4 ms·

> 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

> 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...
  - hugoroy 14y ago
    Well, I'm sorry that this guy can't read. I have read many different copyright licenses, and this copyright license is not "boilerplate". You can have very different copyright licenses for such web services. You can get an overview at http://tos-dr.info/topics.html#copyright-scope http://tos-dr.info/topics.html#copyright-scope As you can see, the new Instagram © license is like Facebook's or Twitter's. But very different from others. (Actually, the current Instagram © license is okay)
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      Well, feel free to tell him why he's wrong on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reckless https://twitter.com/reckless I'd very much like to see how he responds.
  - mnicole 14y ago
    His misinterpretation is getting it handed to him and the conflict of interest stuff re: The Verge and Instagram is something else to consider. I wouldn't trust a news outlet with so many close ties to companies like this.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      > the conflict of interest stuff re: The Verge and Instagram is something else to consider. I wouldn't trust a news outlet with so many close ties to companies like this. What are you talking about? Have you read their ethics statement[0] yet? In the world of journalism, that's a very serious accusation to be making without any evidence. 0: http://www.theverge.com/ethics-statement http://www.theverge.com/ethics-statement
      - mnicole 14y ago
        > What are you talking about? You might want to read the link you posted.
        14y ago
- eliasmacpherson 14y ago
  It's funny how thin the ice he's skating on is, when he writes: >"Ownership Rights: Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period. I always want you to feel comfortable sharing your photos on Instagram and we will always work hard to foster and respect our community and go out of our way to support its rights." He should add in brackets that the user has automatically given Instagram "Ownership" of a gold plated license to do whatever the hell it wants with content posted, in case anyone was wondering.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    I also noticed that they stepped short of saying they wouldn't be taking a non-exclusive perpetual license for any use out of the ToS. What does "ownership" mean in that case? Only that you can negotiate other deals with third parties. It can mean that they cannot re-license your work, which is to say you wouldn't have to compete with them in terms of pricing to a third party but I don't know if that is what the ToS says so a closer reading is in order.
    - eliasmacpherson 14y ago
      Licence is: "non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use" So I would say "sub-license" means "re-license". It would be very unfortunate to have to compete with Instagram on pricing for your own content to a third party. Or some company that buys Instagram/Facebook out. Just read this bit: "To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear." So I think that clears up the 'sub-licensable' aspect. It doesn't rule out giving them away for free - which come to think of it, would hard to compete with price-wise! I'm really starting to wonder what they had in mind.
      - ChuckMcM 14y ago
        Well there you go, hopefully you won't have ad agencies coming to Instagram as a clearing house to license images in their ads.
cube13 14y ago
While I agree that the facebook fears are probably overblown, the TOS' language does not comfort me at all. In fact, I think that the Verge is entirely wrong in that article(IANAL, etc.). This TOS tweak allows Instagram go sell your content for advertising purposes to a third party. They can use your images, as is, in their advertising(presumably on Instagram, though that is not clear). So they can take payment for your content, without compensating you at all. That's a pretty huge difference from Facebook's TOS. In there, they state that they will use your content to deliver ads. They're not delivering your content to other parties to be used in their ad campaign.
declan 14y ago
Here's another take that disagrees with their blog post -- and this one is from an actual practicing intellectual property attorney: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559859-38/instagram-rivals-try-to-lure-users-away-after-photo-rights-flap/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559859-38/instagram-riva... "That effectively guts the user's control over the use and exploitation of the photo," says Daniel Schaeffer, an attorney with Neal & McDevitt, a boutique law firm in Northfield, Ill., specializing in intellectual property. "The most obvious and immediate example is the ability to allow businesses to use your photos in advertising, but the actual effects could be even farther-reaching."
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > Here's another take that disagrees with their blog post -- and this one is from an actual practicing intellectual property attorney FWIW, the author of the Verge post I linked, managing editor Nilay Patel, also holds a law degree, and previously worked as a copyright attorney.
  - jonknee 14y ago
    And he is now making more money by not practicing law and as of today, shilling for Instagram. What's your point?
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      > And he is now making more money by not practicing law and as of today, shilling for Instagram. As I explained to someone else in another comment[0], I suggest you not embarrass yourself any further by making baseless accusations about journalists who take impartiality very seriously. > What's your point? That the OP's link's author's professional qualifications are also possessed by the author of the post I linked, making that a moot factor. 0: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4940331 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4940331
  - mark-r 14y ago
    If he was such a great lawyer, why is he now in publishing? I would take the word of a practicing lawyer over one who has left the field.

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...
- hugoroy 14y ago
  Well, I'm sorry that this guy can't read. I have read many different copyright licenses, and this copyright license is not "boilerplate". You can have very different copyright licenses for such web services. You can get an overview at http://tos-dr.info/topics.html#copyright-scope http://tos-dr.info/topics.html#copyright-scope As you can see, the new Instagram © license is like Facebook's or Twitter's. But very different from others. (Actually, the current Instagram © license is okay)
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    Well, feel free to tell him why he's wrong on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reckless https://twitter.com/reckless I'd very much like to see how he responds.
- mnicole 14y ago
  His misinterpretation is getting it handed to him and the conflict of interest stuff re: The Verge and Instagram is something else to consider. I wouldn't trust a news outlet with so many close ties to companies like this.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > the conflict of interest stuff re: The Verge and Instagram is something else to consider. I wouldn't trust a news outlet with so many close ties to companies like this. What are you talking about? Have you read their ethics statement[0] yet? In the world of journalism, that's a very serious accusation to be making without any evidence. 0: http://www.theverge.com/ethics-statement http://www.theverge.com/ethics-statement
    - mnicole 14y ago
      > What are you talking about? You might want to read the link you posted.
      - 14y ago
eliasmacpherson 14y ago
It's funny how thin the ice he's skating on is, when he writes: >"Ownership Rights: Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos. Nothing about this has changed. We respect that there are creative artists and hobbyists alike that pour their heart into creating beautiful photos, and we respect that your photos are your photos. Period. I always want you to feel comfortable sharing your photos on Instagram and we will always work hard to foster and respect our community and go out of our way to support its rights." He should add in brackets that the user has automatically given Instagram "Ownership" of a gold plated license to do whatever the hell it wants with content posted, in case anyone was wondering.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  I also noticed that they stepped short of saying they wouldn't be taking a non-exclusive perpetual license for any use out of the ToS. What does "ownership" mean in that case? Only that you can negotiate other deals with third parties. It can mean that they cannot re-license your work, which is to say you wouldn't have to compete with them in terms of pricing to a third party but I don't know if that is what the ToS says so a closer reading is in order.
  - eliasmacpherson 14y ago
    Licence is: "non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use" So I would say "sub-license" means "re-license". It would be very unfortunate to have to compete with Instagram on pricing for your own content to a third party. Or some company that buys Instagram/Facebook out. Just read this bit: "To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear." So I think that clears up the 'sub-licensable' aspect. It doesn't rule out giving them away for free - which come to think of it, would hard to compete with price-wise! I'm really starting to wonder what they had in mind.
    - ChuckMcM 14y ago
      Well there you go, hopefully you won't have ad agencies coming to Instagram as a clearing house to license images in their ads.

cube13 14y ago

While I agree that the facebook fears are probably overblown, the TOS' language does not comfort me at all. In fact, I think that the Verge is entirely wrong in that article(IANAL, etc.). This TOS tweak allows Instagram go sell your content for advertising purposes to a third party. They can use your images, as is, in their advertising(presumably on Instagram, though that is not clear). So they can take payment for your content, without compensating you at all. That's a pretty huge difference from Facebook's TOS. In there, they state that they will use your content to deliver ads. They're not delivering your content to other parties to be used in their ad campaign.

declan 14y ago

Here's another take that disagrees with their blog post -- and this one is from an actual practicing intellectual property attorney: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559859-38/instagram-rivals-try-to-lure-users-away-after-photo-rights-flap/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559859-38/instagram-riva... "That effectively guts the user's control over the use and exploitation of the photo," says Daniel Schaeffer, an attorney with Neal & McDevitt, a boutique law firm in Northfield, Ill., specializing in intellectual property. "The most obvious and immediate example is the ability to allow businesses to use your photos in advertising, but the actual effects could be even farther-reaching."

w1ntermute 14y ago
> Here's another take that disagrees with their blog post -- and this one is from an actual practicing intellectual property attorney FWIW, the author of the Verge post I linked, managing editor Nilay Patel, also holds a law degree, and previously worked as a copyright attorney.
- jonknee 14y ago
  And he is now making more money by not practicing law and as of today, shilling for Instagram. What's your point?
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > And he is now making more money by not practicing law and as of today, shilling for Instagram. As I explained to someone else in another comment[0], I suggest you not embarrass yourself any further by making baseless accusations about journalists who take impartiality very seriously. > What's your point? That the OP's link's author's professional qualifications are also possessed by the author of the post I linked, making that a moot factor. 0: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4940331 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4940331
- mark-r 14y ago
  If he was such a great lawyer, why is he now in publishing? I would take the word of a practicing lawyer over one who has left the field.