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

141–150 of 258 posts

Re: Instagram's official response

#141

Post by lifeguard »

danso wrote: post #127
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 c…

The terms are deliberately foggy in a way to protect Instagram. They used a good lawyer.

The product manager failed here, not the lawyers.

Re: Instagram's official response

#142

Post by w1ntermute »

mnicole wrote: post #120
w1ntermute wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> What are you talking about? You might want to read the link you posted.

No, you might want to read it. Here, I'll make it a little easier for you:

> Our company has its own advertising team responsible for selling ad space on our site. We do not accept money or other consideration from companies as a condition or incentive to write a review or story, whether favorable or unfavorable, on The Verge.

> We do not invest in companies that we cover, and employees are forbidden from owning, trading, or buying stock in companies we cover or companies in the general tech sector, without exception.

> We don't take free things from companies, or from their PR firms. This rule is simple and we stick to it

> We do not take free or discounted merchandise

> We do not take free or discounted services.

> Employees of The Verge may not be otherwise employed by or receive compensation from companies that they are likely to cover as part of their news beat, nor are they permitted to have any advisory role (paid or unpaid) at those companies.

> We do not accept any samples on any preconditions, such as, that we will agree to provide a review simply because the company sent us a sample.

Re: Instagram's official response

#143

Post by smackfu »

shabble wrote: 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…

>My understanding is that legal documents are written precisely to be as hard to misinterpret as possible.

In this case, the issue is that legal documents are written to be as cover-your-ass as possible. Instagram needs a license for your content to show it on their site. Then a lawyer says "what if Facebook sells Instagram to someone else?". So they add a bit that makes it a transferable license. That was easy! But then someone who is not trying to cover Instagram's ass reads it and says "that means they can sell the rights to my photo." And that's true. It wasn't the intent of the lawyers but the lawyers really had no intent regarding protecting the user's rights. They're just watching out for Instagram.

Re: Instagram's official response

#144

Post by w1ntermute »

smackfu wrote: post #138
w1ntermute wrote: post #88

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...

Oh, an appeal to authority.

Protip: next time, read beyond the first sentence in a quote. You never know, you just might find something useful.

> This stuff is all boilerplate terms of service — every service from Apple, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc all have it.

Re: Instagram's official response

#145

Post by gwillen »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #123
marshray wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That provision of the agreement wasn't the reason I quit, but it was a little rock in my shoe that never went away until I did.

If you add up the total number of people at Google who have complained about that rock, and the number of people who haven't but would if they were prompted, suddenly "too much trouble" looks a little different, IMHO.

Re: Instagram's official response

#147

Post by w1ntermute »

hugoroy wrote: post #102
w1ntermute wrote: post #88

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...

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 Instag…

Well, feel free to tell him why he's wrong on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reckless

I'd very much like to see how he responds.

Re: Instagram's official response

#148

Post by DigitalSea »

I am happy with this apology. Everyone loves to hate on something, once one person starts hating others join in the mob mentality against someone or an entity continues until it gets to the point where the arguments have lost sight of what they were originally arguing about. What kind of apology were people expecting? An apology using animated GIF's and infographics?

Considering the photo quality of Instagram photos is extremely questionable, are people really upset that a photo of the nicoise salad they had could be used in an ad for for promotional purposes? Please. 99.9% of the photos on Instagram wouldn't be fit for advertising considering they're most shots of insecure teenagers taking photos in the mirror and the rest pictures of food.

Calm down.

Re: Instagram's official response

#149

Post by saraid216 »

feralmoan wrote: post #129
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 clearl…

> I understand they need to monetize (god, it's taken HOW LONG!?!? Jesus!), but that doesn't excuse them from intellectual dishonesty.

I thought, "We run a business," was a blanket excuse for intellectual dishonesty in general.

Re: Instagram's official response

#150

Post by jonknee »

cynicalkane wrote: post #106
mpyne wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Spilling the beans was exactly the point of his questioning.
Post reply on HN