tl;rd: We're not selling your pictures, just using them for our own ads.
Instagram's official response
211–220 of 258 posts
Re: Instagram's official response
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They know and they don't care. It's not a customer's prerogative to worry about how a company makes money. As much as people like Instagram, if it disappeared or went under, people would move on and forget about it. I would say that the onus is on the company to find a way to monetize that does not insult, mislead, or deride their users.
Re: Instagram's official response
#213Earlier 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.
If he was such a great lawyer, why is he now in publishing? I would take the word of a practicing lawyer over one who has left the field.
He isn't just "in publishing", he frequently writes about legal topics for the Verge. For example, he covered the Google v. Oracle and Apple v. Samsung trials in great detail. However, if you're curious as to why he made the career choices he did, you can always ask him directly: https://twitter.com/reckless
I have no reason at this point to doubt his judgment, as he is clearly quite a capable individual, as he has managed to become the managing editor of one of the top tech news sites in an industry bursting with competition and upstarts.
Re: Instagram's official response
#214I 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…
How about one where the tone was "We over stepped" instead of "You read it wrong".
It's like 343 industries telling users that they didn't receive emails because they had invalid email addresses on their Xbox accounts (which is impossible)...
Re: Instagram's official response
#215I 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…
"To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos."
Weasel words. What's so hard about saying "we wont sell your photos, promise, fingers crossed", unless they actually do want to keep that option open.
I imagine a rock solid guarantee that users photos wont be used without their consent would go a very long way in appeasing people.
"If your internal heuristics say..."
No, when the company TOS say they will appropriate my property for their financial benefit, it is reasonable to assume that they may in fact act accordingly.
The right words can and do go a long way in rectifying mistakes. Weasel words that create even more uncertainty and appear to be hiding an agenda tend to infuriate people.
Re: Instagram's official response
#216Earlier 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.
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.
You mean how the ToS of Flickr, Picasa, etc don't include such terms?
Re: Instagram's official response
#217tumblr seems to be doing quite well just letting users promote their posts. instagram could be moving that direction, not just for businesses. i guess they have facebook doing it from the business side, though, so it is natural for them
Re: Instagram's official response
#218I 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…
"To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos." Weasel words. What's so hard about saying "we wont sell your photos, promise, fingers crossed", unless they actually do want to keep that option open. I imagine a rock solid guarantee that users photos wont be used without their consent would go a very long way in appeasing people. "If your internal heuristics say..." No, when the company TOS say they will a…
I respectfully disagree.
I've been involved in writing Terms of Service for a few big web sites. The back and forth with the lawyers is of course frustrating. And at the end of the day, you have something that comes off overly broad just to "cover everyones asses" from some future theoretical lawsuit.
So even though the TOS allows it, it was not their intention to actually do it. They're going to go back and revise the wording to be what they actually do intend.
Great apology.
I am always on the lookout for weasel words too, don't get me wrong. The "I am sorry that anyone was offended" apology always rubs me the wrong way, cause the person saying that is not sorry for saying it and doesn't regret saying it, but just sorry for offending. But this apology comes off to me as genuine.
Re: Instagram's official response
#219Take it with a grain of salt. They tried to sneak this by and it blew up in their faces. While under oath, Kevin Systrom: “No, we never received any offers,” Reality, Instagram had an offer from Twitter and Kevin Systrom had direct knowledge. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/disruptions-instagr... That said, at least it looks like they're going to tweak the TOS change in favor of their users. But with Faceboo…
Oh for crying out loud, they did not try to "sneak this by". Stop trying to cast a simple snafu regarding a ToS as some evil conspiracy. Remember that the people running this company are you peers . It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today. They're your friends, or just like your friends. Knock it off.
In the blog post announcing the changes (http://blog.instagram.com/post/38143346554/privacy-and-terms...), they called out a "few key updates." The changes to the TOS were described as, "Our updated terms of service help protect you, and prevent spam and abuse as we grow."
Our "friends" over there sure didn't go out of their way to call out an important change in the TOS. If it wasn't an attempt to sneak this by, it's indistinguishable from one.
Re: Instagram's official response
#220I still don't get why instagram is evil and facebook is fine.
Is it because instagram is more disposable/replaceable to people?