The proof is in the pudding. Let's see the new TOS.
Instagram's official response
171–180 of 258 posts
Re: Instagram's official response
#172Earlier 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".
[deleted]
Re: Instagram's official response
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It really depends on the jurisdiction. If very similar clauses have already been tested and thrown out in the appropriate court, then sure, you don't need to worry about them.
If a lawyer is advising you that something is unenforceable, they're probably right.
Re: Instagram's official response
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
> Here's another take that disagrees with their blog post -- and this one is from an actual practicing intellectual property attorney FWIW, the author of the Verge post I linked, managing editor Nilay Patel, also holds a law degree, and previously worked as a copyright attorney.
And he is now making more money by not practicing law and as of today, shilling for Instagram. What's your point?
Re: Instagram's official response
#175Too late. I already deleted my account.
Same here. I'm also working on deleting my FB account. That one is a lot harder to do because so many of the small businesses and artists that I follow have abandoned maintaining their own blog/website in favor of just using FB.
what a big mistake!
What if FB is suddenly turned off?
they do not even have their own url.
Well, not everybody thinks about worst case scenarios.
Re: Instagram's official response
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I was thinking the same, but really the advice hinges on two things, the first is the term 'unenforceable' and the second is the cost of litigation. In my case I went back and forth with my lawyer on whether or not their wording was enforceable in California and his advice was that given that California is a right to work state, and they explicitly remind you they can fire you for any reason, and disagreeing about ownership isn't protected by the right to work law (like discrimination is), if you're suing them you're not working for them (they will fire you), and if you really think there is a chance that something you might work on in your spare time could be "valuable" than the best thing to do would be to quit. Very unambiguous that.
I found it hard to argue with his logic.
Re: Instagram's official response
#177Earlier 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.
Its neither off-topic nor offensive, and because you don't have downvote privileges you had to comment instead - that's good because now I can respond and hopefully clarify.
It isn't off-topic because it is a direct response to it's parent who was trying to make a point by example that refers to this use of rhetoric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
It isn't offensive because it is simply using the loaded question to provide a loaded answer that uses the exact same rhetorical trick to turn the tables. To try to show by example that the point being made is little more than a trick.
It is the nature of a loaded question with an obvious appeal to emotion that makes responses to it seem offensive.
Re: Instagram's official response
#178There'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." Actually it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes you want to be precise and sometimes you want to be ambiguous depending on what you are trying to achieve. Semi legal example: Let's say you are offering people email accounts with a web hosting service. You can be precise and say "you can have up to a million…
"Take no more than 10 ketchup packs" would be a very unusual legal document. I'm not sure that's the most informative analogy.
Re: Instagram's official response
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here's another take that disagrees with their blog post -- and this one is from an actual practicing intellectual property attorney FWIW, the author of the Verge post I linked, managing editor Nilay Patel, also holds a law degree, and previously worked as a copyright attorney.
And he is now making more money by not practicing law and as of today, shilling for Instagram. What's your point?
> And he is now making more money by not practicing law and as of today, shilling for Instagram.
As I explained to someone else in another comment[0], I suggest you not embarrass yourself any further by making baseless accusations about journalists who take impartiality very seriously.
> What's your point?
That the OP's link's author's professional qualifications are also possessed by the author of the post I linked, making that a moot factor.
Re: Instagram's official response
#180I 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…
What they should do (IMNSHO) is say "Yup, we're doing what we said we're doing, but - 1) We will never charge you to use the service and 2) If we do sell your photo you will get a 30% cut." Seems to me that would change this from a fail to a WIN in record time...