2 ms·

So the claim that Instagram is establishing the right to sell your photos is supported in the article with this language: It says that "a business or other ent

So the claim that Instagram is establishing the right to sell your photos is supported in the article with this language: It says that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you." I read this as intended to say "when we display your photos (as part of our own service), we may serve up ads to be displayed next to them and not give you a cut of the proceeds". I don't mean to argue that the language can't be interpreted to let FB sell the pictures but it doesn't look to me as intended for that purpose. In any case, the usual scenario of virtualized user outrage will be followed by backpedaling by Instagram. 2% of the user base will vow to never use the servie again, and then all will go on as before.

drucken 14y ago
You glibly ignore the previous paragraph that references the section which establishes the rights for Instagram/Facebook to do whatever it likes with the Content. And since when is "intent" ever part of US law (especially with regards to IP)...
- thinkling 14y ago
  You seem to argue (by the use of "glibly") that the presence of the transferability clause leaves no other interpretation possible than that that transfer will be for use of user content by third part in return for payment. However, the clause may also be there to allow use of content on other services owned by Instagram's parent. I was quite explicit that I was giving my read of the intent, not my assessment of what Instagram could legally get away with. The transferability clause does not change my reading of the intent.
thinkling 14y ago
Bingo! In Tuesday's blog post, Mr. Systrom sought to quell the mounting unrest and reassure users that the company would not be peddling photographs of children playing on the beach or friends partying in nightclubs to the highest bidder. "To be clear, it is not our intention to sell your photos," he said. http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/facebook-responds-to-anger-over-proposed-instagram-changes-307266 http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/facebook-responds-to-anger...

drucken 14y ago

You glibly ignore the previous paragraph that references the section which establishes the rights for Instagram/Facebook to do whatever it likes with the Content. And since when is "intent" ever part of US law (especially with regards to IP)...

thinkling 14y ago
You seem to argue (by the use of "glibly") that the presence of the transferability clause leaves no other interpretation possible than that that transfer will be for use of user content by third part in return for payment. However, the clause may also be there to allow use of content on other services owned by Instagram's parent. I was quite explicit that I was giving my read of the intent, not my assessment of what Instagram could legally get away with. The transferability clause does not change my reading of the intent.

thinkling 14y ago

Bingo! In Tuesday's blog post, Mr. Systrom sought to quell the mounting unrest and reassure users that the company would not be peddling photographs of children playing on the beach or friends partying in nightclubs to the highest bidder. "To be clear, it is not our intention to sell your photos," he said. http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/facebook-responds-to-anger-over-proposed-instagram-changes-307266 http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/facebook-responds-to-anger...