6 ms·

Can somebody explain to me what the big deal is about Instagram and these new terms of service? I can't fathom that anything but 1% of 1% of photos taken there

Can somebody explain to me what the big deal is about Instagram and these new terms of service? I can't fathom that anything but 1% of 1% of photos taken there are good enough to be used commercially, and if folks are so afraid that their pictures of Starbucks lattes will be used in some kind of marketing campaign (in which case they should actually be flattered), what exactly is stopping users from removing location information from the pictures they want to keep private? For me, if the local coffee shop here wants to dig up some pictures I took of their business to help them get more customers, why not let them? I'm not Richard Avedon, and I never, ever, expected to profit from my Instagram photography. I'm more than happy to support small businesses and Instagram. Have a ball, guys. It's all public anyway.

cryptoz 14y ago
Human-produced carbon output is only like 1% of 1% of the atmosphere. No big deal right? Murderers are only like 1% of 1% of people. No big deal right? ...
- sharkweek 14y ago
  I think Instagram missed a GREAT PR opportunity here -- Imagine if they came out and made this an "opt-in" option for people interested in having their photos featured. Even with the odds being low, I'd happily participate, as I think it would be ridiculously cool to see my photos featured. I'd imagine they'd easily get enough participation to get them the content they need to experiment with this.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
ak217 14y ago
Flickr and Google (among others) don't claim the kind of license that Instagram demands in the new ToS. So this is only a big deal in that there are some alternatives that don't suck and are really easy to switch to. If they want to put content users in touch with content providers, they can do what Flickr did: make a way for them to do so. There are a ton of ways to monetize that, too, without dialing it up all the way to "we own your content". I bet most users would love a request system that lets businesses use their photos free of charge with attribution if they click "yes".
- peterhunt 14y ago
  You sure you actually read the ToS? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939159 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939159
  - untog 14y ago
    Of course not. No-one did. Nothing like a good ole' pitchfork mob.
  - ak217 14y ago
    The terms are deliberately vague, and allow broader interpretation than the Verge article theorizes.
- radicaldreamer 14y ago
  What? Instagram's current TOS includes the following: "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." So the "new" ToS is not as far from the old one as you would think.
yesbabyyes 14y ago
Can somebody explain to me what the big deal is about Instagram and these new terms of service? I can't fathom that anything but 1% of 1% of photos taken there are good enough to be used commercially [...] Let's look at your claim that around "1% of 1%", or one in ten thousand, of Instagram photos are of commercial quality. With 5 million+ photos uploaded per day [1], that's 500 photos a day. It seems to me that the new ToS made some people want to leave the service, because that's not what they signed up for. You obviously made another choice. [1] http://allthingsd.com/20120403/instagram-by-the-numbers-1-billion-photos-uploaded/ http://allthingsd.com/20120403/instagram-by-the-numbers-1-bi...
dfxm12 14y ago
The big deal is that someone is profiting from my work without my consent and it isn't me. It's that we (the people) get slammed by DMCA violations for taking someone else's content (for private consumption). When a huge corporation takes ours (and gets paid for it), what recourse do we have? It's that these corporations can change the rules on us in the middle of the game. It's the classic bait and switch. It's that we're not even getting asked or given credit. The Instagram developer page (http://instagram.com/developer http://instagram.com/developer) says users own their images. They expect third party developers to respect that. Why won't they? Who fights for the user?
- blake8086 14y ago
  Didn't they profit from your work before this?
  - moheeb 14y ago
    Seems like most of them are not smart enough to realize this.
- bjornsteffanson 14y ago
  Technically we _are_ giving our consent by using the service. In fact, we already agreed to the current terms, which state "We reserve the right to alter these Terms of Use at any time." It's not even a classic bait-and-switch. It's clearly stated in the contract we all signed up for. I agree that it's sort of uncool on Instagram's part, but as fellow app developers, shouldn't we also be siding with Instagram for their right to protect the interest of their product? I hate to be the guy that points this out, but it's an important distinction.
  - koenigdavidmj 14y ago
    There are many things that they would not be able to add to a contract. Requiring you to commit an illegal act, for instance. Or beginning to charge for their service, without giving you the ability to cancel your account. Instagram's change is in one of the grey areas that makes contract law interesting. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, yada yada)
001sky 14y ago
Its like the radio saying "we'll play your song, but we get the copyright and get to sell the CD/iTunes etc". Oh, and we're not gonna pay you ever. Sound good?
slykat 14y ago
The main issue is that basically it removes the concept of private photos. The new TOS allows Instagram to use your photos any way they want and removes any responsibility of keeping private pictures private. Those pictures of you doing a keg stand at a Toga party which you shared only with your closest friends? Well now they are in a nationwide PSA about binge drinking. Those pictures of you with your ex girlfriend on a beach vacation? Those are now in Carnival ad about whisking your loved ones on a cruise. Your wife is pissed and even deleting the photo off Instagram doesn't do anything about it. If you are ok with all your photos becoming public, then sure this isn't a big deal. I think many people aren't.
- spangborn 14y ago
  Eh, not quite. Private accounts can't have their photos used outside of Instagram. >"except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services. That doesn't mean they won't be used inside Instagram as ads, however.
  - slykat 14y ago
    There's little difference to me between public on the internet and public on Instagram. They both ignore my photo's original privacy controls (to share with a specific set of users). Regardless, it looks like Instagram's response has said they will be respecting privacy controls (http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-wer...) although I'm not convinced until this is made clear in the TOS.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  it removes the concept of private photos Maybe I'm just old and cynical, but after seeing how most online services work, I just refuse to upload/share any photograph that I wouldn't be happy seeing splashed on the front page of the newspaper.
  - aes256 14y ago
    I apply the same test to pretty much everything I do online these days, and as a result, I maintain a dignified silence through most social media channels. I whitewalled my Facebook a long time ago, don't 'like' any pages, and provide minimal personal information only to friends. I don't use Twitter because I figure, even if I had an account purely to follow people, the individuals/organizations I follow could come back to haunt me. The same applies to YouTube, Pinterest, Tumblr, Foursquare, etc.
stevesearer 14y ago
I agree. Instagram is simply going to use interesting photos of places and items to help market those places. Someone you follow tagged a photo of a latte at a new coffee shop in town? Well, now that photo might show up as a sponsored post in the same way Facebook likes generate sponsored posts. I generally like seeing the photos of the people I am subscribed to, so seeing them attached to a location or product ad doesn't bother me in the slightest.
- pseut 14y ago
  You might feel differently if you were a professional photographer or a celebrity (even a minor local one). I don't use instagram, and I'm not sure if the change would cause me to leave if I did use instagram. But I'm not going to start using it, because I expect that anyone who values their pictures is going to leave, so it will suck.
  - stevesearer 14y ago
    Most of the people I follow on instagram are family and friends. They take pictures of their families doing stuff I'm interested in knowing about like going out to eat, gathering for holidays, hiking, or whatever. They use IG as an easier and more visually pleasing way to keep in touch and share moments of their lives. So while there are a number of people that use the free service to promote their professional work or celebrity selves, it seems like the vast majority of IG users are in the same boat as me and just don't care about the TOS change.
    - baar 14y ago
      "Most of the people I follow on instagram are family and friends. " Look up "confirmation bias", "selection bias" and a few other biases. You're welcome.
      - stevesearer 14y ago
        I think the fact that I was giving a personal opinion made it pretty clear that I was sharing a biased point of view. My point is that I personally disagree with pseut's point of view that "once professional photographers and celebs leave instagram, the service will be worthless". Do you believe that to be the case?
lotso 14y ago
Here's an example of a company building a business model off of people sharing photos on Instagram and Twitter. http://www.pixlee.com/warriors/albums/527?embed=true http://www.pixlee.com/warriors/albums/527?embed=true I probably wouldn't care if my photos showed up in a public manner, but I could understand why some people might.
baar 14y ago
Q: Are you really this stupid?

cryptoz 14y ago

Human-produced carbon output is only like 1% of 1% of the atmosphere. No big deal right? Murderers are only like 1% of 1% of people. No big deal right? ...

sharkweek 14y ago
I think Instagram missed a GREAT PR opportunity here -- Imagine if they came out and made this an "opt-in" option for people interested in having their photos featured. Even with the odds being low, I'd happily participate, as I think it would be ridiculously cool to see my photos featured. I'd imagine they'd easily get enough participation to get them the content they need to experiment with this.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

ak217 14y ago

Flickr and Google (among others) don't claim the kind of license that Instagram demands in the new ToS. So this is only a big deal in that there are some alternatives that don't suck and are really easy to switch to. If they want to put content users in touch with content providers, they can do what Flickr did: make a way for them to do so. There are a ton of ways to monetize that, too, without dialing it up all the way to "we own your content". I bet most users would love a request system that lets businesses use their photos free of charge with attribution if they click "yes".

peterhunt 14y ago
You sure you actually read the ToS? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939159 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939159
- untog 14y ago
  Of course not. No-one did. Nothing like a good ole' pitchfork mob.
- ak217 14y ago
  The terms are deliberately vague, and allow broader interpretation than the Verge article theorizes.
radicaldreamer 14y ago
What? Instagram's current TOS includes the following: "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." So the "new" ToS is not as far from the old one as you would think.

yesbabyyes 14y ago

Can somebody explain to me what the big deal is about Instagram and these new terms of service? I can't fathom that anything but 1% of 1% of photos taken there are good enough to be used commercially [...] Let's look at your claim that around "1% of 1%", or one in ten thousand, of Instagram photos are of commercial quality. With 5 million+ photos uploaded per day [1], that's 500 photos a day. It seems to me that the new ToS made some people want to leave the service, because that's not what they signed up for. You obviously made another choice. [1] http://allthingsd.com/20120403/instagram-by-the-numbers-1-billion-photos-uploaded/ http://allthingsd.com/20120403/instagram-by-the-numbers-1-bi...

dfxm12 14y ago

The big deal is that someone is profiting from my work without my consent and it isn't me. It's that we (the people) get slammed by DMCA violations for taking someone else's content (for private consumption). When a huge corporation takes ours (and gets paid for it), what recourse do we have? It's that these corporations can change the rules on us in the middle of the game. It's the classic bait and switch. It's that we're not even getting asked or given credit. The Instagram developer page (http://instagram.com/developer http://instagram.com/developer) says users own their images. They expect third party developers to respect that. Why won't they? Who fights for the user?

blake8086 14y ago
Didn't they profit from your work before this?
- moheeb 14y ago
  Seems like most of them are not smart enough to realize this.
bjornsteffanson 14y ago
Technically we _are_ giving our consent by using the service. In fact, we already agreed to the current terms, which state "We reserve the right to alter these Terms of Use at any time." It's not even a classic bait-and-switch. It's clearly stated in the contract we all signed up for. I agree that it's sort of uncool on Instagram's part, but as fellow app developers, shouldn't we also be siding with Instagram for their right to protect the interest of their product? I hate to be the guy that points this out, but it's an important distinction.
- koenigdavidmj 14y ago
  There are many things that they would not be able to add to a contract. Requiring you to commit an illegal act, for instance. Or beginning to charge for their service, without giving you the ability to cancel your account. Instagram's change is in one of the grey areas that makes contract law interesting. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, yada yada)

001sky 14y ago

Its like the radio saying "we'll play your song, but we get the copyright and get to sell the CD/iTunes etc". Oh, and we're not gonna pay you ever. Sound good?

slykat 14y ago

The main issue is that basically it removes the concept of private photos. The new TOS allows Instagram to use your photos any way they want and removes any responsibility of keeping private pictures private. Those pictures of you doing a keg stand at a Toga party which you shared only with your closest friends? Well now they are in a nationwide PSA about binge drinking. Those pictures of you with your ex girlfriend on a beach vacation? Those are now in Carnival ad about whisking your loved ones on a cruise. Your wife is pissed and even deleting the photo off Instagram doesn't do anything about it. If you are ok with all your photos becoming public, then sure this isn't a big deal. I think many people aren't.

spangborn 14y ago
Eh, not quite. Private accounts can't have their photos used outside of Instagram. >"except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services. That doesn't mean they won't be used inside Instagram as ads, however.
- slykat 14y ago
  There's little difference to me between public on the internet and public on Instagram. They both ignore my photo's original privacy controls (to share with a specific set of users). Regardless, it looks like Instagram's response has said they will be respecting privacy controls (http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-wer...) although I'm not convinced until this is made clear in the TOS.
MartinCron 14y ago
it removes the concept of private photos Maybe I'm just old and cynical, but after seeing how most online services work, I just refuse to upload/share any photograph that I wouldn't be happy seeing splashed on the front page of the newspaper.
- aes256 14y ago
  I apply the same test to pretty much everything I do online these days, and as a result, I maintain a dignified silence through most social media channels. I whitewalled my Facebook a long time ago, don't 'like' any pages, and provide minimal personal information only to friends. I don't use Twitter because I figure, even if I had an account purely to follow people, the individuals/organizations I follow could come back to haunt me. The same applies to YouTube, Pinterest, Tumblr, Foursquare, etc.

stevesearer 14y ago

I agree. Instagram is simply going to use interesting photos of places and items to help market those places. Someone you follow tagged a photo of a latte at a new coffee shop in town? Well, now that photo might show up as a sponsored post in the same way Facebook likes generate sponsored posts. I generally like seeing the photos of the people I am subscribed to, so seeing them attached to a location or product ad doesn't bother me in the slightest.

pseut 14y ago
You might feel differently if you were a professional photographer or a celebrity (even a minor local one). I don't use instagram, and I'm not sure if the change would cause me to leave if I did use instagram. But I'm not going to start using it, because I expect that anyone who values their pictures is going to leave, so it will suck.
- stevesearer 14y ago
  Most of the people I follow on instagram are family and friends. They take pictures of their families doing stuff I'm interested in knowing about like going out to eat, gathering for holidays, hiking, or whatever. They use IG as an easier and more visually pleasing way to keep in touch and share moments of their lives. So while there are a number of people that use the free service to promote their professional work or celebrity selves, it seems like the vast majority of IG users are in the same boat as me and just don't care about the TOS change.
  - baar 14y ago
    "Most of the people I follow on instagram are family and friends. " Look up "confirmation bias", "selection bias" and a few other biases. You're welcome.
    - stevesearer 14y ago
      I think the fact that I was giving a personal opinion made it pretty clear that I was sharing a biased point of view. My point is that I personally disagree with pseut's point of view that "once professional photographers and celebs leave instagram, the service will be worthless". Do you believe that to be the case?

lotso 14y ago

Here's an example of a company building a business model off of people sharing photos on Instagram and Twitter. http://www.pixlee.com/warriors/albums/527?embed=true http://www.pixlee.com/warriors/albums/527?embed=true I probably wouldn't care if my photos showed up in a public manner, but I could understand why some people might.

baar 14y ago

Q: Are you really this stupid?