777677) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:49PM (#42331883)

      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.

    • by PRMan (959735)
      Isn't a RAM a sheep?
  • Too Late (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bob9113 (14996) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:25PM (#42331661) Homepage

    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.

  • Damn lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Monoman (8745) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:37PM (#42331763) Homepage

    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.

  • ...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.

  • by Grayhand (2610049) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @08:16PM (#42332537)
    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.
  • Sorry about the mixup.

    Sincerely,
    Flickr

  • 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.

  • "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.
  • 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

  • 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.

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe

Working...