If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Instagram backpedals, gives their version of 'sorry you were offended by what I said': "Our mistake that this language is confusing"   (reuters.com) divider line 91
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

7904 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2012 at 8:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 06:52:53 PM  
Advertising on Instagram From the start, Instagram was created to become a business. Advertising is one of many ways that Instagram can become a self-sustaining business, but not the only one. Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we'd like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. 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.

I wonder why that is? Oh, I know! The words from the user agreement itself!

"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you 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.
 
2012-12-18 07:33:25 PM  
Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.
 
2012-12-18 08:10:16 PM  
I bought Aviary ages ago and Google just added stuff to the stock gallery app, so no need for this. 
 
2012-12-18 08:24:21 PM  
dunno what is going on.
 
2012-12-18 08:26:13 PM  

revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.


I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.
 
2012-12-18 08:26:29 PM  
Because God knows all those sepia toned photos of your breakfast were so valuable.
 
2012-12-18 08:26:48 PM  
I'm sure that this was just one big misunderstanding. You should definitely come back to Instagram. Especially you, 18 year old girls, who take naughty pictures of yourselves, and then send them to people.


/ we promise not to look at them or sell them
 
2012-12-18 08:31:03 PM  
hahahahahahahahahahahaha. 
 
2012-12-18 08:33:35 PM  
Instagram: Where pornstars go to post photos of their pets.
 
2012-12-18 08:34:47 PM  
I was gonna start posting porn pics and when they start telling me I'm violating the terms of usage say "you're the ones selling it. It's either art or you're perverts."
 
2012-12-18 08:40:18 PM  
I never used Instagram because I don't have an iPhone, so........yeah.  I get that when you put stuff online it's out there for the public consumption, but that doesn't mean I think it's okay for some 3rd party to make money off that.
 
2012-12-18 08:45:08 PM  
People who as small children used stencils to draw an impressive picture are now the same people who use Instagram.

End transmission.
 
2012-12-18 08:48:24 PM  
I'm a malignant narcissist. Instagram has changed my life. Now everyone can see how awesome I am.
 
2012-12-18 08:52:16 PM  
It has been said time and time again......If you are not paying for it, you are not the customer. You're the product being sold.
 
2012-12-18 08:53:17 PM  

1000 Ways to Dye: revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.


Funny you should mention Facebook....
Guess who now owns Instagram.....Why Facebook, of course.
 
2012-12-18 08:55:33 PM  

queen biatch of the universe: It has been said time and time again......If you are not paying for it, you are not the customer. You're the product being sold.


That's good. I like that. Makes sense.
 
2012-12-18 09:01:41 PM  
Runs_With_Scissors_
I wonder why that is? Oh, I know! The words from the user agreement itself!


There is a small difference:

interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation.
= you are the new face "Dr Herpivore's anti crotchrot cream"

versus

entity may pay us to display your [stuff] in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

= your face appears on Instagram's(!) front page with the text "I like Dr Herpivore's anti crotchrot cream" after you clicked the Like-button on its product page (or whatever people do on instagram)
 
2012-12-18 09:04:47 PM  
Instagram: "Sorry that we used such vague language."
Translation: "We didn't think anyone ever read this shiat."
 
2012-12-18 09:06:47 PM  
I had to laugh at all my Facebook friends today who posted about this today. They seem confused on the whole 'What Facebook is' thing. They actually seemed to think this was news or somehow different than what Facebook already does.

Just post lots of pictures of rounded corners, compelling design, people swiping touchscreens and leaked source code. If you do that, Facebook will then own it (right?) and then Facebook, Apple and possibly Microsoft can sue each other into irrelevancy.

Well, one can have fantasies anyways.
 
2012-12-18 09:11:27 PM  

boyuber: Instagram: "Sorry that we used such vague language."
Translation: "We didn't think anyone ever read this shiat."


And they'd be right since those terms about photo use by advertisers have been on Instagram since at least 1 year if not more. People just freaked out because they did a recent change to the TOU and it was picked up by the blogs and it ran from there. But before that? Nobody had read the damn TOU to begin with...
 
2012-12-18 09:11:53 PM  

boyuber: Instagram: "Sorry that we used such vague language."
Translation: "We didn't think anyone ever read this shiat."


This is what drives me crazy. Corporations are jackals, they'll keep nipping at you until they eat you alive, or you end up killing them en masse.
 
2012-12-18 09:12:36 PM  

Runs_With_Scissors_: I wonder why that is? Oh, I know! The words from the user agreement itself!

"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you 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.


That wasn't the bad bit. (Well, it wasn't the worst one.)

The bad bit was this:

"you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license"

Coupled with this:

"You agree that all disputes between you and Instagram ... with regard to your relationship with Instagram, including ... rights of privacy and/or publicity, will be resolved by ... arbitration ... As an alternative, you may bring your claim in your local "small claims" court"

Those bits (the bold areas are the worst bits, the underlined areas are new, plus they dropped the word "limited" from the first phrase) translates into English thusly:

"We can do absolutely anything we like with your images including those showing your likeness and even showing you in your own bedroom if we want, use them anywhere, for any reason, and sell them for any amount we like to absolutely anybody without giving you a single cent, and your only recourse is to huff, stamp your feet, and go to an arbitration system designed to favor its client (the company) or to limit damages to us (small claims court). Pthhhhhbbbbbttttt!"

Those bits are the REAL bad bits. Putting your name next to an ad is child's play compared to that language. If anything, the ad thing and the response to it is a bit of sleight-of-hand misdirection.
 
2012-12-18 09:14:07 PM  

Runs_With_Scissors_: Advertising on Instagram From the start, Instagram was created to become a business. Advertising is one of many ways that Instagram can become a self-sustaining business, but not the only one. Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we'd like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. 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.

I wonder why that is? Oh, I know! The words from the user agreement itself!

"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you 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.


Yep. Read "we didn't realize customers actually would read our updated EULA, figure out we're planning on claiming their media, and bolt - so, we'll try to reword it so that it's harder to figure out what we're doing."
 
2012-12-18 09:16:26 PM  
media-cache0.pinterest.com
 
2012-12-18 09:18:45 PM  

rocky_howard: boyuber: Instagram: "Sorry that we used such vague language."
Translation: "We didn't think anyone ever read this shiat."

And they'd be right since those terms about photo use by advertisers have been on Instagram since at least 1 year if not more. People just freaked out because they did a recent change to the TOU and it was picked up by the blogs and it ran from there. But before that? Nobody had read the damn TOU to begin with...


Actually, no. Compare the old TOU side by side with the new one. The verbiage about ads being placed next to content is significantly changed. However, as I said, that's not the real bad bit. The real bad bit is the words "transferable, sub-licensable", plus the fact they contractually prevent users from suing either as a class action or individually.

Oh, and the fact that they can change the contract at any time without any notice to their users (meaning you have to read it *every* time you visit the site to see if something has been changed), and without any advance warning of an impending change (all they have to do is say "admin reasons" and they are allowed to change it instantly, as many times as they want -- and your having visited the site to see if the contract changed is in itself deemed an acceptance of the changed contract that you've not even seen)... THOSE are the really bad changes.
 
2012-12-18 09:21:33 PM  
Instagram is owned by Facebook now. Mark Zuckerburg would never, ever exploit people in order to build his product, right??
 
2012-12-18 09:23:08 PM  

Wardrobe_Malfunction: Instagram is owned by Facebook now. Mark Zuckerburg would never, ever exploit people in order to build his product, right??


If he could actually build his product out of the freshly-flayed flesh of his users, I wouldn't be surprised to see him do it.
 
2012-12-18 09:26:30 PM  

gweilo8888: "you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license"


Just noticed I underlined "worldwide", that was an error on my part. That's not new. It's transferable, sub-licensable, and no-longer saying limited that's the new bit.
 
2012-12-18 09:28:28 PM  
Camera ZOOM FX is a much better app and Flickr is a better place to share photos. Sorry instagram there is no reason to go back.
 
2012-12-18 09:29:00 PM  

1000 Ways to Dye: revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.


AFAIK...Facebook only has the right to use the photos so long as you have them on Facebook. Take them down and you're safe.
 
2012-12-18 09:41:46 PM  

goatleggedfellow: 1000 Ways to Dye: revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.

AFAIK...Facebook only has the right to use the photos so long as you have them on Facebook. Take them down and you're safe.


Mostly correct, although they do have the same awful transferable, sub-licensable verbiage, they do at least explicitly state that the license ends the moment you delete the content or close your account (with the exception that if your friends have shared the content it can stay on the site even after you delete your account). But Instagram doesn't even do that.

In fact, Instagram says *your* rights end when you close your account, but makes no mention of their own rights ending. (It may be implied, given that they explicitly state your inability to sue survives contract cancellation but don't mention their other rights, but it should be made clear in the verbiage.)

Here's Facebook's equivalent verbiage:

Facebook: "For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."

Instagram: "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/."

Upon termination, all licenses and other rights granted to you in these Terms of Use will immediately cease.

[The] arbitration agreement will survive the termination of your relationship with Instagram."
 
2012-12-18 09:43:47 PM  

Carth: Camera ZOOM FX is a much better app and Flickr is a better place to share photos. Sorry instagram there is no reason to go back.



Have you tried Vignette?
 
2012-12-18 09:48:31 PM  

revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

 
 
Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false
 
2012-12-18 09:49:01 PM  

rocky_howard: gweilo8888: Actually, no. Compare the old TOU side by side with the new one. The verbiage about ads being placed next to content is significantly changed. However, as I said, that's not the real bad bit. The real bad bit is the words "transferable, sub-licensable", plus the fact they contractually prevent users from suing either as a class action or individually.

[d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net image 600x223]


Um, no. The new terms are SIGNIFICANTLY worse. "Use" already means "modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and translate", and "transferable, sub-licensable" plus non-limited means they can not only distribute part or all of your work, but it also means that they can sell it to anybody else to do the very same.

Essentially, the new terms mean they can do *everything* they could under the old terms, but they can now also give your content to anybody else they want to and let the unknown third party do any of those things too.

And as for the second quote, there is a BIG difference between "may place advertising ... on, about, or in conjunction with your content", and "may display your username, likeness, and actions you take ... in conjunction with paid or sponsored content". But yes, as I have repeatedly said, the whole advertising thing is a tiny red herring. The huge deal is the words "transferable, sub-licensable" right to your photos, along with the fact that they do not explicitly state that those rights end when your photos or account are deleted.

I also strongly question the legality of stating that a minor can provide implied consent on behalf of their legal guardian simply by accessing a website. If a minor could provide implied consent of their own guardian, surely that would defeat the purpose of a guardian existing?
 
2012-12-18 09:50:23 PM  

gingerjet: Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false


Very cute and trite, but more than a few of those outrages have resulted in people defecting en-masse. Have you looked at Netflix's stock lately?
 
2012-12-18 09:53:03 PM  

gingerjet: /false outrage is false


The only thing that I see that really kills off products is that they ride it till it goes in the ground, never adding features and when they do it is a shiatstorm of wacky crap. See Yahoo's purchase of Flickr. Hell there wouldn't even be an instragram if Yahoo kept that property up.
 
2012-12-18 09:54:07 PM  
Someone post the Nickleback Instagram song. It's awesome.

/let me get this duck...
 
2012-12-18 09:54:09 PM  
Egotistical yuppies everywhere breath a sigh of relief.
 
2012-12-18 09:59:42 PM  

1000 Ways to Dye: revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.


And that is why you put no public content on fb
 
2012-12-18 10:03:04 PM  

gweilo8888: gingerjet: Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false

Very cute and trite, but more than a few of those outrages have resulted in people defecting en-masse. Have you looked at Netflix's stock lately?


The Qwikster debacle will be taught in marketing classes right alongside New Coke
 
2012-12-18 10:03:34 PM  

gweilo8888: rocky_howard: gweilo8888: Actually, no. Compare the old TOU side by side with the new one. The verbiage about ads being placed next to content is significantly changed. However, as I said, that's not the real bad bit. The real bad bit is the words "transferable, sub-licensable", plus the fact they contractually prevent users from suing either as a class action or individually.

[d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net image 600x223]

Um, no. The new terms are SIGNIFICANTLY worse. "Use" already means "modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and translate", and "transferable, sub-licensable" plus non-limited means they can not only distribute part or all of your work, but it also means that they can sell it to anybody else to do the very same.

Essentially, the new terms mean they can do *everything* they could under the old terms, but they can now also give your content to anybody else they want to and let the unknown third party do any of those things too.

And as for the second quote, there is a BIG difference between "may place advertising ... on, about, or in conjunction with your content", and "may display your username, likeness, and actions you take ... in conjunction with paid or sponsored content". But yes, as I have repeatedly said, the whole advertising thing is a tiny red herring. The huge deal is the words "transferable, sub-licensable" right to your photos, along with the fact that they do not explicitly state that those rights end when your photos or account are deleted.

I also strongly question the legality of stating that a minor can provide implied consent on behalf of their legal guardian simply by accessing a website. If a minor could provide implied consent of their own guardian, surely that would defeat the purpose of a guardian existing?



www.the-tshirts.com

It's as if this man is their lawyer.
 
2012-12-18 10:05:29 PM  

gweilo8888: gingerjet: Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false

Very cute and trite, but more than a few of those outrages have resulted in people defecting en-masse. Have you looked at Netflix's stock lately?


Swing and miss. Stock has zero to do with usage. Facebook stock dropped dramatically after the IPO. You're telling me they lost as many users? Get real...
 
2012-12-18 10:05:59 PM  

gweilo8888: gingerjet: Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false

Very cute and trite, but more than a few of those outrages have resulted in people defecting en-masse. Have you looked at Netflix's stock lately?


Pssst ...

Disney has recently signed on with Netflix. I think they are going to rebound just fine ..
 
2012-12-18 10:16:05 PM  

rocky_howard: Swing and miss. Stock has zero to do with usage. Facebook stock dropped dramatically after the IPO. You're telling me they lost as many users? Get real...


It's actually you that's whirling that bat aimlessly around.

By their own admission, they lost 3.25% of their then-total userbase in a single quarter, or some 800,000 users. A look at their subscriber growth shows that it has been depressed from their pre-Qwikster growth ever since, and they continue to struggly to hit even the low end of their own reduced subscriber growth targets. The real impact a little over a year later is in the millions of users.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/24/technology/netflix_earnings/index.htm
http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/23/netflix-subscriber-additions-disappo i nt-reports-q3-revenue-of-905m-and-earnings-of-0-13/
 
2012-12-18 10:17:13 PM  

twistofsin: gweilo8888: gingerjet: Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false

Very cute and trite, but more than a few of those outrages have resulted in people defecting en-masse. Have you looked at Netflix's stock lately?

Pssst ...

Disney has recently signed on with Netflix. I think they are going to rebound just fine ..


Netflix uses 30% of the intertubes. That's a lot of tubes. It's possible they can lose revenue, but gain profit. Replacing a less profitable but higher revenue generating product with a cheaper but more profitable one can be frowned upon by Wall Street, regardless of long term outlook. Netflix will be fine.
 
2012-12-18 10:19:31 PM  
Wait...you are supposed to read the terms of agreement? Fluck that! Maybe thinking about lawsuit bucks.
 
2012-12-18 10:19:35 PM  

twistofsin: Pssst ...

Disney has recently signed on with Netflix. I think they are going to rebound just fine ..


Psst: They're way short of hitting their own projected annual growth, let alone the growth they showed before Qwikster:

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/netflix-stock-sinks-q3-earnings-report-20362 4 278.html

(They forecast 7 million new streaming subscribers in 2012; by the end of Q3 they'd managed only 3.26 million, leaving them little chance of hitting that target. On the other side of the coin, they're bleeding DVD subscribers like there's no tomorrow, and are down to just 8.61 million.)
 
2012-12-18 10:26:23 PM  

CruJones: Netflix uses 30% of the intertubes. That's a lot of tubes. It's possible they can lose revenue, but gain profit. Replacing a less profitable but higher revenue generating product with a cheaper but more profitable one can be frowned upon by Wall Street, regardless of long term outlook. Netflix will be fine.


Fine my ass. They're having to fight to prevent a hostile takeover from the same man who killed Blockbuster.

Those 30% of the intertubes? (Can't be bothered checking the validity of your claimed number; let's pretend it's true.) They're pretty damned expensive. They're weaning customers off a profitable business with a great selection, and putting them onto a business that was only sustainable in the first place because the subscriber numbers were so low when they signed their first round of contracts with movie studios. Each time they renegotiate on a contract expiration, they're having to piss away significantly more money because of all those subscribers they've got now, so the cost of streaming to Netflix is increasing exponentially, yet the selection is far, far worse for customers than what was available to them on DVD.

(I am among the many customers who cancelled Netflix altogether because their Watch Instantly selection was so bad and not remotely worth what I was expected to pay for it, yet they clearly have no interest in their DVD customers any more either. To whit: they aren't bothering to replace their damaged discs, and have actually started sending the same broken discs out over and over even after they're reported broken. I've gotten back the very same disc I reported faulty previously, with the exact same fault in the same place, so I know that to be a fact.)
 
2012-12-18 10:30:29 PM  
Even under the new terms facebook is still more nefarious. I dont know what people are so up in arms about.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:43 PM  

gweilo8888: It's actually you that's whirling that bat aimlessly around.


NAah, you're the one who's been on everyone's case. Just look at the amount of times you've posted.

and regardless of your later numbers, stock has zero to do with usage, so cry all you want, that was a false statement.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report