×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Instagram: We Won't Sell Your Photos

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the perhaps-now-the-internet-can-stop-panicking dept.

Privacy 234

hugheseyau writes "Earlier, we discussed news that Instagram introduced a new version of their Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that will take effect in thirty days. The changes seemed to allow Instagram to sell users' photos, and many users were upset. Instagram now says 'it is not our intention to sell your photos' and that 'users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos.' This is good news for Instagram users." And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (5, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#42331457)

They are OURS, fools!

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (5, Insightful)

alphatel (1450715) | about a year ago | (#42331531)

'it is not our intention to sell your photos' is not the same as "We won't ever sell your photos". History make a note before this is erased from yourself.

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (4, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year ago | (#42331613)

'it is not our intention to sell your photos' is not the same as "We won't ever sell your photos". History make a note before this is erased from yourself.

In no way does this mean we won't change our minds tomorrow. Suckers!

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331653)

And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."

And so begins another chapter of "We Let Niggers Think Theyre Equal and Now They Think Being A Thug Is Cool".

If the darkies who marched with Martin Luther King could only see today's average innercity ghetto they would have been disgusted and they wouldnt have bothered.

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331821)

Hey Casper, why not be proud of what your people have achieved, instead of knocking others.

You peckerwoods have done alright for yourselves, with the gas chambers, gulags, and school-shootings. No need to be insecure!

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year ago | (#42331913)

Nah, they'll just put it in their T&C. "You agreed to it, so you're screwed"

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331689)

We don't intend to shove our collective dicks up your ass, now please bend over and lube it real good.

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (4, Insightful)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about a year ago | (#42331869)

And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."

More like, "We were caught trying to stick it to our users BUT they called us on our shit."

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331917)

Instagram says "It is not our intention to sell your photos". Unsaid was "But our intention doesn't matter, since Facebook controls us now, and only their intention matters."

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42332115)

I don't care if you sell them, just give us a piece of the action.

It would have been easy to say (2)

Trashcan Romeo (2675341) | about a year ago | (#42332305)

And prudent - given how big a PR hit they've already gotten for their ambiguous language. So interpret the absence of "We won't ever sell your photos" to mean "We'll sell your photos whenever we feel like it".

"We won't SELL your photos..." (4, Funny)

TuringTest (533084) | about a year ago | (#42331617)

"...we'll only RENT them for the duration of an ad campaign".

Re:"We won't SELL your photos..." (3, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#42331787)

After we're done turning them over to any TLA with the words "defense", "security", "intelligence", or "investigation" in their names.

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (2)

wwalker (159341) | about a year ago | (#42332005)

It is not our intention...

HA-HA-HA! "We have our dick up your bum hole, but it is not our intention to rape you any time soon!"

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about a year ago | (#42332235)

I don't put anything on Google services that I might want to claim copyright on, for similar reasons. Google's TOS includes an unlimited license for them to publish any material that users put on their services:

When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.

Here's Google's disclaimer:

Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your Gmail account.

But note what Google does *not* promise to do: avoid harming users' economic interests in their data. Yes, you might still *own* your data, but you give Google practically unlimited permission to do anything it pleases with your data, up to and including binding it in a paper book and selling it.

I'm not particularly concerned they'd do that -- that's sure to be viewed as unconscionable. I believe that what Google wants to do are things that some jury somewhere might construe as "publishing". Unfortunately, that same jury that would exonerate Google based on the TOS would also strip the author of certain special rights authors enjoy for unpublished manuscripts -- secrecy, for example. It is also possible (I hope) that at under future changes in copyright law, Google's having quasi-published a manuscript might effect its copyright term.

Scientists might have similar issues with inadvertently "publishing" data by storing it on some Google service (Gmail for example), thus rendering it unpublishable in an academic journal.

If Google intended to protect the users' interest in their data, they'd qualify the permissions they claim to "publish" your data so it only applied to public facing services. Yahoo does this:

"Publicly accessible" areas of the Yahoo! Services are those areas of the Yahoo! network of properties that are intended by Yahoo! to be available to the general public.

So I avoid GMail and use Yahoo Mail for anything I don't want "published", because Yahoo doesn't claim a right to "publish" emails and their attached documents, but in Gmail Google *does*.

Re:We Won't Sell YOUR Photos (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#42332267)

"it is not our intention to sell your photos", we'll just add them to the ads we get payed to display.

The First Rule (5, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#42331459)

Rule #0 of business agreements: If a contract says that the other party CAN do something, proceed under the assumption that they WILL do it.

Re:The First Rule (4, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about a year ago | (#42331693)

Seriously. This is an insult to our intelligence. Of course, it'll probably fly because most people haven't had to deal with the inevitable conclusion when they change their mind, or the business isn't growing fast enough and they have to find money somewhere, or enough time has passed that they think they can get away with it, or somebody else is in charge with different notions of what a promise means and is empowered by this clause.

"Oh, no, we won't ever actually do that. It's just in the contract because ... uh ... well, it's just there! Don't worry about it!"

Re:The First Rule (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#42331721)

Rule of Acquisition #5: If you can't break a contract, bend it.

Re:The First Rule (4, Informative)

mirix (1649853) | about a year ago | (#42331773)

Just like when they make a new law. Someone points out that this is overly vague or somehow over-reaching, and can be used for $bad_thing. Lawmakers say this is obviously not the intent, and will never be used for such, no need to worry your head about it.

But they intend to use it in that manner soon and often, otherwise it would be rewritten.

Re:The First Rule (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#42331815)

Well, it doesn't help that, in the past, we've already seen Facebook using people's personal photos in their third-party product ads.

Instagram/Facebook claims those clauses are going to be rewritten. If that doesn't happen by, say, January 10th - I'd strongly suggest you delete your photos from Instagram and then remove your account.

Re:The First Rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42332245)

Already ahead of you there.

I took my content off of Instagram & Facebook because of this.

Re:The First Rule (4, Informative)

chihowa (366380) | about a year ago | (#42332037)

Of course. They keep saying that 'users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos.' That's not really the issue, though. Nobody claimed that they were taking ownership of the photos, only that you're granting them 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...

So they've added the right to transfer or sub-license your photos. They've not claimed that they own your photos, but they claim to be able to sell them as they please.

Here's their old ToS [instagram.com] :

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.

and the new, updated ToS: [instagram.com]

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/ [instagram.com] .

Re:The First Rule (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#42332167)

The reason they do this is so that they can show your pictures to other users of Instagram without getting sued. Dropbox does the same, because otherwise, they wouldn't be able to implement the shared Dropbox feature. Since you (presumably) own the copyright on whichever photo you upload, technically, if you didn't grant them any rights, they wouldn't be able to create copies, or transmit the image to other users of the system. So, in order to cover their ass against users who would upload a photo and then claim copyright infringement when they shared said photo with other users on the system, it's just easier to create an all encompassing clause which grants them the ability to actually do the stuff they need to be able to do. If in a month they introduce a new feature, that lets you do something else with your photos, or they want to make them into a new thumbnail size, they don't want to have to ask your permission to generate a bunch of new thumbnails. People have tried to sue Google for spidering their site, and I don't know if anybody was successful, but I'm sure it created a bit of a headache for Google to have to deal with it. If they really don't want their stuff indexed, they can set their robots.txt file appropriately. But instead they'd rather bring up a lawsuit. Instagram doesn't want to deal with stupid little lawsuits like this, so this is why they create these clauses.

Re:The First Rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42332045)

Unless they are estopped from doing so by publicly stating that is not their intent.

They still have the rights... (5, Insightful)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | about a year ago | (#42331461)

While they may not intend to exercise their rights, they still HAVE the rights to be able to use any instagram photos in ads, and use that for commercial purposes, etc.

So this is a great example of doublespeak/equivocation -- our contract lets us do what we want, but we promise not to use what it allows us to right now to avoid a PR frankenstorm.

I don't see how the case is closed after this...it isn't so much a case of we let lawyers write a document, as, we're just making sure we're "protected" to keep our "options" open in the future when we might "want" to exercise our rights to "your" photos...

Given Facebook's history on privacy policy shenanigans, I think any reasonably prudent person would not trust Instagram's assertions..

Re:They still have the rights... (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | about a year ago | (#42331499)

I think we can assume that they will strike some balance between profitability and user outrage. Obviously, the more users you alienate, the more you risk your ability to profit from a large user base. I, for one, can't wait for our photo-pwning overlords to use my picture as the Rogaine poster child without compensating me or asking my permission.

Re:They still have the rights... (4, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#42331741)

I think we can assume that they will strike some balance between profitability and user outrage.

It isn't hard to imagine the day when facebook goes the way of all the others that have come before like myspace, geocities, etc. At some point along that line they will value their ownership of our photos more than they will value their reduced userbase. Then it becomes a simple business decision to liquidate and sell off their copyright in those images to another company, perhaps getty or another stock photo site which has no interest in anything beyond reselling licensing rights to the photos. Photos that have already been conveniently tagged by the suckers^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h former users.

Re:They still have the rights... (0, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#42331545)

Zomg

A free service wants to use some of the content that you upload there

Re:They still have the rights... (5, Insightful)

tool462 (677306) | about a year ago | (#42331561)

any reasonably prudent person

I believe that set is disjoint with the set of all instagram users.

Re:They still have the rights... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331683)

any reasonably prudent person

I believe that set is disjoint with the set of all instagram users.

And all big fat obese lardasses. And anybody who votes Democrat. And baby boomers that keep bankrupting us. Mostly by being big fat obese lardasses who vote Democrat.

Re:They still have the rights... (4, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#42331677)

not just that, but they could end up without a choice in the matter, if they go bankrupt and are carved up and auctioned off, the contract rights they posess will be one of the things sold

Re:They still have the rights... (2)

reboot246 (623534) | about a year ago | (#42331715)

Why people continue to trust Facebook et al. is beyond me.

Oh, that's right. They're Facebook users.

Re:They still have the rights... (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#42331957)

It seems to me they wouldn't go out of their way to reserve a right they sincerely didn't intend to exercise, especially when it was so obviously likely to provoke outrage.

Re:They still have the rights... (5, Interesting)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year ago | (#42332031)

Actually the new bits in the Terms of Use that offend me the most aren't really even related to photos and what Facebookstagram will do with them. It's shit like this:

- We can share not just your photos but anything we know about you with Facebook and then Facebook can share that info with any company it is in a relationship with. Things we know about you include but are not limited to where you are.

- We can show you ads without telling you they're ads. And because we're part of one of the most aggressive tech-savvy ad companies that has ever existed, you won't even know they're ads. You'll just click "like" because we'll use awesome photos that we know you'll like and then we'll sell what we've learned about what you and your friends like, and how easily we got you to like it.

- If you're under 18: by using this service we will treat you as if you have your parents' consent for everything in these terms. You're not legally able to enter a contract but by default we will act as if you have.

I don't care how much backtracking and spin Instagram tries to put on it, I'm out. Photos backed up, account deleted.

Still have not seen that in the fine print. (4, Insightful)

jackb_guppy (204733) | about a year ago | (#42331463)

So when is the new new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service will be shown?

Re:Still have not seen that in the fine print. (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#42331751)

You see the JPEG compression artifacts in the footer of their website? It's not JPEG compression artifacts. It's the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service but you a quad-retina display to read it.

cynic (4, Interesting)

codegen (103601) | about a year ago | (#42331467)

The cynic in me sometimes wonders if this is something they do on purpose. Publish new outrageous terms of service and then wait for the internet to explode. Wait a few hours more and then come on with a ready appology. A lot of people have enough invested in a particular site that they won't leave right away, and with an appropriate "apology" are molified. And a lot of exposure is thus gained. But given that other competitors are ready to swoop in, the other part of me dismisses it.

Re:cynic (2)

causality (777677) | about a year ago | (#42331711)

The cynic in me sometimes wonders if this is something they do on purpose. Publish new outrageous terms of service and then wait for the internet to explode. Wait a few hours more and then come on with a ready appology. A lot of people have enough invested in a particular site that they won't leave right away, and with an appropriate "apology" are molified. And a lot of exposure is thus gained. But given that other competitors are ready to swoop in, the other part of me dismisses it.

That tactic is used in politics all the time, particularly whenever the desire is to expand government. Float an idea and pretend like there's any real debate about what you are going to do anyway. It gives the illusion of legitimacy. If there is a lot of backlash, do it over time in baby steps with carefully crafted excuses as justification; if not, just go for it.

Re:cynic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331849)

The cynic in me sometimes wonders if this is something they do on purpose.

Yes, it is done on purpose. It's called a trial balloon [wikipedia.org] .

"Mistake" my Ass. (4, Insightful)

Grog6 (85859) | about a year ago | (#42331469)

They Got Caught, and had to respond.

There is a business plan on fire in a trashcan somewhere, most likely; or just put off for awhile.

We'll see this again, wait and see. And not as a repost, lol.

Intentions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331475)

Not their intention, doesn't mean their intentions wont change.

Also, maybe they'll give the photos away 'free' to their most profitable advertisers?

Re:Intentions (1)

JasoninKS (1783390) | about a year ago | (#42331879)

You've got the same general thought I had. "It's not our *intention*...but if it happens, well, the TOS said we can!" Same thing with companies that say they won't sell your email address. Riiiight.

Nonsense. (4, Insightful)

voice of unreason (231784) | about a year ago | (#42331487)

The chapter is closed? Nonsense. They haven't offered to change the contract, they just claim that everyone's misinterpreted it. Which gives you no more rights than you had before. If it's in the contract, it's in the contract. Their PR statements would not affect in the slightest their legal ability to use your photos.

Re:Nonsense. (3, Informative)

swillden (191260) | about a year ago | (#42331829)

They haven't offered to change the contract

From their statement: "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."

We'll have to see what they actually change, but they have said that they're going to change it.

or so they claim... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331489)

Unless and until they change the legal agreement (terms of service or whatever) then they still have the rights in perpetuity to sell or do whatever they want with your photos. doesn't matter what they say informally.

thats what they say (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#42331507)

they intend.

However, if the new policy allows them to do so, and you agree, then eventually they will probably do it.

Lets see them make a clear and official statement in the EULA.

What the new TOS really mean (3, Insightful)

h8mx (2713391) | about a year ago | (#42331511)

This article shed some light on the new TOS for me:

What the new terms of service really mean | The Verge [theverge.com]

Re:What the new TOS really mean (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year ago | (#42332367)

the verge: "You agree that a business may pay Instagram to display your photos in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions without any compensation to you."

That sentence was added to Instagram's terms of service yesterday, sparking widespread outrage —the most panicked analysis claims Instagram just gave itself permission to sell everyone's photos at will. Even the least icky hypothetical scenarios being tossed around are completely icky: your parents leave a comment on a photo of your kid, and five minutes later, they're looking at an ad for a new life insurance policy featuring that same intimate photo of their grandchild. Is this really the future of Instagram? Well, in a way. But it's a lot more like Facebook's current "sponsored post" system than anything else —there's no way Instagram can up and sell your photos to anyone, and advertisers are fairly limited in what they can do with those photos. Here's what's going on. "There's no way Instagram can sell your photos to anyone" Instagram's new terms of service, which go into effect on January 16th, clearly state that your photographs and associated information (like location data) can be promoted by companies without anyone notifying you about the transaction. It's not even hidden in legalese —it's right there in black and white:

"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." http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean [theverge.com]

Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331525)

This reads like something written by their damage control PR people. What they are really saying is that they aren't changing anything. They still want to use the pictures of you in ads shown to people you know. Further, the nowhere did they say they would own your photos non-exclusive license =/= ownership. So, nothing new, just saying the same thing a different way so people don't freak out.

Incredibly evasvie language in that clarification (1)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#42331537)

Kevin Systrom is just reiterating what the original ToS said but with evasive and redirected language. "We do not have plans..." Yeah, you don't have plans yet, you asshole.

Too little too late (5, Interesting)

morcego (260031) | about a year ago | (#42331559)

This is a classical example of how a mistake can cost you users forever.
Earlier today, I removed all my photos and deleted my account. After that, I started trying other apps and services, and actually found one I like more than Instagram.

So yeah, I could go back, but I won't, simply because I found something else that I like better and, truth be told, moving back is simply not worth the 5 minutes it would take.

Does this make a big different for me ? Nope, which is why I wasn't even looking for an alternative before. This whole fiasco pushed me to look, and I'm not going back.

Re:Too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331659)

...actually found one I like more than Instagram.

Okay, and which one is it?

Re:Too little too late (3, Informative)

morcego (260031) | about a year ago | (#42331807)

Streamzoo for daily crap, and Pixlr-o-matic if I want better stuff.

Pixlr-o-matic is much more powerful than what we are used to, with tons of filters and options, making it a bit slower to use. However, it gives great results.

Re:Too little too late (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#42331671)

Why do you need a special app to take pictures? I dont understand the need to make it complicated. Take picture, use normal tools that dont demand your first born, publish.

Re:Too little too late (2)

morcego (260031) | about a year ago | (#42331755)

Why do you need a special app to take pictures? I dont understand the need to make it complicated. Take picture, use normal tools that dont demand your first born, publish.

The only reason I used it was because of the how convenient it was to apply filters.

Re:Too little too late (1)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#42331685)

What did you move to may I ask?

Re:Too little too late (3, Informative)

morcego (260031) | about a year ago | (#42331791)

What did you move to may I ask?

2 apps.

1) Streamzoo - Easy and convenient. Very Instagram-like.
2) Pixlr-o-matic - Amazing filters. However, not was convenient. A ton of filters and options are available. Keep your pics on your phone and share using standard services (pic.twitter.com etc).

So I will be mostly using Streamzoo for whatever pics, and will use Pixlr-o-matic when I want some better results.

Re:Too little too late (1)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#42331805)

Interesting. Thanks. My wife does a lot of photo work as a hobby, going to explore these and see if she likes it.

Re:Too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42332169)

This seems more like a classic example of how a mistake can cost you a user.

(Plus, you'll be back when Facebook buys the alternatives you found.)

Typical slashdot attorney bashing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331563)

Yes those evil lawyers. Fucking slashdot with its predictable "commentary."

Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about a year ago | (#42331779)

Yes those evil lawyers. Fucking slashdot with its predictable "commentary."

Lawyers are one of the few priesthoods left in Western society. The purpose of a priesthood is to guard information from the uninitiated, so that most people are dependent on the priests.

The Catholic Church of medieval times really hated the idea of a Bible written in the native languages of the laypeople. They preferred Latin, a language that was generally taught only to the clergy at that time. If there is ever a movement to simplify the law and remove the legalese, so that the average person could easily understand and apply it without professional help, you will see a similar outcry from the lawyers.

The difference between a lawyer and a doctor is that the human body is inherently complex. The law is only so complex because men have made it so.

Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331985)

Yes those evil lawyers. Fucking slashdot with its predictable "commentary."

Lawyers are one of the few priesthoods left in Western society. The purpose of a priesthood is to guard information from the uninitiated, so that most people are dependent on the priests.

The Catholic Church of medieval times really hated the idea of a Bible written in the native languages of the laypeople. They preferred Latin, a language that was generally taught only to the clergy at that time. If there is ever a movement to simplify the law and remove the legalese, so that the average person could easily understand and apply it without professional help, you will see a similar outcry from the lawyers.

The difference between a lawyer and a doctor is that the human body is inherently complex. The law is only so complex because men have made it so.

You're a fucking idiot. If I can read the law and the case law and understand it, you have no excuse. Lawyers have no part in legislation or the legalese of judicial opinions. Also, comparing American legal precedent to Christianity is a huge fail. There is a discernible source to Am Jur. If you don't like that source, move, or do setting to fix it.

Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42332239)

u mad bro?

Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42332035)

Lol the law and judge opinions aren't written in LATIN. Tell me more about motorcycle college.

Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing (3, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#42332257)

Lol the law and judge opinions aren't written in LATIN.

While that was not the OP's point, it is ironic that you focused on it because it is demonstrably not true.
Modern legal code is littered with latin phrases. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about a year ago | (#42331823)

You must have missed the Jack Daniel's article:

http://idle.slashdot.org/story/12/07/23/129216/jack-daniels-shows-how-to-write-a-cease-and-desist-letter/ [slashdot.org]

Attorneys, particularly IP attorneys, operate in a world almost totally disjoint from humans. Sometimes, their actions are reasonable and useful, but, mostly, the game is rigged to keep them flourishing at the expense of 99.999% of humans.

bs (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331581)

"Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos"

No.. they dont claim "ownership"... they do claim a perpetual and unlimited rights though... which is all the benefits of ownership, with none of the liabilities.

Re:bs (1)

AnttiV (1805624) | about a year ago | (#42331891)

Why is parent not modded up? This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the summary. They do say exactly that. Saying that you don't have "ownership" of something means *nothing* if you simultaneously claim perpetual and unlimited rights to said something.

"Not our intent" is weasely legalspeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331611)

Intentions change.

They would, of course (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331621)

However there has yet to be a picture on Instragram that's worth paying for.

Fatal flaw with biological storage (5, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | about a year ago | (#42331633)

I actually had a great, if somewhat unusual, method of backing up my photographs- I got a deer to memorise them. I know it sounds weird, but it turned out to be quite effective, at least with the males (does, on the other hand, were less reliable). I trained it to understand basic commands and in response, it scratched out a basic reproduction of the requested image, eventually improving to quite impressive quality after a period of time.

In this way, I came to realise that I was using their brain as a sort of basic computer memory. This worked very well until I realised that my contract with the owner of the deer meant he had the right to reuse anything they had memorised.

Of course, this was not acceptable, so I no longer store my photos in stag RAM.

Re:Fatal flaw with biological storage (3, Funny)

causality (777677) | about a year ago | (#42331883)

I actually had a great, if somewhat unusual, method of backing up my photographs- I got a deer to memorise them. I know it sounds weird, but it turned out to be quite effective, at least with the males (does, on the other hand, were less reliable). I trained it to understand basic commands and in response, it scratched out a basic reproduction of the requested image, eventually improving to quite impressive quality after a period of time. In this way, I came to realise that I was using their brain as a sort of basic computer memory. This worked very well until I realised that my contract with the owner of the deer meant he had the right to reuse anything they had memorised. Of course, this was not acceptable, so I no longer store my photos in stag RAM.

This is why drugs are not for everyone.

Re:Fatal flaw with biological storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42332149)

I just checked, but your name doesn't appear to be DeerAnalogyGuy.

Too Late (3, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year ago | (#42331661)

Instagram already showed us who they are on the inside. How they feel about their users. That they see them as cattle to be slaughtered and sold in whatever way most suits their customers, the advertisers. The only thing that has changed is they got caught and so they are going to hide their disdain for a while until this storm blows over.

It is not this policy that is unacceptable, it is their attitude. They have shown that they cannot be trusted, and it is our duty -- as the silent hand of the free market -- to put them out of business as a warning to others.

Delete your Instagram account, and never darken their door again.

Verify, then Trust (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#42331731)

The fact is, they intended to sell them.

When they do it is another detail.

Trust? About as far as we trusted the Soviets.

Riots in Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331757)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20774640

This is just the start

Re:Riots in Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42332107)

so a picture on insta after the 16th of jan is "owned" by instagram... even if they decide not to sell it... that means instagram/FB are liable for its contents?

Damn lawyers (4, Insightful)

Monoman (8745) | about a year ago | (#42331763)

That's why I often wish laws, contracts, etc could contain sections written in plain/common language explaining the intention/spirit of the document. Of course it would never work but I can dream.

Re:Damn lawyers (5, Interesting)

PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#42331969)

The only entity I know that does this is the NHL rule book. There is an accompanying "Situation Guide" which explains the original intent of the rule and some situations in which is should and should not apply.

Re:Damn lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331971)

please explain the intention/spirit of your comment

Re:Damn lawyers (1)

dpidcoe (2606549) | about a year ago | (#42332183)

It could work if it was written in a logical language. Unfortunately, most languages are so full of potential double meanings and/or implied meanings that even slight changes in context can completely turn around the implications of what was said. Coincidentally, that's also one of the main reasons why plain spoken english as a computer programming language is asking for trouble.

The other problem of course is that lawyers want to stay employed.

Language (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42332363)

Laws should be written in a computer language, not as human languages. This allows a static definition of the law, and allows bloat to be condensed by refactoring. The hard part is translating human actions into the equivalent computer language relevant variable value.

All your photo are belong to us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42331777)

'users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos.' This is good news for Instagram users."

That word "good", I do not think it means what you think it means.

If it is still in the EULA they will still be selling your photos at some point. If you agreed to a EULA with that clause and they change the EULA to remove the clause, they can still sell your photos.
They do not want to own your photos, as the under 18 nudes would send them to prison. They just want to be able to sell the photos.

Instagram does not claim any ownership (1)

Dracos (107777) | about a year ago | (#42332057)

...is legally distinct from "Instagram does not claim any distribution rights". I'm also sure there are legal workarounds for "sell".

Just like ISPs and mobile carriers legally and torturously redefine "unlimited".

Re:Instagram does not claim any ownership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42332175)

The TOS does not use the word "sell" in this context. They use the word "pay". I'm not a lawyer, but seems significant as it would allow renting/licensing/etc of the photos to other entities. Whereas "sell", I suspect, implies transfer of copyright/ownership.

Instagram is taking offense to the media's specific usage of the word "sell"...

well yeah. (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#42332095)

> And so closes another chapter of "We Let Lawyers Write a Legal Document and The Internet Freaked Out."

Well, yeah, because we know how lawyers think.

I am not an Instagram user (and that looks unlikely now) but I'm hoping that someone checks the revamped agreement.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...