Instagram's official response • Hacker News Board

Re: Instagram's official response

#161

Post by frabcus » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 1:48 AM UTC

lifeguard wrote: post #141

danso wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Such a dated definition of a good lawyer!

If a lawyer's advice pisses off your users, that isn't a good lawyer. Sure a lawyer can claim that being "conservative" on behalf of their "client's interests" is the best way to act.

That's no longer credible though. The client (Instagram's) interests can be more closely linked now to their user's interests, than was the case before the Internet when a company could write whatever shit they like in legal agreements, and nobody would complain.

Re: Instagram's official response

#162

Post by dcposch » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 1:49 AM UTC

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 majority of Instagram users are nontechnical and have never heard of the TOS change, nor do they care. Letting advertisers put someone's Instagrams on a billboard is a pretty low bar for "villainous".

I think it's amusing that Instagram is, in its own words, "trying to build a viable business", just a few weeks after they sold for a billion.

In short: Instagram is a fun site for sharing silly photos.

Facebook vastly overpaid for it, and the pedantic hacker types on HN and Slashdot vastly overestimate the importance of its new terms.

Re: Instagram's official response

#163

Post by uptown » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 1:50 AM UTC

It's odd. The vast majority of Instagram users seem to leave their accounts open to the public - more so that most photo-sharing services I've used in the past. Instagram presumably has business relationships with all sorts of entities. And Instagram has APIs allowing users to access the data exposed by these public galleries. It seems the pieces are already in place for a 3rd party to enter into a business relationship with Instagram to pay for access to the data contained in their users photos. Why were the new terms even necessary?

Re: Instagram's official response

#164

Post by anaheim » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 1:51 AM UTC

jneen wrote: post #140

merlincorey wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is why I wish I had downvote privileges. This is a) off-topic, and b) extremely offensive. Please stop.

Please read and understand this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) before wildly claiming that things are offensive because you read a certain phrase.

Re: Instagram's official response

#165

Post by clarky07 » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 1:52 AM UTC

mirkules wrote: post #158

clarky07 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

They aren't running a charity, you're right about that. But I think they misrepresented their business by giving it away for free, knowing full-well that it won't be sustainable in the long run under that model. Their response? "Oh ok, no problem, we'll just switch the terms of use while nobody is looking."

You could characterize it that way, or you could assume that all of your users aren't complete fools and realize at some point they will have to make money to pay for the costs of running the service. They also know full-well that it isn't sustainable to run this service for free forever.

Re: Instagram's official response

#166

Post by pepr » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 1:54 AM UTC

nokcha wrote: post #115

23david wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This was a carefully worded response. Notice "commit to you that we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion. 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." They expected this. It's a classic move from the Facebook playbook. Push out a far-reac…

>I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a domain name ... without taking a licensing exam. Who would impose such a requirement of licensure? Certainly not the government --- that would be a prior restraint on freedom of speech/press and therefore unconstitutional.

Well, they would first impose it and then somebody sues them and it starts bouncing around various courts for the next 5 years. It would take some serious time until there would be a final ruling.

Re: Instagram's official response

#167

Post by ygmelnikova » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 2:06 AM UTC

These mistakes are so common among billion dollar corporations. Can they not anticipate these sort of reactions? Do they get 'Larry' down in legal to quickly write something up and then post it without another thought?

Re: Instagram's official response

#168

Post by DannyBee » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 2:09 AM UTC

dustingetz wrote: post #97

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…

> legal documents are written precisely to be as hard to misinterpret as possible legal documents reuse diction that has been ruled on and has court established precedent, which creates a bias towards diction which ended up in court in the first place. i read that in a HN comment somewhere, sorry, no citation.

Only partially. The real reality is legal documents reuse stuff that the partner liked.

Re: Instagram's official response

#169

Post by Deestan » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 2:19 AM UTC

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 think it's very simple: If they truly believed they would never stoop to those "downright villainous things", they would not need to allow for them in the TOS.

Putting the promise in the actual TOS is much more believable than putting it in a blog post.

Re: Instagram's official response

#170

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Dec 19, 2012, 2:20 AM UTC

marshray wrote: post #135

ChuckMcM wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A friend recently spoke to his lawyer about an employment agreement, and the advice he got (this is 3rd hand by now mind you) was basically "if the terms are otherwise favorable to you, don't worry about the parts that are clearly unenforceable".

Your friend needs a better lawyer.