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

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#71

Post by takluyver »

alpb wrote: post #55

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 t…

The current version of the TOS say, in part:

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones.

IANAL, but I don't think that includes a right to sell (sub-license) your content.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#72

Post by bad_user »

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.

I'm particularly impressed by their abstinence from clauses such as "your soul is ours for all eternity".

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#73

Post by tghw »

While he's very much on the right track here, his mention of celebrities muddles the point somewhat.

In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a celebrity or not.

This is why photographers who think their photos might be used commercially should get model releases from any identifiable persons in their photos. They should also give copies of those releases to any company that wants to use the photo commercially, so that company can defend themselves if the model tries to sue.

The Photo Attorney blog has a more detailed article about it: http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/05/when-you-definitely-nee...

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#74

Post by mistercow »

[Obligatory IANAL Warning yada yada]

The question of whether they can use someone's likeness is an interesting one, and the answer to that apparently varies from state to state. Instagram could probably get you to sign away the right to use your own likeness in their ads, but that wouldn't apply to people who don't use their service.

I'm not sure how jurisdictions of other states apply (any actual lawyers want to weigh in?) but Instagram is based in California where (if you can believe it), publicity rights are quite strong (even dead celebrities get protection there). There's a little gray area that Instagram could exploit there, but I think the example Wheaton described there would be a pretty easy meal for Rauch's lawyers. At the very least, Instagram's legal team would almost certainly say "fuck no" if the marketing department showed them an ad like that without getting permission to use her likeness.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#75

Post by ianstallings »

TillE wrote: post #45
ianstallings wrote: post #34

This is dubious at best. He doesn't use it, he's not a lawyer, and his grasp on what they are doing is plain wrong. I'm not saying that privacy concerns are moot. I'm saying Wil Wheaton is your typical self-proclaimed geek these days. He shoots from the hip at anything that might trounce his sense of entitlement.

Time to file "entitlement" alongside "hipster" as words that no longer mean anything.

Entitlement is using a free service and then complaining about the rules. Especially funny considering the rant was written on Google+, which has similar terms of use.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#76

Post by stevesearer »

div wrote: post #41
ianstallings wrote: post #34

This is dubious at best. He doesn't use it, he's not a lawyer, and his grasp on what they are doing is plain wrong. I'm not saying that privacy concerns are moot. I'm saying Wil Wheaton is your typical self-proclaimed geek these days. He shoots from the hip at anything that might trounce his sense of entitlement.

Would you mind elaborating on how his grasp on what they're doing is plain wrong ? Specifically, how is his example of a celebrity's silly picture being used by Instagram to advertise a silly product plain wrong ? I also fail to see how he comes across as entitled in his post. He's merely expressing a concern, one that, at face value, seems to be pretty valid.

I feel like most people complaining about the whole 'Instagram will use photos in advertisements' make it seem like the advertisements are going to be on television or newspapers, etc. Or that said advertisements will say "Celebrity X uses IG, you should too".

To me is seems like the ads are going to be more along the lines of promoted restaurants and/or venues using photos the people you follow have taken. IG basically knows where everyone goes based on people voluntarily tagging images, and can now serve ads based on that in the same way FB serves ads from pages you like.

An ad that says, 'Your friend recently went to X (with a photo they took at said venue)', is a pretty engaging advertisement in my mind.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#77

Post by wheaties »

tghw wrote: post #73

While he's very much on the right track here, his mention of celebrities muddles the point somewhat. In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a celebrity or not. This is why photographers who think their photos might be used commercially should get model releases from any identifiable persons in their photos. The…

So what you're saying is that unless it's a photograph of themselves or a shot sans people, they won't be able to use it?

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#78

Post by drcube »

OafTobark wrote: post #8

I'll be honest. If it wasn't for Big Bang Theory, I'd have no clue who this guy was. Even with reference to Star Trek, I can't remember his character. Not sure why I'd care about his opinion on a semi-tech related topic (I know, not about me and my own opinion).

I only knew him from Stand By Me. He stopped being "that minor character from Star Trek" long ago. He's "internet famous" due to his blog and tech advocacy, with a boost from the occasional appearance on Big Bang Theory.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#79

Post by mistercow »

tghw wrote: post #73

While he's very much on the right track here, his mention of celebrities muddles the point somewhat. In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a celebrity or not. This is why photographers who think their photos might be used commercially should get model releases from any identifiable persons in their photos. The…

>In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a celebrity or not.

It's not all states, and it's not entirely clear cut in many states (it depends on how the likeness is used), and their TOS does give permission to use your likeness (which means that if the person in the photo is also an Instagram user, they have a tougher case).

But Instagram would certainly be playing with fire if they tried that with a celebrity, and I don't think they would. It's your ordinary folks who can't afford to lawyer up against a huge corporation that are more likely to be affected by this.

Re: Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy

#80

Post by stevesearer »

supercanuck wrote: post #14
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…

My question is do the Terms of Service allow for the situation Wil Wheaton is explaining? People all over the technology industry fall over themselves trying to predict what these companies are going to do. A lot of them fail. Changing the ToS is a big deal because its tangible and meaningful. Intent is hard to define and I don't think folks should get the habit of assuming a companies intentions.

I agree, as I mentioned in an above comment, I feel like the ads will be something like FB's promoted posts that show highlighted ads of things your friends like.

To me, this sort of ad in the IG stream using photos my friends took at restaurants/venues, saying that 'my friend recently went to X place' seems like a pretty engaging ad that I'd like to see. I already look at my friends' photos, so having one show up again promoting a restaurant I might like to go to wouldn't a big deal to me.

But as you mentioned, I just don't know what the TOS actually allows for, so I'm only speculating.

Post reply on HN