201–210 of 258 posts
"Legal documents are easy to misinterpret." => Isn't their goal the opposite ?
It is not complicated legalese; on the contrary it is admirably terse and lucid English. The reason that "it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation" is because that is EXACTLY what it says they will do.
Unambiguous. Not confusing. What's confusing is that Kevin Systrom now claims it does not say what it very clearly and unambiguously says.
To restate this another way: Instead of trying to imagine everything Instagram might be permitted to do under the TOS, imagine what you as a user do not want them to do, and then ask for explicit restrictions on those uses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What it really gets to is that there really aren't very good/affordable resources for artists and venues to reach a large audience.
Hiring a local "designer" is often really expensive and you end up with a crappy website that is hard to maintain.
Even using something as "simple" as WordPress can be way too technical for a lot of people.
FB has the benefit of giving them a platform that enables them to quickly connect with their audience.
I see it as a failure of the rest of the internet ecosystem.
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.
"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."
I think they deserve a little patience and a chance to follow through with their promise. When they do, we can see how villainous the terms still are. And if they don't keep their promise, we can call them on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
From the link: "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." I think they deserve a little patience and a chance to follow through with their promise. When they do, we can see how villainous the terms still are. And if they don't keep…
I don't think Instagram/Systrom had any intention to sell user photos or do anything as drastic as the blogosphere made its TOS changes sound. It did the right thing responding so quickly to user feedback. Hopefully it'll result in a TOS that lets Instagram monetize without infringing on the privacy of its users.
I think instagram/facebook should be able to monetize, but I think today marks a gigantic mistake in their history, they went down in myspace fashion. Users dropping like flies, the amount of traffic on services like instaport.me and http://freethephotos.com/ is phenemonal.
In other news, flickr came back from the grave.
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.