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

181–190 of 258 posts

Re: Instagram's official response

#181

Post by davewiner »

potatolicious wrote: post #15
davewiner wrote: post #5

They want to use your pictures to sell products to your friends. Say you take a picture of your friends at Domino's Pizza. They can show that picture to your friends and say "Look this guy who you know loves our pizza. Come try it out." Now you may not mind making an endorsement. But with this plan they don't have to ask you for permission. They can just do it. And if you turn out to be a hit they can use it to sell…

> "They can show that picture to your friends and say "Look this guy who you know loves our pizza. Come try it out."" They actually can't. There's a world of difference between using a photo to depict an event, and using a photo to endorse. "Domino's is featuring $5 large pizzas, here's your friend Bob at Domino's last week!" is legal. "Look at Bob who loves our pizza, come try it out!" is not, unless Bob has signed…

Yeah they could put your picture on the Domino's box, saying "Internet users eat here!" and all your friends think "What a dork." Pretty embarrassing and they didn't have to say one word about who you are or what you actually said. They can use the picture because you said they could. And I am not a lawyer, and bet that you aren't either. :-)

Re: Instagram's official response

#183

Post by onedev »

Deestan wrote: post #169
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.

If only the law worked that way.

Next time read the ToS of every service you use, and feel free to get angry at every single one of them.

Re: Instagram's official response

#184

Post by onedev »

daeken wrote: post #154
cube13 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone's directly using my content and getting paid for it, I want a cut. It's really that simple.

If they're using your content to make money, you're being paid for it: you're getting access to the service.

Exactly.

I can't believe that people just expect everything to come to them for free.

Re: Instagram's official response

#187

Post by lifeguard »

frabcus wrote: post #161
lifeguard wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

Exactly. The PM failed to characterize it properly to the lawyer.

Re: Instagram's official response

#188

Post by forensic »

ianstallings wrote: post #83

What blows my mind about this whole mess is how quickly this community has gone off on some witch hunt. Just read the comments. This is apparently what you have to look forward to if your startup is successful and you eventually try to monetize. Good luck everyone.

Boo hoo, the multi-millionaires are getting insulted when they try to fuck their users!

Won't someone please think of the feelings of the millionaires!

I'm pretty sure they can wipe away their tears with $100 bills and their feelings won't suffer permanent damage. Since their feelings are so much more important than all of the people they are trying to fuck over.

Re: Instagram's official response

#190

Post by forensic »

ygmelnikova wrote: post #167

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?

If it slips by unnoticed, they are looking at hundreds of millions, possibly billions of dollars.

So the upside is VERY VERY big. Well worth the risk.

Post reply on HN