[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.

[w1ntermute]

No, you might want to read it. Here, I'll make it a little easier for you:

> Our company has its own advertising team responsible for selling ad space on our site. We do not accept money or other consideration from companies as a condition or incentive to write a review or story, whether favorable or unfavorable, on The Verge.

> We do not invest in companies that we cover, and employees are forbidden from owning, trading, or buying stock in companies we cover or companies in the general tech sector, without exception.

> We don't take free things from companies, or from their PR firms. This rule is simple and we stick to it

> We do not take free or discounted merchandise

> We do not take free or discounted services.

> Employees of The Verge may not be otherwise employed by or receive compensation from companies that they are likely to cover as part of their news beat, nor are they permitted to have any advisory role (paid or unpaid) at those companies.

> We do not accept any samples on any preconditions, such as, that we will agree to provide a review simply because the company sent us a sample.

[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.