[jonknee]

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-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]

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.

[jka]

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]

Hmm. Or worse.. http://www.thelocal.se/45142/20121218/#.UNBmPUKjC2w

[marshray]

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."

[loceng]

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]

He also doesn't say he's going to stop beating his wife.

[merlincorey]

She hasn't said she doesn't consent or request it.

[jneen]

This is why I wish I had downvote privileges. This is a) off-topic, and b) extremely offensive. Please stop.

[antoko]

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

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]

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.

[bentruyman]

Of course. It would be silly to speak in absolutes like that and not leaving certain advertising opportunities on the table for the future.

[blhack]

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.

[23david]

I disagree. This was a carefully worded response. Notice "commit to you that we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and eliminate the confusion. As we review your feedback and stories in the press, we’re going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos." They expected this.

It's a classic move from the Facebook playbook. Push out a far-reaching privacy policy or feature update. Release a message or press release saying that "we're listening". Make token changes and say "we've listened and made changes". And just in case people start to sue, vigorously lobby and donate to government officials to keep the regulatory heat off their backs.

They are trying to get away with as much as they can. These stupid companies are going to be the reason why 10 years from now the Internet is going to be a morass of government regulation.

Don't work for or support companies that act like this. Shame on them. Period.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a domain name or start an Internet company without taking a licensing exam.

[nokcha]

>I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a domain name ... without taking a licensing exam.

Who would impose such a requirement of licensure? Certainly not the government --- that would be a prior restraint on freedom of speech/press and therefore unconstitutional.

[pepr]

Well, they would first impose it and then somebody sues them and it starts bouncing around various courts for the next 5 years. It would take some serious time until there would be a final ruling.

[ryguytilidie]

Man, this is some absolutely insane over the top hyperbole.

No one tried to cast this as a conspiracy, they simply called it what it is, a company monetizing by making the user experience worse.

"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."

I don't know whats craziest here. First, equating "burning them at the stake" to "deleting their accounts on that persons website" is absolute lunacy and I don't know how anyone could take your points seriously. Second, pretending that because these people look like my friends, they should get a free pass on changing their terms to better monetize user content is just lame, just because someone looks like me and is a millionaire doesn't make them immune to incredibly correct criticism.

[marshray]

But most likely it wouldn't make the user experince worse. If anything, it would allow them to avoid banner ads and make the experience better.

That said, sounds like people aren't willing to "agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

[cube13]

If someone's directly using my content and getting paid for it, I want a cut. It's really that simple.

[daeken]

If they're using your content to make money, you're being paid for it: you're getting access to the service.

[onedev]

Exactly.

I can't believe that people just expect everything to come to them for free.

[gcmartinelli]

So, make them pay for the open source they use...

[chmars]

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]

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]

Thumbs up for letting me go to bed in a very happy mood … :)

[Vivtek]

And at the low cost of only a dollar! I think grandparent's onto something big here.

[jiggy2011]

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.

[guelo]

None of my friends communicate to millions of people via lawyers and PR departments.

[mburshteyn]

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]

My personal friendships with people employed by Google, EA and Microsoft have no affiliation with how much I support those companies.

[FuzzyDunlop]

Your statement doesn't hold true because actual peers call each other out on bad moves, and the failure (or lack of attempt) to find an actual good move.

If we take your words as gospel, then we should be critical of them and we should take action.

This is also because Instagram as a business is not a peer, does not follow advice, and absolutely needs to be burnt at the stake (and salivated over?) to realise it made a mistake.

[001sky]

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.

-- If not in jest, this is rediculously naive. just FYI.

[fweez]

In the blog post announcing the changes (http://blog.instagram.com/post/38143346554/privacy-and-terms...), they called out a "few key updates." The changes to the TOS were described as, "Our updated terms of service help protect you, and prevent spam and abuse as we grow."

Our "friends" over there sure didn't go out of their way to call out an important change in the TOS. If it wasn't an attempt to sneak this by, it's indistinguishable from one.

[gcmartinelli]

Are you implying that <i>none</i> of your peers take questionable actions in business? If so, open your eyes.

[w1ntermute]

> 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-te...

[hugoroy]

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/.

[eliasmacpherson]

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]

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]

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]

Well there you go, hopefully you won't have ad agencies coming to Instagram as a clearing house to license images in their ads.

[w1ntermute]

> 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-te...

[hugoroy]

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

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]

Well, feel free to tell him why he's wrong on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reckless

I'd very much like to see how he responds.

[mnicole]

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]

> 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

[mnicole]

> What are you talking about?

You might want to read the link you posted.

[smackfu]

Oh, an appeal to authority.

[w1ntermute]

Protip: next time, read beyond the first sentence in a quote. You never know, you just might find something useful.

> This stuff is all boilerplate terms of service — every service from Apple, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, etc all have it.

[smackfu]

Eh, it's still saying "trust me, I know about this, it's normal, everyone does it." Saying things rather than showing them.

[declan]

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-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]

> 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]

And he is now making more money by not practicing law and as of today, shilling for Instagram. What's your point?

[w1ntermute]

> 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

[mark-r]

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.

[w1ntermute]

He isn't just "in publishing", he frequently writes about legal topics for the Verge. For example, he covered the Google v. Oracle and Apple v. Samsung trials in great detail. However, if you're curious as to why he made the career choices he did, you can always ask him directly: https://twitter.com/reckless

I have no reason at this point to doubt his judgment, as he is clearly quite a capable individual, as he has managed to become the managing editor of one of the top tech news sites in an industry bursting with competition and upstarts.

[cube13]

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.

[fluidcruft]

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.

[cynicalkane]

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]

> 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]

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]

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]

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.

[uptown]

"carefully and specifically ... standard operating practice whenever lawyers are involved."

You know - just like the terms and conditions.

[jonknee]

Spilling the beans was exactly the point of his questioning.

[mburshteyn]

Nice thereunto.

[ChrisClark]

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]

Really? Do people not agree that the old TOS less restrictive?

[creativityland]

It's only a matter of time.