Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Instagram's official response

blog.instagram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 258 posts

Re: Instagram's official response

#121

Post by merlincorey »

tedunangst wrote: post #79
nathanb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some language in the post I found interesting: > The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. Note that he doesn't say "we won't use your photos as part of an advertisement", he merely says "the reason we're removing that language is b…

He also doesn't say he's going to stop beating his wife.

She hasn't said she doesn't consent or request it.

Re: Instagram's official response

#122

Post by jka »

nathanb wrote: post #35
jonknee wrote: 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…

Some language in the post I found interesting: > The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. Note that he doesn't say "we won't use your photos as part of an advertisement", he merely says "the reason we're removing that language is b…

It's a science fiction idea I think, but something that would also fly, given their statements, would be to show photos of people who look like your friends (Facebook have the machine learning / pattern matching capability) in order to influence your decisions; someone who looks like a great crush you had, dining at a nearby restaurant, for example.

This would neither necessarily fit into the classification of 'advertising', nor be showing photos to 'your friends', who would immediately call this kind of behaviour out. This would sorta tally with the fact that photos are public by default AFAIK, and the comments about privacy.

Hopefully irrelevant, but just a thought.

Re: Instagram's official response

#123

Post by ChuckMcM »

marshray wrote: post #109
ChuckMcM wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :-)

You are probably correct. Although to my credit I made sure the language I offered had been previously litigated. One argument offered was that it was "too much trouble" to have a special employment agreement for me and a different one for everyone else. They really meant "too much more trouble" since there were at least 3 revisions of the agreement between the time I started and the time I left. Interesting to read the revisions though and compare them to lawsuits that had transpired. (kind of a sick hobby of mine)

Re: Instagram's official response

#124

Post by clarky07 »

nhangen wrote: post #28
kurtvarner wrote: post #8

Great, now all the bitching can change to be about their plans to advertise. The sense of entitlement that people have is getting ridiculous. Why do you deserve an absolutely free service?

I don't think users feel that way. What they want is to be acknowledged and respected for helping build the server to what it is today. No users = no service. Don't sell us out just because you chose to take money and sell for a cool bil.

The users didn't help build anything. Instagram built a cool service, and the users used it. They didn't build anything.

Now obviously network effects help something like this grow, but don't kid yourself. They aren't running a charity. They are running a business. At some point you have to start making money or the service just goes away. Then all that those amazing users "built" will be gone in a second when they flick the power switch.

Re: Instagram's official response

#125

Post by eliasmacpherson »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #103
eliasmacpherson wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Licence is: "non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use"

So I would say "sub-license" means "re-license". It would be very unfortunate to have to compete with Instagram on pricing for your own content to a third party. Or some company that buys Instagram/Facebook out.

Just read this bit: "To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear."

So I think that clears up the 'sub-licensable' aspect. It doesn't rule out giving them away for free - which come to think of it, would hard to compete with price-wise! I'm really starting to wonder what they had in mind.

Re: Instagram's official response

#126

Post by potatolicious »

fluidcruft wrote: post #68
daltonlp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see the difference between the two examples. They both imply endorsement. In both cases, Dominoes has paid Instagram to promote its product. In both cases, Instagram has taken a photo of Bob (taken by Bob? Taken by a friend of Bob's?) And attached it to a marketing effort on behalf of Dominoes. In neither case does the photo's subject (Bob) or its author (Bob?) have a say over the photo's use.

The difference is that one case is clearly explicit: when the ad says "Bob likes our pizza", Bob liking your pizza is an explicit endorsement. The other is more statement of fact: that Bob ate there. For all you know he could have hated it. On the other hand, add the context of Facebook. What if Bob hit the like button in facebook? You could argue that hitting the button is an endorsement. Or perhaps if the ad is onl…

Indeed, and that's the subtle (but significant) difference. I've noticed for example that in my Facebook feed it never says "Bob likes Pizza Hut", it says instead "Bob liked a page: Pizza Hut".

It certainly goes into a gray area - but something as explicitly as "Bob likes Domino's! You should get Domino's too!" is a legal minefield I doubt anyone would willingly wade into.

Re: Instagram's official response

#127

Post by danso »

rauljara wrote: post #117

I find this thread really fascinating. I have a hard time imagining a more better apology from Instagram. They accept responsibility, there isn't a trace of hostility towards any of the people who 'misinterpreted' their terms, they are upfront about needing to make money, and they communicate (or attempt to) that they were never in favor of any of those kind of downright villainous things it seemed like they were in…

I can imagine a better response, but not one that would take significantly longer for lawyers to vet. An ideal response would actually show examples (i.e. "This is an example of your photo being used in conjunction with an advertisement. This is an example of how your photo will never be used"), because as it is, the language is just couched enough that Instagram users, once burned, will be even more suspicious and cynical.

Re: Instagram's official response

#128

Post by itsprofitbaron »

I posted something similar on here[1] about how Instagram cannot sell its users photos and what they're actually doing is trying to monetize similar to how Facebook does Sponsored Posts.

Instagram's terms of service stated that was their intentions:

  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.
And "Section 106: Exclusive rights in copyrighted works aka. 17 U.S.C. § 106"[3] essentially states Instagram cannot sell its users photos and it cannot use its users photos and alter them in any meaningful way.

The problem was how they communicated the change and they've admitted that too[2] although they've started to fix this with this blogpost and will continue to communicate this.

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939650

[2] https://twitter.com/instagram/status/281133360833773568

[3] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Re: Instagram's official response

#129

Post by feralmoan »

rauljara wrote: post #117

I find this thread really fascinating. I have a hard time imagining a more better apology from Instagram. They accept responsibility, there isn't a trace of hostility towards any of the people who 'misinterpreted' their terms, they are upfront about needing to make money, and they communicate (or attempt to) that they were never in favor of any of those kind of downright villainous things it seemed like they were in…

The sentiment reads 'Yeah yeah, we hear you, here's some token feel goods but we're going to continue to forge ahead and hope the idiots among you generate enough positive noise for us to drown out the dissenting signals'.

I understand they need to monetize (god, it's taken HOW LONG!?!? Jesus!), but that doesn't excuse them from intellectual dishonesty. People have genuine concerns and they should be addressed clearly.

I think the market would simply be happy with a 'Creative Commons' default option tbh (like deviantart, flickr etc) with an account or picture level opt-out. Really simple, just put a cherry on this crap. Somewhere.

Re: Instagram's official response

#130

Post by clarky07 »

I really have no idea what people are complaining about. What are you putting in your Instagram photos? It's a cool service that lets you share pictures with friends. What is it that you think your pictures are worth?

When you sign up for a free service, you have to know that you are the product. PERIOD. Don't sign up for free services if you don't want to be the product. Go pay flickr. They will take your money. Stop bitching about free services adding ads so that they can keep the lights on and keep offering your free service.

Post reply on HN