Live data from Hacker News

Instagram's official response

blog.instagram.com

101–110 of 258 posts

Re: Instagram's official response

#101
post #74

There's something I can't quite put my finger on, that makes this response seem a bit forced and insincere. "Legal documents are easy to misinterpret. So I’d like to address specific concerns we’ve heard from everyone" My understanding is that legal documents are written precisely to be as hard to misinterpret as possible. They say exactly what they mean, and (subject to possible judicial interpretation) mean exactly…

I don't think you are reading it wrong.

There was an interesting controversy at Google about ownership of what you worked on in your own time, and their assertion that the carve out in California law about 'having to do with the business' basically covered everything because they were pretty much into everything.

If you read it in a strict legal sense, by signing the employment agreement you agreed to give Google a lifetime perpetual right to anything your worked on at any time during your employment with them. So a cry went up, and the official response was "You know what we meant, we aren't really claiming everything." So I said, "Ok, lets rewrite it then to say that you don't mean everything, you only mean things that are in businesses that Google is actively pursuing, and not things Google isn't pursuing." my intention was to align the legal text with the statement of their intention. Silence. Tried again. Silence. Eventually presented HR with a 'modified agreement' which had the new language, they refused to sign it. So I asked, which is it? To which they said "We stand by what we said, you are reading too much into this." And my lawyer said, "If I was a lawyer and had this on file and decided I really want to use whatever it was you were working on, this language clearly says you agree to them taking it from you without any compensation."

That was when I decided to leave.

I get that it is "simpler" and reduces the companies risk to have that language in there, after all it would be hugely painful to have to compensate someone more than they already did to use something that person wrote, and it keeps folks from creating a business "on the side" and then selling it back later, but there is what they say, and what they do. And what they will do. My lawyer once said, "If they say it doesn't mean that, then have them update it, if they won't then they do mean that, even if they don't want to say it."

Re: Instagram's official response

#102
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. The instagram blog post is lying by omission. Look at the former section "Proprietary Rights in Content on Instagram" > 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"…

> No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. A reply from the author of the article in the comments[0]: > You guys know that I used to be a copyright lawyer, right? This stuff is all boilerplate terms of service — every service from Apple, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc all have it. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-te...

Well, I'm sorry that this guy can't read. I have read many different copyright licenses, and this copyright license is not "boilerplate". You can have very different copyright licenses for such web services. You can get an overview at http://tos-dr.info/topics.html#copyright-scope

As you can see, the new Instagram © license is like Facebook's or Twitter's. But very different from others. (Actually, the current Instagram © license is okay)

Re: Instagram's official response

#103
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. The instagram blog post is lying by omission. Look at the former section "Proprietary Rights in Content on Instagram" > 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"…

It's funny how thin the ice he's skating on is, when he writes: >"Ownership Rights: Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period. I always want you to feel co…

I also noticed that they stepped short of saying they wouldn't be taking a non-exclusive perpetual license for any use out of the ToS. What does "ownership" mean in that case? Only that you can negotiate other deals with third parties.

It can mean that they cannot re-license your work, which is to say you wouldn't have to compete with them in terms of pricing to a third party but I don't know if that is what the ToS says so a closer reading is in order.

Re: Instagram's official response

#104
post #21

Take it with a grain of salt. They tried to sneak this by and it blew up in their faces. While under oath, Kevin Systrom: “No, we never received any offers,” Reality, Instagram had an offer from Twitter and Kevin Systrom had direct knowledge. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/disruptions-instagr... That said, at least it looks like they're going to tweak the TOS change in favor of their users. But with Faceboo…

> That said, at least it looks like they're going to tweak the TOS change in favor of their users. But with Facebook pulling the reigns, we all know where this will end. I think the fears are really overblown: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-te...

Here's another take that disagrees with their blog post -- and this one is from an actual practicing intellectual property attorney: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559859-38/instagram-riva...

"That effectively guts the user's control over the use and exploitation of the photo," says Daniel Schaeffer, an attorney with Neal & McDevitt, a boutique law firm in Northfield, Ill., specializing in intellectual property. "The most obvious and immediate example is the ability to allow businesses to use your photos in advertising, but the actual effects could be even farther-reaching."

Re: Instagram's official response

#105
Does anyone else find the phrasing "Legal documents are easy to misinterpret. So I’d like to address specific concerns we’ve heard from everyone..." to be eerily similar to Dr. Breen's PSAs in the beginning of Half-Life 2?

Dr. Breen: "Let me read a letter I recently received. 'Dear Dr. Breen. Why has the Combine seen fit to suppress our reproductive cycle? Sincerely, A Concerned Citizen.' Thank you for writing, Concerned. Of course your question touches on one of the basic biological impulses, with all its associated hopes and fears for the future of the species. I also detect some unspoken questions. Do our benefactors really know what's best for us? What gives them the right to make this kind of decision for mankind? Will they ever deactivate the suppression field and let us breed again? Allow me to address the anxieties underlying your concerns, rather than try to answer every possible question you might have left unvoiced."

Re: Instagram's official response

#106
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, no. For a verbal agreement to be binding it must pass the same requirements as a written agreement. A few guys discussing a takeover is not a formal takeover offer any more than if they exchanged e-mails about it. I am no expert in securities law but the bar for contractual consideration has got to be very high.

There was a verbal offer with specific dollar amounts ($525 million, in fact), an offer specific enough that Instagram had to back out of it before it was signed. I'm not talking about filling out an SEC-mandated press release, I'm talking about a direct question from state lawyers about whether there were any offers from other companies besides Facebook, and Systrom lied and then tried to employ weasel words about "…

What the hell? Responding carefully and specifically to a lawyer's question is not suspicious, it's standard operating practice whenever lawyers are involved. Systrom has no obligation to spill the beans about anything that some guy on the Internet thinks might be called an offer, and courtrooms have rules against assigning malicious interpretations thereunto.

Re: Instagram's official response

#107
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. The instagram blog post is lying by omission. Look at the former section "Proprietary Rights in Content on Instagram" > 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"…

> No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. A reply from the author of the article in the comments[0]: > You guys know that I used to be a copyright lawyer, right? This stuff is all boilerplate terms of service — every service from Apple, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc all have it. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-te...

His misinterpretation is getting it handed to him and the conflict of interest stuff re: The Verge and Instagram is something else to consider. I wouldn't trust a news outlet with so many close ties to companies like this.

Re: Instagram's official response

#108

There are several variations of "Our real intention is....", "we are aiming for...." in this post. Instagram users really need to realize that "Actual TOS agreement" trumps a thousand "our real intention...." blog posts. Plus as other posters have pointed out there are some pretty clear giveaways in the Phrasing of some of the denials. In the very first paragraph is " Since making these changes, we’ve heard loud and…

Abandoned.

Re: Instagram's official response

#109
post #74

There's something I can't quite put my finger on, that makes this response seem a bit forced and insincere. "Legal documents are easy to misinterpret. So I’d like to address specific concerns we’ve heard from everyone" My understanding is that legal documents are written precisely to be as hard to misinterpret as possible. They say exactly what they mean, and (subject to possible judicial interpretation) mean exactly…

I don't think you are reading it wrong. There was an interesting controversy at Google about ownership of what you worked on in your own time, and their assertion that the carve out in California law about 'having to do with the business' basically covered everything because they were pretty much into everything. If you read it in a strict legal sense, by signing the employment agreement you agreed to give Google a l…

I disagree with your lawyer.

A more likely explanation is that Legal didn't want to modify their very-expensively produced and widely-reviewed employment contract for some mere employee. And HR had you figured out as a troublemaker. :-)

Re: Instagram's official response

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. A reply from the author of the article in the comments[0]: > You guys know that I used to be a copyright lawyer, right? This stuff is all boilerplate terms of service — every service from Apple, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc all have it. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-te...

His misinterpretation is getting it handed to him and the conflict of interest stuff re: The Verge and Instagram is something else to consider. I wouldn't trust a news outlet with so many close ties to companies like this.

> the conflict of interest stuff re: The Verge and Instagram is something else to consider. I wouldn't trust a news outlet with so many close ties to companies like this.

What are you talking about? Have you read their ethics statement[0] yet?

In the world of journalism, that's a very serious accusation to be making without any evidence.

0: http://www.theverge.com/ethics-statement

Post reply on HN