Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 140 posts

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#51

Post by mcguire »

arscan wrote: post #13
pretoriusB wrote: post #5

> So Instagram is now going to use photos taken by its users in advertising, and they may or may not disclose to viewers when the advertising is happening. No, they are NOT going to do that. It's 2012. Why are people --and especially someone like Wheaton-- behaving like it's 1994 and they are learning this "web" thing for the first time? I've seen the same bloody story play up 10 or 20 times. They made a BS change on…

> most likely they screwed up the phrasing but meant something extremely more limited I'm a pretty firm believer in Hanlon's razor ("never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"), except when it comes to lawyers. They tend to put a lot of thought into what they write, and understand the ramifications of their words.

Particularly the words "transferable" and "sub-licensable".

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#53

Post by BitMastro »

zaidf wrote: post #40

Meanwhile just to read this post, I must accept some google+ TOS and create my nth g+ account: Mobile terms of service By tapping 'Accept', you agree that Google will use your location in this product and accept the Mobile Terms of Service.

No you don't.

You need to join g+ only to reply to the post, but didn't I need to join HN to reply to your post?

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#54

Post by joonix »

jws wrote: post #15

The celebrity angle is interesting here. I eventually killed a little product because it was too hard to legally acquire face shots of celebrities and it just didn't have enough zing without pictures by names. If enough celebrities used Instagram, and Instagram could figure out their accounts, they could open autopaparazzi.com.

What? There are plenty of photo services that will license you photos of celebrities. Getty Images for one. We're not talking about publicity shy people here.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#55

Post by alpb »

Google+ is no different:

11.2 you agree that this license includes a right for google to make such content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 you understand that google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your content as are necessary to conform and adapt that content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. you agree that this license shall permit google to take these actions.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#56

Post by wpietri »

pretoriusB wrote: post #5

> So Instagram is now going to use photos taken by its users in advertising, and they may or may not disclose to viewers when the advertising is happening. No, they are NOT going to do that. It's 2012. Why are people --and especially someone like Wheaton-- behaving like it's 1994 and they are learning this "web" thing for the first time? I've seen the same bloody story play up 10 or 20 times. They made a BS change on…

Why are you so sure they aren't going to do it? Facebook used and continues to use people's names and pictures in ads. I agree it's unlikely they'll do it Getty-style, but that's not the only way to make money off your picture.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#58

Post by pavel_lishin »

polshaw wrote: post #49
jws wrote: post #15

The celebrity angle is interesting here. I eventually killed a little product because it was too hard to legally acquire face shots of celebrities and it just didn't have enough zing without pictures by names. If enough celebrities used Instagram, and Instagram could figure out their accounts, they could open autopaparazzi.com.

Wikipedia? And surely you could just buy shots of them?

Maybe there were too many to reasonably buy for a small product, or maybe the names were generated 'on the fly'?

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#59

Post by pavel_lishin »

zaidf wrote: post #40

Meanwhile just to read this post, I must accept some google+ TOS and create my nth g+ account: Mobile terms of service By tapping 'Accept', you agree that Google will use your location in this product and accept the Mobile Terms of Service.

I didn't get a prompt on desktop or mobile.
Post reply on HN