6 ms·

Take it with a grain of salt. They tried to sneak this by and it blew up in their faces. While under oath, Kevin Systrom: “No, we never received any offers,”

by jonknee 14y ago

Take it with a grain of salt. They tried to sneak this by and it blew up in their faces. While under oath, Kevin Systrom: “No, we never received any offers,” Reality, Instagram had an offer from Twitter and Kevin Systrom had direct knowledge. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/disruptions-instagram-testimony-doesnt-add-up-2/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/disruptions-instagr... That said, at least it looks like they're going to tweak the TOS change in favor of their users. But with Facebook pulling the reigns, we all know where this will end.

nathanb 14y ago
Some language in the post I found interesting: > The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. Note that he doesn't say "we won't use your photos as part of an advertisement", he merely says "the reason we're removing that language is because we don't [currently] plan on using your photos as part of an advertisement". I'm sure if they thought of a way they could make money by doing so without losing critical mass, they'd be all over that.
- bentruyman 14y ago
  Of course. It would be silly to speak in absolutes like that and not leaving certain advertising opportunities on the table for the future.
- loceng 14y ago
  Nor "at this time" doesn't mean they can't and won't add this later anyhow. This is damage control, though damage has been done.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  He also doesn't say he's going to stop beating his wife.
  - merlincorey 14y ago
    She hasn't said she doesn't consent or request it.
    - jayferd 14y ago
      This is why I wish I had downvote privileges. This is a) off-topic, and b) extremely offensive. Please stop.
      - anaheim 14y ago
        Please read and understand this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) before wildly claiming that things are offensive because you read a certain phrase.
      - antoko 14y ago
        Its neither off-topic nor offensive, and because you don't have downvote privileges you had to comment instead - that's good because now I can respond and hopefully clarify. It isn't off-topic because it is a direct response to it's parent who was trying to make a point by example that refers to this use of rhetoric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question It isn't offensive because it is simply using the loaded question to provide a loaded answer that uses the exact same rhetorical trick to turn the tables. To try to show by example that the point being made is little more than a trick. It is the nature of a loaded question with an obvious appeal to emotion that makes responses to it seem offensive.
      - sk5t 14y ago
        It's a time-weathered rhetorical device, and probably wouldn't be effective if it weren't also somewhat offensive. Although responding to the device is... unusual.
- marshray 14y ago
  I like how he said "The language we proposed ... " to refer to "Yesterday we introduced a new version of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that will take effect in thirty days."
- jka 14y ago
  It's a science fiction idea I think, but something that would also fly, given their statements, would be to show photos of people who look like your friends (Facebook have the machine learning / pattern matching capability) in order to influence your decisions; someone who looks like a great crush you had, dining at a nearby restaurant, for example. This would neither necessarily fit into the classification of 'advertising', nor be showing photos to 'your friends', who would immediately call this kind of behaviour out. This would sorta tally with the fact that photos are public by default AFAIK, and the comments about privacy. Hopefully irrelevant, but just a thought.
  - jka 14y ago
    Hmm. Or worse.. http://www.thelocal.se/45142/20121218/#.UNBmPUKjC2w http://www.thelocal.se/45142/20121218/#.UNBmPUKjC2w
ChrisClark 14y ago
What do you mean they tried to sneak it in? They already had it there in the old TOS but no one bothered to read it, or at least they didn't care when Instagram had full rights to advertise with their photos before. The new TOS actually limits what they an do more than the old one.
- ChrisClark 14y ago
  Really? Do people not agree that the old TOS less restrictive?
blhack 14y ago
Oh for crying out loud, they did not try to "sneak this by". Stop trying to cast a simple snafu regarding a ToS as some evil conspiracy. Remember that the people running this company are you peers. It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today. They're your friends, or just like your friends. Knock it off.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Just because they work in a similar area does not make them "friends". Besides it is good for an industry to keep it's peers in check. See also: Banking.
- mburshteyn 14y ago
  They may be a distinct brand, but Instagram is still owned by Facebook, the company openly attempting to shift society's views on privacy.
- mnicole 14y ago
  My personal friendships with people employed by Google, EA and Microsoft have no affiliation with how much I support those companies.
- chmars 14y ago
  It's a business, not a personal relationship. My peers and friends at least would never use my pictures to create ads and in any case, my relations to peer and friends are not based on comprehensive and one-sided ToS …
  - chadillac83 14y ago
    By posting on HN you are agreeing to my peer-friendship ToS. As part of this ToS you hereby grant me unfettered access to your personal finances. edit: give me a $1
    - chmars 14y ago
      Thumbs up for letting me go to bed in a very happy mood … :)
fluidcruft 14y ago
I particularly appreciate all their statements about "nothing HAS changed" which ring hollow when balanced against the fact that the changes aren't in effect and won't be for 30 days.
w1ntermute 14y ago
> That said, at least it looks like they're going to tweak the TOS change in favor of their users. But with Facebook pulling the reigns, we all know where this will end. I think the fears are really overblown: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-te...
- hugoroy 14y ago
  No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. The instagram blog post is lying by omission. Look at the former section "Proprietary Rights in Content on Instagram" > Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services. 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. This section about copyright has turned into something pretty much like Facebook's: > Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service's Privacy Policy, available here:http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/ http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. A reply from the author of the article in the comments[0]: > You guys know that I used to be a copyright lawyer, right? This stuff is all boilerplate terms of service — every service from Apple, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc all have it. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean#133501341 http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-te...
creativityland 14y ago
It's only a matter of time.
cynicalkane 14y ago
Read your source more carefully, and stop selectively quoting. Systrom spoke of formal, written offers. The Twitter offer was a verbal agreement. I do not know my corporate contract law but it would surprise me if these were the same thing.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > Systrom was asked about formal offers. The Twitter offer was a verbal agreement. Verbal contracts are still contracts. Written form is preferred because it's easier to enforce after-the-fact, not because it's required for legal contracts. And either way, Systrom would have taken an oath to "tell the truth, and the whole truth". This type of glaring omission over quibbling about whether an offer was a "formal" offer or not would get most in trouble with the courts...
  - cynicalkane 14y ago
    Uh, no. For a verbal agreement to be binding it must pass the same requirements as a written agreement. A few guys discussing a takeover is not a formal takeover offer any more than if they exchanged e-mails about it. I am no expert in securities law but the bar for contractual consideration has got to be very high.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      There was a verbal offer with specific dollar amounts ($525 million, in fact), an offer specific enough that Instagram had to back out of it before it was signed. I'm not talking about filling out an SEC-mandated press release, I'm talking about a direct question from state lawyers about whether there were any offers from other companies besides Facebook, and Systrom lied and then tried to employ weasel words about "formal offers" to talk about something else. Can you at least read the article before talking about generalities of mergers&acquisitions?
      - cynicalkane 14y ago
        What the hell? Responding carefully and specifically to a lawyer's question is not suspicious, it's standard operating practice whenever lawyers are involved. Systrom has no obligation to spill the beans about anything that some guy on the Internet thinks might be called an offer, and courtrooms have rules against assigning malicious interpretations thereunto.

by jonknee 14y ago

nathanb 14y ago

Some language in the post I found interesting: > The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question. Note that he doesn't say "we won't use your photos as part of an advertisement", he merely says "the reason we're removing that language is because we don't [currently] plan on using your photos as part of an advertisement". I'm sure if they thought of a way they could make money by doing so without losing critical mass, they'd be all over that.

bentruyman 14y ago
Of course. It would be silly to speak in absolutes like that and not leaving certain advertising opportunities on the table for the future.
loceng 14y ago
Nor "at this time" doesn't mean they can't and won't add this later anyhow. This is damage control, though damage has been done.
tedunangst 14y ago
He also doesn't say he's going to stop beating his wife.
- merlincorey 14y ago
  She hasn't said she doesn't consent or request it.
  - jayferd 14y ago
    This is why I wish I had downvote privileges. This is a) off-topic, and b) extremely offensive. Please stop.
    - anaheim 14y ago
      Please read and understand this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) before wildly claiming that things are offensive because you read a certain phrase.
    - antoko 14y ago
      Its neither off-topic nor offensive, and because you don't have downvote privileges you had to comment instead - that's good because now I can respond and hopefully clarify. It isn't off-topic because it is a direct response to it's parent who was trying to make a point by example that refers to this use of rhetoric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question It isn't offensive because it is simply using the loaded question to provide a loaded answer that uses the exact same rhetorical trick to turn the tables. To try to show by example that the point being made is little more than a trick. It is the nature of a loaded question with an obvious appeal to emotion that makes responses to it seem offensive.
    - sk5t 14y ago
      It's a time-weathered rhetorical device, and probably wouldn't be effective if it weren't also somewhat offensive. Although responding to the device is... unusual.
marshray 14y ago
I like how he said "The language we proposed ... " to refer to "Yesterday we introduced a new version of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that will take effect in thirty days."
jka 14y ago
It's a science fiction idea I think, but something that would also fly, given their statements, would be to show photos of people who look like your friends (Facebook have the machine learning / pattern matching capability) in order to influence your decisions; someone who looks like a great crush you had, dining at a nearby restaurant, for example. This would neither necessarily fit into the classification of 'advertising', nor be showing photos to 'your friends', who would immediately call this kind of behaviour out. This would sorta tally with the fact that photos are public by default AFAIK, and the comments about privacy. Hopefully irrelevant, but just a thought.
- jka 14y ago
  Hmm. Or worse.. http://www.thelocal.se/45142/20121218/#.UNBmPUKjC2w http://www.thelocal.se/45142/20121218/#.UNBmPUKjC2w

ChrisClark 14y ago

What do you mean they tried to sneak it in? They already had it there in the old TOS but no one bothered to read it, or at least they didn't care when Instagram had full rights to advertise with their photos before. The new TOS actually limits what they an do more than the old one.

ChrisClark 14y ago
Really? Do people not agree that the old TOS less restrictive?

blhack 14y ago

Oh for crying out loud, they did not try to "sneak this by". Stop trying to cast a simple snafu regarding a ToS as some evil conspiracy. Remember that the people running this company are you peers. It's disgusting watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today. They're your friends, or just like your friends. Knock it off.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Just because they work in a similar area does not make them "friends". Besides it is good for an industry to keep it's peers in check. See also: Banking.
mburshteyn 14y ago
They may be a distinct brand, but Instagram is still owned by Facebook, the company openly attempting to shift society's views on privacy.
mnicole 14y ago
My personal friendships with people employed by Google, EA and Microsoft have no affiliation with how much I support those companies.
chmars 14y ago
It's a business, not a personal relationship. My peers and friends at least would never use my pictures to create ads and in any case, my relations to peer and friends are not based on comprehensive and one-sided ToS …
- chadillac83 14y ago
  By posting on HN you are agreeing to my peer-friendship ToS. As part of this ToS you hereby grant me unfettered access to your personal finances. edit: give me a $1
  - chmars 14y ago
    Thumbs up for letting me go to bed in a very happy mood … :)

fluidcruft 14y ago

I particularly appreciate all their statements about "nothing HAS changed" which ring hollow when balanced against the fact that the changes aren't in effect and won't be for 30 days.

w1ntermute 14y ago

> That said, at least it looks like they're going to tweak the TOS change in favor of their users. But with Facebook pulling the reigns, we all know where this will end. I think the fears are really overblown: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-te...

hugoroy 14y ago
No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. The instagram blog post is lying by omission. Look at the former section "Proprietary Rights in Content on Instagram" > Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services. 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. This section about copyright has turned into something pretty much like Facebook's: > Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service's Privacy Policy, available here:http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/ http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > No they're not. This article from the Verge is weird. The important changes are in the copyright license. A reply from the author of the article in the comments[0]: > You guys know that I used to be a copyright lawyer, right? This stuff is all boilerplate terms of service — every service from Apple, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc all have it. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean#133501341 http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-te...

creativityland 14y ago

It's only a matter of time.

cynicalkane 14y ago

Read your source more carefully, and stop selectively quoting. Systrom spoke of formal, written offers. The Twitter offer was a verbal agreement. I do not know my corporate contract law but it would surprise me if these were the same thing.

mpyne 14y ago
> Systrom was asked about formal offers. The Twitter offer was a verbal agreement. Verbal contracts are still contracts. Written form is preferred because it's easier to enforce after-the-fact, not because it's required for legal contracts. And either way, Systrom would have taken an oath to "tell the truth, and the whole truth". This type of glaring omission over quibbling about whether an offer was a "formal" offer or not would get most in trouble with the courts...
- cynicalkane 14y ago
  Uh, no. For a verbal agreement to be binding it must pass the same requirements as a written agreement. A few guys discussing a takeover is not a formal takeover offer any more than if they exchanged e-mails about it. I am no expert in securities law but the bar for contractual consideration has got to be very high.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    There was a verbal offer with specific dollar amounts ($525 million, in fact), an offer specific enough that Instagram had to back out of it before it was signed. I'm not talking about filling out an SEC-mandated press release, I'm talking about a direct question from state lawyers about whether there were any offers from other companies besides Facebook, and Systrom lied and then tried to employ weasel words about "formal offers" to talk about something else. Can you at least read the article before talking about generalities of mergers&acquisitions?
    - cynicalkane 14y ago
      What the hell? Responding carefully and specifically to a lawyer's question is not suspicious, it's standard operating practice whenever lawyers are involved. Systrom has no obligation to spill the beans about anything that some guy on the Internet thinks might be called an offer, and courtrooms have rules against assigning malicious interpretations thereunto.