I'm starting to realize that Instagram is not the service I thought it was. I initially thought it was Flickr with social features, but more and more it's turning into Facebook with photos.
There is zero content discoveries features, so you have no way to get new followers or find new people to follow. And the top posters are all teenage pop stars that I've never even heard about who post completely uninteresting photos.
The more Instagram turns into Facebook, the more this opens up a spot for another company to build an actual social network around photos. Whether this will be 500px, Flickr (again), or somebody else entirely, I don't know.
As soon as i read that FB was buying Instagram i quit and deleted my Instagram account. It was too predictable that something like this will happen.
Mark Zuckerberg is in a horrible position. I bet he would love to just build a cool and useful product. Instead he is damned to roll out all these awful money making features. And quick. Not only for his investors but also for the staff that owns FB stock.
How smooth could FB move along if their investors trusted them like they trust Jeff Bezos and his very long-term view.
I've always had issues with certain details on Flickr (perhaps since the Yahoo acquisition; I honestly can't remember what was just carried over) such as the inability to download all your photos at once for backup, lockout of your own photos when your pro membership expires (combined with the aforementioned non-feature), and some other things. But as far as I can tell, the community is definitely there. Whenever I am doing research on1 particular piece of equipment or materials (chemicals mostly) I'll often find a fairly helpful discussion on Flickr, and with plenty of well-tagged shots to back it up.
Earlier this year while I was staying in Ginza for the weekend a spring popped inside one of my lenses. I have some experience repairing and rebuilding mechanical SLRs (not so much lenses) but without any tools or parts I was hoping to find a repair shop nearby that wouldn't break the bank. Ended up finding a pic on Flickr from someone who had the same issue a few years ago of him and the repairman with his Victor Hasselblad diploma, and his business card. Totally random place on the 8th floor in San-chome, but he was a great guy who I never would've met if not for that post.
>There is zero content discoveries features, so you have no way to get new followers or find new people to follow.
Instagram has had an Explore view for a while now.
>And the top posters are all teenage pop stars that I've never even heard about who post completely uninteresting photos.
To be honest, I look at a lot of Instagram data because I work on a photo sharing startup that uses their API extensively, and the network as a whole is completely dominated by teen girls vying for each other's attention. The amount of content they create and consume is mind numbing.
This is not new. It seems that their new TOS explicitly lays out that your photos may be used in advertising, possibly due to a new law somewhere requiring specific notification and release, but my understanding is that you'd already given them this right based on this clause:
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.
Yes, that's in the old TOS, and it's pretty much boilerplate for any site with user-generated content. That language certainly seems to me like it would cover uses in advertising or even Instagram reselling your images as a "stock photo" site. This kind of clause is required so that users can't attempt to entrap the service provider by uploading content and then claiming that Instagram didn't have a license to utilize it and therefore had violated copyright, and also probably as a fallback policy in case a cranky user spotted their image in a stream or feed or video or something (or, alternately, that the server is hacked and db is leaked, and thousands of claims of "unauthorized use" come flooding in).
IANAL but pretty much this is a non-story. They've simply decided to specifically inform you that a license to " 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" includes use in advertisement, as one would reasonably believe it does.
Agreed with aptwebapps. The old TOU, as you correctly say, is pretty standard. Twitter's is similar, and any company with decent lawyers is going to protect themselves with similar wording.
The new TOU, however, heads in a different direction. The phrase "limited license" is gone. It's been replaced with the phrase "transferable, sub-licensable" license. Also new is "a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."
Transferable is a very important word. So is sub-licensable. Those were NOT in the old terms of use.
That old TOS is pretty standard language required for any online service to show photos that you upload. Flickr, Google, etc are all pretty similar. A few times a year a bunch of FUD springs up among more old-school photographers who become terrified that such language means that Flickr (or Google) wants to steal and own all of their images.
These new TOS however - absolutely appalling. In the past year we've seen professionals flock to instagram to help promote their craft - with the new language I'd imagine you'll see a mass exodus from those folks pretty quickly.
I don't think you are correct. The old TOS did not allow them to resell your pics. Also note they are saying your private pics will now be fair game as well.
You are correct that the old TOS seems pretty standard, but these changes are not trivial.
Its about how it occurs to the general public. HMers know that if they want to they can use your images, but I have seen people on my Facebook and Twitter saying this is too far and theyre not posting to Instagram anymore.
I agree... that is how you create news where it does not deserve one... I don't think Instagram would like paying billions of dollar in privacy suits for a 10$ photo.
this is just an anguished news writer probably snubbed by Facebook...
There's an ethical and an unethical way to do this.
Not being able to opt out, and changing the system wholesale overnight like this, is deeply unethical.
On the scale of things they could do that would make this better:
* Best case: opt-in only, compensate users whose photos they use.
* Present a choice to users when they sign up, default to opt-out.
* At least present a choice to existing users whether they want this or not, and allow them to continued access to the service either way.
* Notify users and only change the rights when any new photos uploaded, and keep existing photos under the old terms.
* Give existing users the opportunity to deactivate/delete their account if they don't agree, and a chance to download their photos. Or "freeze" existing accounts until they acknowledge the changes, rather than automatically assuming consent.
They seem to have picked the absolute worst option available to them, and it's troubling to say the least.
I was about to delete my Instagram account when I saw this, but having given it a bit of thought, I'm actually ok with it.
Instagram needs to get money from somewhere, and as far as I'm concerned selling my photos is preferable to filling the feeds with ads. However I can see how for a lot of people they'd rather have ads then have their photos sold (especially pro photographers) so it'll be interesting to see how many users they loose over this.
Also it goes with out saying that if they do put adverts in, I'm out.
I don't understand why people have downvoted this yet far more inane comments that are older haven't been downvoted as much (case in point: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4936978). This is an "expressed opinion" - it's not "inane banter" (like this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4936806) - yet people have downvoted it because they disagree. It doesn't express the hive mind thus the downvotes rain in. So weird...
As pointed out elsewhere, it's more than a little weird that they could use pictures you took of your friends. Even if the chance is incredibly small, I'm not ok with that.
And since it's not worth the hassle of constantly being mindful of what I'm uploading, I'm going to delete my account. Which is a pity, since Instagram's photo app seems to do a lot of nice automatic color balancing compared to the native Android app. :(
Matt: It is, as you say, likely a deal breaker for aspiring or pro photographers. And in the end it's also a case of "their servers, their rules."
But there's a difference between telling users clearly this is what you're doing, and putting it in the headline of a blog post, vs. inserting this language into the middle of a terms of use agreement. I don't think anyone here begrudges Instagram making money. But being upfront with the users who just made the founders $1B (well, maybe $700M) is something that's not unreasonable to expect.
I am likely to delete my Instagram account because of this—this isn't going to out well for them at all and not just because of licensing issues.
Legally, they will be in deep trouble the first time they sell any pictures with people in them because none‡ of them will have signed a model release.
I'm not OK with giving them resale rights to my pictures.
‡ A tiny fraction of a tiny fraction will have, but that release will be with the photographer. Tracking that down will be their responsibility.
Personal call, I suppose, but if I take a picture of a friend of mine and then that photos hows up in a weight-loss ad on the subway, I am probably going to lose a friend.
I know several professional photographers who use Instagram regularly (and are worth following). I suspect this will not sit well with some of them. I'm especially curious if Instagram will let people leave and remove their old photos easily.
Some of them also post professional images they've imported from their computer (not just phone images).
For example, here's an image taken by Jose Villa (high-end wedding photographer) for Williams Sonoma's gift registry:
http://instagram.com/p/STxUVcrodv/
What's gonna happen when IG sells ads with those kind of images?
Why is he even using Instagram? Doesn't seem like he used any filter there, did he? Seems like he's just using it to promote his own DSLR-made photos. Google+ might be a better target for that kind of community.
Hopefully it just takes a little time when deleting the account to go through and delete the individual photos, but I'll be deleting the individual photos before I delete my account to be safe.
I need to note that the date I "deleted" my photographs was May 25, 2012. That is 7 months ago and still in the possession of Facebook.
Also, I forgot to include the screenshot of the photograph being hosted on the dummy account just before I deleted it and the account;
http://spacestation.co/I1ry
So the claim that Instagram is establishing the right to sell your photos is supported in the article with this language:
It says that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."
I read this as intended to say "when we display your photos (as part of our own service), we may serve up ads to be displayed next to them and not give you a cut of the proceeds".
I don't mean to argue that the language can't be interpreted to let FB sell the pictures but it doesn't look to me as intended for that purpose.
In any case, the usual scenario of virtualized user outrage will be followed by backpedaling by Instagram. 2% of the user base will vow to never use the servie again, and then all will go on as before.
The new flickr app (albeit very late) looks a whole lot better proposition then Instagram.
To value Instagram at a billion dollars (well less now I guess because of Facebook's share price) is insane. They have a serious problem with spam - every photo I upload is liked by many getM0refollowers<RandomNumber> and every photo I upload is bombarded with spam comments. They seem incapable of getting a grip on this problem.
The app also has bugs e.g. it says I have X followed but then displays X minus Y when I try to view who they are.
Its popular photos are rubbish - so there is no way to discover interesting photos other than searching for tags you're interested in. Photos with a 1000 likes appeal to the teenage market only i.e. they're not serious photos.
When you follow someone you get very large photos dominating your stream, so I don't follow many people because of this.
I really hope flickr aggresively try and take back this market. Instagram is a neat idea, but has very poor execution.
I don't really know what Instagram is really worth, but it might have been worth a billion dollars to Facebook to keep Instagram away from Twitter. Twitter + Instagram is starting to look like a viable Facebook competitor.
Although we know now that Twitter is choosing to become a walled garden with a very limited kind of service, a year ago it seemed possible for them to become a sort of internet infrastructure.
I fully understand that with a free product, I am the product. I go into that with eyes open, and happily used Instagram assuming they would eventually start serving ads near the photos, promoting photos or similar. However, using my photos as ads seems a bit of a stretch. So, I just happily gave Flickr $25 after deleting my Instagram account. Some things are worth paying for, because sometimes I don't want to be the product.
With Flickr you're still the product unfortunately, although Flickr is much better than other similar services in this regard. Do you really think your measly $25/year cover for their expenses with you?
Seriously, if you don't want to be the product, organize those photos in a standard directory structure and synchronize it either with Dropbox or Google Drive or SkyDrive.
The downside of doing that is that storage is more expensive, but that's closer to the real price the service is worth and so that makes it sustainable. Also, migrating between cloud storage solutions is much easier.
Shameless plug - try Dropbox by clicking the following link, and we'll both get a small bonus: http://db.tt/x1XoSUnE
Dont worry! The founders of instagram where afraid of this as well and they devised a poison pill before they sold out! All you images have been made useless for any commercial use by the application of shitty "lets make it look like a polaroid left in the sun for 30 years"-filters...
I'm beginning to adopt a "I don't sign up for your service/social network if you don't know how to make money other than sell me someday" mindset because I'm sick of being burned. First the Twitter debacle, and now this. Instagram should be inspired by App.net, not Twitter. Sorry guys, I'm canceling my account. Flickr is starting to show signs of promise as a decent photo service again, and I'll happily pay them money for a Pro account.
Buh bye Instagram. Hope that ad thing works out for you. (Not.)
It doesn't matter who the target market is. This can create a precedence, and make other "social" enterprises greedier. While I understand a contract can specify almost anything and there's always "if you don't like it, don't use it" way of looking at this, but there should be a basic sense of decency among all that claim to be serving the wider public.
What I am trying to figure out is: does this apply to 'private' accounts as well? I see no statement that seems to exempt private accounts from these new policies, but would definitely like to hear a conclusive statement regarding this.
"you acknowledge we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, and commercial communications"
Translation: You accept that we may try to trick you.
I'm an intellectual property lawyer and I think the intent behind the above language is quite clear. It is not aimed at alleviating an undue burden of identifying commercial content (as Instagram might suggest), it's about reducing transparency to allow for marketing tactics that would not likely be viewed favorably if they were obvious to the user. While under no legal obligation to do so, Google has been identifying sponsored content for over a decade. If we were to begin by looking at "standard practice" then we might start there.
I think it's great that people are reading TOS from web companies and making their concerns known. We might call this negotiation. If you accept that idea, then I think users are in an excellent bargaining position. They can walk away at any time. They can adapt and they can find new alternatives. These companies however may not be able to find new audiences so easily. I believe they will take the feedback very seriously and respond, with new language if necessary.
I'm noticing some of my friends on Facebook who were using it extensively for one purpose or another are now closing their accounts. Other friends of mine cannot use Facebook because of their employers. It seems clear to me there are both costs and benefits to using Facebook or Instagram and that sometimes the costs may outweigh the benefits.
While this isn't reddit, this would probably be a good time for that "That escalated quickly" picture.
I'm surprised Facebook is moving so quickly to try and monetize Instagram. I wonder if they're using it for experimentation of what their user base will accept. Regardless, I think this is probably a step too far in the wrong direction.
Will Facebook and Instagram be able to clamp down on users with the right acrobatics to keep their userbase and increase their ARPU? Either way, these seem like shady tactics.
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.
In other words, they're trying to monetize Instagram a similar way Facebook is - Sponsored Posts - your photos and associated data can be promoted by companies without having to notify you about it.
Furthermore under Section 106: Exclusive rights in copyrighted works aka. 17 U.S.C. § 106[2] Instagram cannot sell your photos and it cannot use your photos and alter them in any meaningful way.
Having said that Instagram could have communicated this better as this hasn't helped the situation either.
[+] [-] sgdesign|13 years ago|reply
There is zero content discoveries features, so you have no way to get new followers or find new people to follow. And the top posters are all teenage pop stars that I've never even heard about who post completely uninteresting photos.
The more Instagram turns into Facebook, the more this opens up a spot for another company to build an actual social network around photos. Whether this will be 500px, Flickr (again), or somebody else entirely, I don't know.
[+] [-] Smrchy|13 years ago|reply
Mark Zuckerberg is in a horrible position. I bet he would love to just build a cool and useful product. Instead he is damned to roll out all these awful money making features. And quick. Not only for his investors but also for the staff that owns FB stock.
How smooth could FB move along if their investors trusted them like they trust Jeff Bezos and his very long-term view.
[+] [-] evoxed|13 years ago|reply
Earlier this year while I was staying in Ginza for the weekend a spring popped inside one of my lenses. I have some experience repairing and rebuilding mechanical SLRs (not so much lenses) but without any tools or parts I was hoping to find a repair shop nearby that wouldn't break the bank. Ended up finding a pic on Flickr from someone who had the same issue a few years ago of him and the repairman with his Victor Hasselblad diploma, and his business card. Totally random place on the 8th floor in San-chome, but he was a great guy who I never would've met if not for that post.
[+] [-] zemo|13 years ago|reply
Instagram has had an Explore view for a while now.
>And the top posters are all teenage pop stars that I've never even heard about who post completely uninteresting photos.
To be honest, I look at a lot of Instagram data because I work on a photo sharing startup that uses their API extensively, and the network as a whole is completely dominated by teen girls vying for each other's attention. The amount of content they create and consume is mind numbing.
[+] [-] chandru89new|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cookiecaper|13 years ago|reply
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.
Yes, that's in the old TOS, and it's pretty much boilerplate for any site with user-generated content. That language certainly seems to me like it would cover uses in advertising or even Instagram reselling your images as a "stock photo" site. This kind of clause is required so that users can't attempt to entrap the service provider by uploading content and then claiming that Instagram didn't have a license to utilize it and therefore had violated copyright, and also probably as a fallback policy in case a cranky user spotted their image in a stream or feed or video or something (or, alternately, that the server is hacked and db is leaked, and thousands of claims of "unauthorized use" come flooding in).
IANAL but pretty much this is a non-story. They've simply decided to specifically inform you that a license to " 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" includes use in advertisement, as one would reasonably believe it does.
[+] [-] declan|13 years ago|reply
The new TOU, however, heads in a different direction. The phrase "limited license" is gone. It's been replaced with the phrase "transferable, sub-licensable" license. Also new is "a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."
Transferable is a very important word. So is sub-licensable. Those were NOT in the old terms of use.
[+] [-] rjsamson|13 years ago|reply
These new TOS however - absolutely appalling. In the past year we've seen professionals flock to instagram to help promote their craft - with the new language I'd imagine you'll see a mass exodus from those folks pretty quickly.
[+] [-] aptwebapps|13 years ago|reply
You are correct that the old TOS seems pretty standard, but these changes are not trivial.
[+] [-] djt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgh_1|13 years ago|reply
this is just an anguished news writer probably snubbed by Facebook...
[+] [-] Osmium|13 years ago|reply
Not being able to opt out, and changing the system wholesale overnight like this, is deeply unethical.
On the scale of things they could do that would make this better:
* Best case: opt-in only, compensate users whose photos they use.
* Present a choice to users when they sign up, default to opt-out.
* At least present a choice to existing users whether they want this or not, and allow them to continued access to the service either way.
* Notify users and only change the rights when any new photos uploaded, and keep existing photos under the old terms.
* Give existing users the opportunity to deactivate/delete their account if they don't agree, and a chance to download their photos. Or "freeze" existing accounts until they acknowledge the changes, rather than automatically assuming consent.
They seem to have picked the absolute worst option available to them, and it's troubling to say the least.
[+] [-] killahpriest|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SIULHT|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MattBearman|13 years ago|reply
Instagram needs to get money from somewhere, and as far as I'm concerned selling my photos is preferable to filling the feeds with ads. However I can see how for a lot of people they'd rather have ads then have their photos sold (especially pro photographers) so it'll be interesting to see how many users they loose over this.
Also it goes with out saying that if they do put adverts in, I'm out.
[+] [-] ScottWhigham|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonknee|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shardling|13 years ago|reply
And since it's not worth the hassle of constantly being mindful of what I'm uploading, I'm going to delete my account. Which is a pity, since Instagram's photo app seems to do a lot of nice automatic color balancing compared to the native Android app. :(
[+] [-] declan|13 years ago|reply
But there's a difference between telling users clearly this is what you're doing, and putting it in the headline of a blog post, vs. inserting this language into the middle of a terms of use agreement. I don't think anyone here begrudges Instagram making money. But being upfront with the users who just made the founders $1B (well, maybe $700M) is something that's not unreasonable to expect.
[+] [-] halostatue|13 years ago|reply
Legally, they will be in deep trouble the first time they sell any pictures with people in them because none‡ of them will have signed a model release.
I'm not OK with giving them resale rights to my pictures.
‡ A tiny fraction of a tiny fraction will have, but that release will be with the photographer. Tracking that down will be their responsibility.
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callmeed|13 years ago|reply
I know several professional photographers who use Instagram regularly (and are worth following). I suspect this will not sit well with some of them. I'm especially curious if Instagram will let people leave and remove their old photos easily.
Some of them also post professional images they've imported from their computer (not just phone images).
For example, here's an image taken by Jose Villa (high-end wedding photographer) for Williams Sonoma's gift registry: http://instagram.com/p/STxUVcrodv/
What's gonna happen when IG sells ads with those kind of images?
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 89a|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] spacestation|13 years ago|reply
after deleting one of my accounts, I was suspicious that they would still keep the photographs.
So to test this, I made a dummy account named after where i live; nikkojapan http://instagram.com/nikkojapan/
i made a quick pointless photograph just to upload http://instagram.com/p/K8bx_ZB59K/
Here is the link that still exists to the photograph of an account that was deleted right after the Facebook acquisition announcement. http://distilleryimage6.instagram.com/6d96aaa0a45611e1a9f712...
[+] [-] TeeWEE|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meerita|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PJones|13 years ago|reply
Hopefully it just takes a little time when deleting the account to go through and delete the individual photos, but I'll be deleting the individual photos before I delete my account to be safe.
[+] [-] spacestation|13 years ago|reply
Also, I forgot to include the screenshot of the photograph being hosted on the dummy account just before I deleted it and the account; http://spacestation.co/I1ry
[+] [-] 54mf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiggy2011|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biesnecker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkling|13 years ago|reply
It says that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."
I read this as intended to say "when we display your photos (as part of our own service), we may serve up ads to be displayed next to them and not give you a cut of the proceeds".
I don't mean to argue that the language can't be interpreted to let FB sell the pictures but it doesn't look to me as intended for that purpose.
In any case, the usual scenario of virtualized user outrage will be followed by backpedaling by Instagram. 2% of the user base will vow to never use the servie again, and then all will go on as before.
[+] [-] planetjones|13 years ago|reply
To value Instagram at a billion dollars (well less now I guess because of Facebook's share price) is insane. They have a serious problem with spam - every photo I upload is liked by many getM0refollowers<RandomNumber> and every photo I upload is bombarded with spam comments. They seem incapable of getting a grip on this problem.
The app also has bugs e.g. it says I have X followed but then displays X minus Y when I try to view who they are.
Its popular photos are rubbish - so there is no way to discover interesting photos other than searching for tags you're interested in. Photos with a 1000 likes appeal to the teenage market only i.e. they're not serious photos.
When you follow someone you get very large photos dominating your stream, so I don't follow many people because of this.
I really hope flickr aggresively try and take back this market. Instagram is a neat idea, but has very poor execution.
[+] [-] neilk|13 years ago|reply
Although we know now that Twitter is choosing to become a walled garden with a very limited kind of service, a year ago it seemed possible for them to become a sort of internet infrastructure.
[+] [-] Terretta|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hieronymusN|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bad_user|13 years ago|reply
Seriously, if you don't want to be the product, organize those photos in a standard directory structure and synchronize it either with Dropbox or Google Drive or SkyDrive.
The downside of doing that is that storage is more expensive, but that's closer to the real price the service is worth and so that makes it sustainable. Also, migrating between cloud storage solutions is much easier.
Shameless plug - try Dropbox by clicking the following link, and we'll both get a small bonus: http://db.tt/x1XoSUnE
[+] [-] dr_faustus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaredcwhite|13 years ago|reply
Buh bye Instagram. Hope that ad thing works out for you. (Not.)
[+] [-] kmfrk|13 years ago|reply
* [Instagram's suicide note](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4934271)
* [Instagram Will Share User Data With Facebook According To Its New Privacy Policy](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4932765)
The last one may be more interesting than the usage rights for photos.
[+] [-] bdcravens|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polskibus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arondeparon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] declan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InstaByeBye|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] reasondiscourse|13 years ago|reply
Translation: You accept that we may try to trick you.
I'm an intellectual property lawyer and I think the intent behind the above language is quite clear. It is not aimed at alleviating an undue burden of identifying commercial content (as Instagram might suggest), it's about reducing transparency to allow for marketing tactics that would not likely be viewed favorably if they were obvious to the user. While under no legal obligation to do so, Google has been identifying sponsored content for over a decade. If we were to begin by looking at "standard practice" then we might start there.
I think it's great that people are reading TOS from web companies and making their concerns known. We might call this negotiation. If you accept that idea, then I think users are in an excellent bargaining position. They can walk away at any time. They can adapt and they can find new alternatives. These companies however may not be able to find new audiences so easily. I believe they will take the feedback very seriously and respond, with new language if necessary.
I'm noticing some of my friends on Facebook who were using it extensively for one purpose or another are now closing their accounts. Other friends of mine cannot use Facebook because of their employers. It seems clear to me there are both costs and benefits to using Facebook or Instagram and that sometimes the costs may outweigh the benefits.
Keep reading TOS. It is good for the web.
[+] [-] debacle|13 years ago|reply
I'm surprised Facebook is moving so quickly to try and monetize Instagram. I wonder if they're using it for experimentation of what their user base will accept. Regardless, I think this is probably a step too far in the wrong direction.
Will Facebook and Instagram be able to clamp down on users with the right acrobatics to keep their userbase and increase their ARPU? Either way, these seem like shady tactics.
[+] [-] itsprofitbaron|13 years ago|reply
Furthermore under Section 106: Exclusive rights in copyrighted works aka. 17 U.S.C. § 106[2] Instagram cannot sell your photos and it cannot use your photos and alter them in any meaningful way.
Having said that Instagram could have communicated this better as this hasn't helped the situation either.
[1] http://instagram.com/about/legal/terms/updated/
[2] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
====
NOTE: Also posted this at: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939663