... They [users that left] bought the CNET article that misreported on the proposed changes and thought that Instagram would all of a sudden have the ability to use their content for the purposes of advertising, hence quitting like Manny down there. The proposed changes were actually better for users, as they would have limited the existing advertising ability to be "about or around" the user content, but now we're sticking with the ability to modify user content for advert purposes. The media misreported it, the people bought it, and Instagram got to stick with their original TOS that will benefit their advertisers.
Anyone who left Instagram because of this never read the TOS in the first place and gets their legal advice from people with no background in IP law. For the record, this is exactly why I get my IP/patent/copyright news from The Verge, who have Nilay Patel and Matt Macari on staff, former IP/patent/copyright lawyers, on staff. That's about as credible as you're going to get.
---
Could anyone with knowledge on the matter explain if it's true?
The Verge had a great summary (as posted above) so I won't go into the actual 'law'. I don't even think the issue is really about what they can or cannot do in the license - Instagram is entitled to write whatever they want in the license agreement, and the original TOS was drafted in a very lawyerly way to basically allow them to do almost anything (advertising-wise) they wanted with your photos anyway.
The real interesting part is that users are willing to make a lot of noise about these license agreements without reading them. I think there's a lot of pent up FUD about license agreements because there are so many of them out there that nobody ever reads any of them, and there's a big appetite out there for somebody, anybody, to clarify these terms for them.
The consumer group-think goes kind of like: "What can Facebook do with my data? I don't know, but I'm sure their lawyers put something in the license agreement that I'm never going to read or understand. Oh, this blog says it's really bad, time to complain loudly!"
I think the result is that there really needs to be an effort on the part of these online service providers to clarify their terms and make human-readable summaries of users' rights/licenses so that everyone understands where they stand contractually.
I love how everyone just accuses Instagram users of being irrational here. Maybe they just realized that Facebook pulls this same shit over and over and when Facebook bought Instagram and started making changes, people felt they were doing the same thing as Facebook and left. There is a reason you don't shit on your users and then mock them, it makes them stop trusting your brand, which is what happened here. The response would have been different if GOOG, Twitter or even Yahoo had bought Instagram because they seem to communicate with their users in a way other than talking down to them.
One of the things that bothered me the most about this is as an ex-Facebook employee, its pretty obvious when the PR machine gets revved up. The second people pointed out that these terms weren't ideal for the user, I would guess 20 of my facebook friends posted articles basically mocking the idea that these terms were bad and boom, because Facebooks internal PR team says that the terms are good, anyone who disagrees is stupid and naive. Great way to deal with your users, mock and talk down to them because of a mistake you made. I bet the WarZ developers are proud of Facebook today.
I think the result is that there really needs to be an effort on the part of these online service providers to clarify their terms and make human-readable summaries of users' rights/licenses so that everyone understands where they stand contractually.
There was a post on HN quite some time ago about the Terms of Service agreement on http://500px.com/terms, take a look. I really like what and how they have laid it out. It's a really good idea and wish more companies would do this. I for one skim over the ToS, esp for free online services, and although I think many of us are the same we may start to read them more carefully from now on.
It does seem as though they acknowledge that most users won't read or completely understand the entire terms, and invite users to rely on the summarized terms instead. So if there were ever litigation that involved careful interpretation of the terms, might the "basically" sections be construed as estoppel and override the main text?
If so, doesn't this make the summarized text the actual controlling terms of service, leaving full "legalese" to clarify ambiguities only to the extent that is consistent with the "basically" sections?
Not sure, there is quite a few comments on the original hn article. I think the crux of it is that the "basically" and effectively summarize the point without trying to sneak something in which the "basically" does not cover. I think it would very much depend on you ToS if you are able to use this. I'd imagine the likes of Facebook have such complex ToS that they could not effectively summarize like this without missing out on a lot of important detail.
>The proposed changes were actually better for users, as they would have limited the existing advertising ability to be "about or around" the user content, but now we're sticking with the ability to modify user content for advert purposes.
Pretty much bullshit. The current TOS already has that clause:
"Some of the Instagram Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you."
There are lawyers ... and there are lawyers. Nilay's arguments were very eloquently tossed into his shoe for him to eat by other lawyers. Read the comments on the Verge for pretty good online lawyer brawling .. Ok not a brawl, but Patel had it completely wrong and other lawyers weighed in.
Instagram gets to stick with whatever TOS it likes. Users get to delete their accounts and use a service that isn't an obnoxious content thief. Everyone wins!
Comments
Robert Anhalt Writes in comments:
... They [users that left] bought the CNET article that misreported on the proposed changes and thought that Instagram would all of a sudden have the ability to use their content for the purposes of advertising, hence quitting like Manny down there. The proposed changes were actually better for users, as they would have limited the existing advertising ability to be "about or around" the user content, but now we're sticking with the ability to modify user content for advert purposes. The media misreported it, the people bought it, and Instagram got to stick with their original TOS that will benefit their advertisers.
Anyone who left Instagram because of this never read the TOS in the first place and gets their legal advice from people with no background in IP law. For the record, this is exactly why I get my IP/patent/copyright news from The Verge, who have Nilay Patel and Matt Macari on staff, former IP/patent/copyright lawyers, on staff. That's about as credible as you're going to get.
---
Could anyone with knowledge on the matter explain if it's true?
The Verge had a great summary (as posted above) so I won't go into the actual 'law'. I don't even think the issue is really about what they can or cannot do in the license - Instagram is entitled to write whatever they want in the license agreement, and the original TOS was drafted in a very lawyerly way to basically allow them to do almost anything (advertising-wise) they wanted with your photos anyway.
The real interesting part is that users are willing to make a lot of noise about these license agreements without reading them. I think there's a lot of pent up FUD about license agreements because there are so many of them out there that nobody ever reads any of them, and there's a big appetite out there for somebody, anybody, to clarify these terms for them.
The consumer group-think goes kind of like: "What can Facebook do with my data? I don't know, but I'm sure their lawyers put something in the license agreement that I'm never going to read or understand. Oh, this blog says it's really bad, time to complain loudly!"
I think the result is that there really needs to be an effort on the part of these online service providers to clarify their terms and make human-readable summaries of users' rights/licenses so that everyone understands where they stand contractually.
I love how everyone just accuses Instagram users of being irrational here. Maybe they just realized that Facebook pulls this same shit over and over and when Facebook bought Instagram and started making changes, people felt they were doing the same thing as Facebook and left. There is a reason you don't shit on your users and then mock them, it makes them stop trusting your brand, which is what happened here. The response would have been different if GOOG, Twitter or even Yahoo had bought Instagram because they seem to communicate with their users in a way other than talking down to them.
One of the things that bothered me the most about this is as an ex-Facebook employee, its pretty obvious when the PR machine gets revved up. The second people pointed out that these terms weren't ideal for the user, I would guess 20 of my facebook friends posted articles basically mocking the idea that these terms were bad and boom, because Facebooks internal PR team says that the terms are good, anyone who disagrees is stupid and naive. Great way to deal with your users, mock and talk down to them because of a mistake you made. I bet the WarZ developers are proud of Facebook today.
I think the result is that there really needs to be an effort on the part of these online service providers to clarify their terms and make human-readable summaries of users' rights/licenses so that everyone understands where they stand contractually.
There was a post on HN quite some time ago about the Terms of Service agreement on http://500px.com/terms, take a look. I really like what and how they have laid it out. It's a really good idea and wish more companies would do this. I for one skim over the ToS, esp for free online services, and although I think many of us are the same we may start to read them more carefully from now on.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3831357
It does seem as though they acknowledge that most users won't read or completely understand the entire terms, and invite users to rely on the summarized terms instead. So if there were ever litigation that involved careful interpretation of the terms, might the "basically" sections be construed as estoppel and override the main text?
If so, doesn't this make the summarized text the actual controlling terms of service, leaving full "legalese" to clarify ambiguities only to the extent that is consistent with the "basically" sections?
Not sure, there is quite a few comments on the original hn article. I think the crux of it is that the "basically" and effectively summarize the point without trying to sneak something in which the "basically" does not cover. I think it would very much depend on you ToS if you are able to use this. I'd imagine the likes of Facebook have such complex ToS that they could not effectively summarize like this without missing out on a lot of important detail.
Well, here's Nilay Patel's take, for comparison. http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-te...
>The proposed changes were actually better for users, as they would have limited the existing advertising ability to be "about or around" the user content, but now we're sticking with the ability to modify user content for advert purposes.
Pretty much bullshit. The current TOS already has that clause:
"Some of the Instagram Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions, and you hereby agree that Instagram may place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content. The manner, mode and extent of such advertising and promotions are subject to change without specific notice to you."
http://instagram.com/legal/terms/
There are lawyers ... and there are lawyers. Nilay's arguments were very eloquently tossed into his shoe for him to eat by other lawyers. Read the comments on the Verge for pretty good online lawyer brawling .. Ok not a brawl, but Patel had it completely wrong and other lawyers weighed in.
Instagram gets to stick with whatever TOS it likes. Users get to delete their accounts and use a service that isn't an obnoxious content thief. Everyone wins!