It is my understanding that historically, terms of service are derived from the fact that a service provider might host multiple copies of an image across different servers and transfer the image between servers, as well as generate and transmit many copies to user's browsers.
In other words, the basis of the TOS was what was necessary to provide the service and what was monetized was the service.
In contrast, my understanding of the new Instagram TOS is that it could readily allow for the direct monetization of the content outside of the service provided to the photographer. It requires the copyright holder to give up rights beyond what is strictly necessary to provide service to the user.
However, in a sense I agree with you. Google's new standard terms of service appears to allow the possibility of something similar in so far as the user grants usage rights to future Google services.
Comments
It is my understanding that historically, terms of service are derived from the fact that a service provider might host multiple copies of an image across different servers and transfer the image between servers, as well as generate and transmit many copies to user's browsers.
In other words, the basis of the TOS was what was necessary to provide the service and what was monetized was the service.
In contrast, my understanding of the new Instagram TOS is that it could readily allow for the direct monetization of the content outside of the service provided to the photographer. It requires the copyright holder to give up rights beyond what is strictly necessary to provide service to the user.
However, in a sense I agree with you. Google's new standard terms of service appears to allow the possibility of something similar in so far as the user grants usage rights to future Google services.
I, of course, am not a lawyer.