4 ms·

This is not new. It seems that their new TOS explicitly lays out that your photos may be used in advertising, possibly due to a new law somewhere requiring spec

This is not new. It seems that their new TOS explicitly lays out that your photos may be used in advertising, possibly due to a new law somewhere requiring specific notification and release, but my understanding is that you'd already given them this right based on this clause: By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services. Yes, that's in the old TOS, and it's pretty much boilerplate for any site with user-generated content. That language certainly seems to me like it would cover uses in advertising or even Instagram reselling your images as a "stock photo" site. This kind of clause is required so that users can't attempt to entrap the service provider by uploading content and then claiming that Instagram didn't have a license to utilize it and therefore had violated copyright, and also probably as a fallback policy in case a cranky user spotted their image in a stream or feed or video or something (or, alternately, that the server is hacked and db is leaked, and thousands of claims of "unauthorized use" come flooding in). IANAL but pretty much this is a non-story. They've simply decided to specifically inform you that a license to " non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels" includes use in advertisement, as one would reasonably believe it does.

aptwebapps 14y ago
I don't think you are correct. The old TOS did not allow them to resell your pics. Also note they are saying your private pics will now be fair game as well. You are correct that the old TOS seems pretty standard, but these changes are not trivial.
- nwh 14y ago
  This is exactly why TOS should show a diff or revision history. Failing that, there really ought to be an external website documenting changes.
  - johncoogan 14y ago
    I believe TOS-DR is working on it... http://tos-dr.info/ http://tos-dr.info/ Seems like it hasn't been updated in a while though...
  - neilk 14y ago
    tosback.com from the EFF used to do this, but it was taken offline a few days ago. I think someone took a look at it after the Facebook user agreement thing and either wanted to upgrade it or noticed some problems.
  - Aardwolf 14y ago
    Find the old text somewhere. Get the new text. Copypaste both in a text file. Then use diff or meld or another difftool of your choice to compare the two text files.
    - panacea 14y ago
      Presumably they meant, when you're 'asked to agree' to new T&C's the diff changes in the new policy are highlighted. When presented with a new T&C's policy, shouldn't you explicitly be asked to agree to any changes from the previous one you agreed to rather than be presented with the entire 14 pages which approximately 0.00001% of people will ever read before agreeing to? (And please don't say you read every EULA you encounter in full)
      - roc 14y ago
        Then they'll just shuffle wording to ensure the changes are however-many-pages they need to be so that no-one reads those either. In general: people who don't take the time to read or consider their Terms of Service are not going to take the time to read or consider the changes.
declan 14y ago
Agreed with aptwebapps. The old TOU, as you correctly say, is pretty standard. Twitter's is similar, and any company with decent lawyers is going to protect themselves with similar wording. The new TOU, however, heads in a different direction. The phrase "limited license" is gone. It's been replaced with the phrase "transferable, sub-licensable" license. Also new is "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." Transferable is a very important word. So is sub-licensable. Those were NOT in the old terms of use.
- 001sky 14y ago
  The phrase "limited license" is gone. It's been replaced with the phrase "transferable, sub-licensable" license. -- Material Adverse Change. For the consumer.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  It really doesn't seem like a material change to me. Again, IANAL, so if there is some reason to believe these things would be disallowed under the old TOS, I'd like to know, but it sounds fairly straightforward. While Instagram may have had a more difficult case under the old TOS, and may have had to be more careful about the dispensation rather than just doing a blatant "stock photo"-type interface, I could definitely see an attempt at the argument that representation in "any media formats through any media channels" covers Instagram in most cases of what would be considered "transferred sub-licensing". The clarifications, of course, are intended to clarify the consent they're taking. I'd be interested to know their motives for this; as I speculated in the parent, does a new law take effect in an important market with regard to advertising? Are they just trying to play it safe? Are they going to make aggressive moves into this kind of space (reselling user photos, using users' profiles without consent in advertisements) and wanted to ensure that they didn't have to deal with any lawsuits upon launch? I will agree that the new TOS allows them to use your profile and likeness as they see fit, which based on my simple layman's reading, isn't included in the old TOS. Just thinking out loud here, move along.
  - brigade 14y ago
djt 14y ago
Its about how it occurs to the general public. HMers know that if they want to they can use your images, but I have seen people on my Facebook and Twitter saying this is too far and theyre not posting to Instagram anymore.
sgh_1 14y ago
I agree... that is how you create news where it does not deserve one... I don't think Instagram would like paying billions of dollar in privacy suits for a 10$ photo. this is just an anguished news writer probably snubbed by Facebook...
rjsamson 14y ago
That old TOS is pretty standard language required for any online service to show photos that you upload. Flickr, Google, etc are all pretty similar. A few times a year a bunch of FUD springs up among more old-school photographers who become terrified that such language means that Flickr (or Google) wants to steal and own all of their images. These new TOS however - absolutely appalling. In the past year we've seen professionals flock to instagram to help promote their craft - with the new language I'd imagine you'll see a mass exodus from those folks pretty quickly.
- fleitz 14y ago
  Perhaps those professionals should contact Instagram about the valuable service they provide and how much they can pay for this service that promotes their business. I'm shocked, shocked to find out that Instagram plans to monetize their service via advertising.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Advertising and the uncompensated appropriation of intellectual property are two different concepts. This is neatly disguised theft, hidden in legalese. Get over the Casablanca quotes. Here's the relevant citation: Zuck: People Just Submitted it... Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb Fucks See a pattern here?
  - rjsamson 14y ago
    Google Plus monetizes via advertising. Google Plus is also extremely photographer friendly and has cultivated a large thriving community of professional photographers. The Instagram terms are just ghastly.

aptwebapps 14y ago

I don't think you are correct. The old TOS did not allow them to resell your pics. Also note they are saying your private pics will now be fair game as well. You are correct that the old TOS seems pretty standard, but these changes are not trivial.

nwh 14y ago
This is exactly why TOS should show a diff or revision history. Failing that, there really ought to be an external website documenting changes.
- johncoogan 14y ago
  I believe TOS-DR is working on it... http://tos-dr.info/ http://tos-dr.info/ Seems like it hasn't been updated in a while though...
- neilk 14y ago
  tosback.com from the EFF used to do this, but it was taken offline a few days ago. I think someone took a look at it after the Facebook user agreement thing and either wanted to upgrade it or noticed some problems.
- Aardwolf 14y ago
  Find the old text somewhere. Get the new text. Copypaste both in a text file. Then use diff or meld or another difftool of your choice to compare the two text files.
  - panacea 14y ago
    Presumably they meant, when you're 'asked to agree' to new T&C's the diff changes in the new policy are highlighted. When presented with a new T&C's policy, shouldn't you explicitly be asked to agree to any changes from the previous one you agreed to rather than be presented with the entire 14 pages which approximately 0.00001% of people will ever read before agreeing to? (And please don't say you read every EULA you encounter in full)
    - roc 14y ago
      Then they'll just shuffle wording to ensure the changes are however-many-pages they need to be so that no-one reads those either. In general: people who don't take the time to read or consider their Terms of Service are not going to take the time to read or consider the changes.

declan 14y ago

Agreed with aptwebapps. The old TOU, as you correctly say, is pretty standard. Twitter's is similar, and any company with decent lawyers is going to protect themselves with similar wording. The new TOU, however, heads in a different direction. The phrase "limited license" is gone. It's been replaced with the phrase "transferable, sub-licensable" license. Also new is "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." Transferable is a very important word. So is sub-licensable. Those were NOT in the old terms of use.

001sky 14y ago
The phrase "limited license" is gone. It's been replaced with the phrase "transferable, sub-licensable" license. -- Material Adverse Change. For the consumer.
cookiecaper 14y ago
It really doesn't seem like a material change to me. Again, IANAL, so if there is some reason to believe these things would be disallowed under the old TOS, I'd like to know, but it sounds fairly straightforward. While Instagram may have had a more difficult case under the old TOS, and may have had to be more careful about the dispensation rather than just doing a blatant "stock photo"-type interface, I could definitely see an attempt at the argument that representation in "any media formats through any media channels" covers Instagram in most cases of what would be considered "transferred sub-licensing". The clarifications, of course, are intended to clarify the consent they're taking. I'd be interested to know their motives for this; as I speculated in the parent, does a new law take effect in an important market with regard to advertising? Are they just trying to play it safe? Are they going to make aggressive moves into this kind of space (reselling user photos, using users' profiles without consent in advertisements) and wanted to ensure that they didn't have to deal with any lawsuits upon launch? I will agree that the new TOS allows them to use your profile and likeness as they see fit, which based on my simple layman's reading, isn't included in the old TOS. Just thinking out loud here, move along.
- brigade 14y ago

djt 14y ago

Its about how it occurs to the general public. HMers know that if they want to they can use your images, but I have seen people on my Facebook and Twitter saying this is too far and theyre not posting to Instagram anymore.

sgh_1 14y ago

I agree... that is how you create news where it does not deserve one... I don't think Instagram would like paying billions of dollar in privacy suits for a 10$ photo. this is just an anguished news writer probably snubbed by Facebook...

rjsamson 14y ago

That old TOS is pretty standard language required for any online service to show photos that you upload. Flickr, Google, etc are all pretty similar. A few times a year a bunch of FUD springs up among more old-school photographers who become terrified that such language means that Flickr (or Google) wants to steal and own all of their images. These new TOS however - absolutely appalling. In the past year we've seen professionals flock to instagram to help promote their craft - with the new language I'd imagine you'll see a mass exodus from those folks pretty quickly.

fleitz 14y ago
Perhaps those professionals should contact Instagram about the valuable service they provide and how much they can pay for this service that promotes their business. I'm shocked, shocked to find out that Instagram plans to monetize their service via advertising.
- 001sky 14y ago
  Advertising and the uncompensated appropriation of intellectual property are two different concepts. This is neatly disguised theft, hidden in legalese. Get over the Casablanca quotes. Here's the relevant citation: Zuck: People Just Submitted it... Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb Fucks See a pattern here?
- rjsamson 14y ago
  Google Plus monetizes via advertising. Google Plus is also extremely photographer friendly and has cultivated a large thriving community of professional photographers. The Instagram terms are just ghastly.