Beta

×

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!

Class-Action Lawsuit Goes After Instagram Terms of Service Changes

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the for-users-read-lawyers dept.

Facebook 59

New submitter Alex Belits writes "Users of the Instagram image sharing service owned by Facebook filed a class action against Facebook for the recent change in Terms of Service." The changes that were supposed to take effect on January 16, 2013 declared for Facebook an unlimited right to use and license users' photos, added an arbitration requirement for legal disputes, and more. Guess the lawyers involved here weren't impressed enough by Facebook's hasty back-pedaling on this front; the company did explicitly disclaim ownership interest in the uploaded photos after a wave of complaints, but left in place certain other clauses in the new terms.

cancel ×

59 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Suing Instagram? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42386973)

They're suing Instagram for proposed, and now recanted, ToS changes?

I think Instagram's shenanigans were sneaky, and their backpedaling was disingenuous, but this type of suit is another reason our court system has become a laughing stock.

Re:Suing Instagram? (0, Troll)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387083)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I freaking called it! Sue all you want, you agreed to it, so you have to eat it. Oh, I'm extremely glad I don't have Instagram (Hugs Photobucket). I'm deeply sorry for the rest of you that decided to stick with them. Mark me as a troll or flamebait, I freaking called it and posted in the article that that this would happen.

Re:Suing Instagram? (1, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387547)

If you think this then you are incredibly uneducated in matters of legal standing. I dont care what you sign. Spend more than the other guys in lawyers and you win.

Hell spend enough in lawyers and you can go on a murder spree and get away with it. American Justice is for the highest bidder. Right, Wrong, and what you agreed to has nothing to do with it.

Re:Suing Instagram? (2)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387691)

Okay, if you read the ToS, it clearly states that it is subject to change. You can't sue because you agreed to it. It's not about the highest bidder cause FB could get the crappiest lawyers and still win. It's not my fault you agreed to it and are now bitching that they are changing it so you can't profit from it.

Re:Suing Instagram? (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388193)

Okay, if you read the ToS, it clearly states that it is subject to change.

They can change ToS as much as they want, but are all the possible changes legal? In some countries, you can't usurp copyrighted works like this, no matter how much the site operator declares to have the right to do whatever the f**k he wants to.

Re:Suing Instagram? (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388231)

They can change ToS as much as they want, but are all the possible changes legal?.

Didn't like Apple already fight something on those terms and won? I could be wrong, but I think that there might have been something that covered this situation.

Re:Suing Instagram? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42396055)

"Didn't like Apple already fight something on those terms"

Pear? Orange? or something else like an Apple?

Re:Suing Instagram? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42396903)

They can change ToS as much as they want, but are all the possible changes legal? ....

Pacta sunt servanda.
Contracts must be consumed.

This is one of the fundamental doctrine of our Western laws.
You just cannot enter into contact, and two minutes later turn on a dime and say, screw you, I am changing TOS.
If that were possible, what precludes Facebook shysters from changing TOS and usurping ownership of you living room sofa?

If Zuckerberg can change contacts at will, why not the other party, claiming, say ownership of his cars?
 

Re:Suing Instagram? (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42399829)

After google and wikipedia, I found out the meaning of Pacta sunt servanda and I must say how far from the definition it has strayed. Good Faith? Name a company that acts in such a way and I'll show you a guy getting his nuts kicked a thousand times. I don't think he turned on a dime because the ToS was instilled and he gave fair warning of the changes, so all's fair in love and war, especially in today's society where a dollar is fought over like gold or oil.

Re:Suing Instagram? (1)

nomadic (141991) | about a year and a half ago | (#42389133)

Wow that may be the most incorrect series of assertions I have seen on slashdot for years, and that's saying something. Judges and juries really don't care how much you spend on lawyers, they care about what you present to them in court.

Re:Suing Instagram? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42391521)

....says the niave fool. What you learned in grade school is not reality. Go ask a trial lawyer what reality is.

Re:Suing Instagram? (1)

nomadic (141991) | about a year and a half ago | (#42401843)

I AM a trial lawyer.

Obligatory xkcd (4, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387171)

http://xkcd.com/1150/ [xkcd.com]

Anyone who expects stuff like this for free should think twice.
Then again, anyone who uses Instagram is an idiot, but that's a different story.

Re:Obligatory xkcd (2)

sacrilicious (316896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388289)

I disagree with xkcd's take on this. Xkcd is proposing that the instagram situation is captured in this analogy:

* Paul puts lots of stuff in Iggy's garage
* Iggy gets sick of Paul freeloading, because Iggy has limited garage space and the agreement between Paul and Iggy was either unspecified or for limited-term, and Iggy feels that whatever length of time Paul's stuff has been there exceeds social etiquette / good taste.
* Iggy notifies Paul that he (Iggy) will get rid of Paul's stuff if he doesn't clear it out in a month.

I feel the analogy sucks because in reality, Instagram has tons of storage space, and the agreement between Instagram and its users was very well defined, even before these terms changed, and because Instagram made a massive pile of dough in no small part because of that original arrangement. A much better analogy is:

* Iggy solicits people to store personal writings into his boundless garage, because of benefits Iggy can derive from mass exposure.
* Iggy in fact benefits extremely handsomely when Fred comes along and purchases Iggy's garages. Iggy remains on in a capacity somewhere between consultant and semi-autonomous steersman.
* Fred-Iggy now tells all people who put stuff into the garages and contributed to the wealth that the terms are changing and their personal writings will be sold and used and appropriated in any way Fred-Iggy wants and profits from.
* And, xkcd comes along and uses an analogy that portrays people as freeloaders, and as selfish for wanting the agreement they signed up for to not be yanked away from them.

This isn't the first time I've found xkcd on the wrong side of an issue, and for me, this has rubbed me the wrong way to the point that I've actually decided to stop reading xkcd. Don't worry about telling me xkcd won't miss me, it's mutual.

Re:Obligatory xkcd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42388995)

Free email analogy:

Iggy allows Paul to send letters and postcards for free by paying the postage for Paul.

Paul loves sending cards and letters for free and starts sending lots of cards and letters to all his friends and relatives.

After a while, when Paul hands Iggy his cards and letters to send, Iggy hands him back a bag of junk mail from companies that seem to tie in with the subjects Paul writes about in his cards and letters.

Paul continues to send his cards and letters for free through Iggy but notices a strong correlation between what he's writing about and what junk mail he's receiving.

Paul soon realizes that Iggy is reading every single card and letter he sends out for free and is outraged by the privacy intrusion.

Iggy is confused when Paul starts yelling at him and saying that this is no way to treat his customer. Iggy explains to Paul that he is NOT the customer. The junk mail he hands over to Paul are from his customers and they are very happy with his service.

Re:Obligatory xkcd (3, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year and a half ago | (#42389469)

You're right. But you're missing one detail in your corrected analogy: There is no direct benefit for Fred-Iggy if they run a business for free. Something has to be sold to someone in some way.

My interpretation of the whole process goes like this, based on your two interpretations:

* Iggy asks Paul to use his garage to store stuff for free, which attracts Paul
* Paul puts lots of stuff in Iggy's garage
* Iggy hides his intention to sell the stuff off OR genuinely did not plan on selling the stuff and has no idea how to make money
* Behind the scenes, Fred buys Iggy's assets for an obscene amount of cash, again revealing evil plans OR no business sense
* At this point, Iggy has tons of stuff he can't use directly and is paying storage costs for
* Fred-Iggy decide to monetize (due to malice or shareholder pressure) their assets: the stuff they're keeping
* Paul gets upset because he believes he's the customer for Fred-Iggy's service, while Fred-Iggy see him as a source of material that can be sold to a third-party
* Fred-Iggy have a notorious policy of doing way more than just storing and displaying according to your rules what you gave them: they harvest everything they can about you to sell it to whoever wants the information

In conclusion, both parties are made up of morons. The difference between them being that Facebook-Instagram are just acting the way they're expected to in their role of an evil faceless (even though Facebook's not faceless, no pun intended) corporation, by stepping on the general public. Meanwhile the users expected all sorts of things for free, oppose to having their data sold off to the highest bidder (and rightly so) and are surprised by that move (nobody with half a brain should be surprised by now). And that's ignoring the fact that instagram has alternatives (dropbox, google drive, skydrive, iCloud) which are far more reputable and are only not chosen because of the possibility of taking a crappy cell phone picture and making it even worse by cropping and applying a tacky filter, making it "artistic".

tl;dr Facebook/Instagram are overhyped crap and I have little to no sympathy for anyone who expects Facebook to run a charity business.

Obligatory xkcd is non-obligatory / off the mark (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42389477)

"Anyone who expects stuff like this for free should think twice."

Nobody is expecting anything for free. They are expecting that Instagram will serve up advertisements. The xkcd comic misses the mark, because in a correct analogy Chad would be getting paid by companies to post their advertisements in line of sight of the garage entry way while our protagonist - and everyone else, including but not necessarily limited to his friends - stops by to look at his stuff. Also, in the comic, Chad didn't post ads announcing that people are free to put their stuff in his garage.

Re:Obligatory xkcd is non-obligatory / off the mar (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year and a half ago | (#42389903)

You have a point, but nobody should really be surprised, since facebook has done this kind of crap before.
Furthermore, the fact that people aren't abandoning instagram/facebook en masse just proves that in the end they don't care and are too lazy to change.

Re:Obligatory xkcd is non-obligatory / off the mar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42394741)

You have a point, but nobody should really be surprised, since facebook has done this kind of crap before.
Furthermore, the fact that people aren't abandoning instagram/facebook en masse just proves that in the end they don't care and are too lazy to change.

Or they simply don't know. Does your grandmother know about Instagrams TOS?

Pathetic back-pedaling... (5, Insightful)

Mr. Tom Guycot (1298343) | about a year and a half ago | (#42386979)

It wasn't even back-pedaling, just word soup. They never claimed ownership, just a license to use them as they wished, and their later statement never went back on THAT.

Re:Pathetic back-pedaling... (1)

k_187 (61692) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387925)

Exactly, doesn't matter who owns them when you're granting them a license to do what they want.

Human hypocrisy (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42386995)

When Facebook uses the content we create for free it's bad, but when we use other people's content for free RIAA is bad!

Re:Human hypocrisy (4, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387087)

When Facebook uses the content we create for free it's bad, but when we use other people's content for free RIAA is bad!

I know you're trying to make a point, but the situation isn't really comparable. For one, pirates do not claim ownership over the content, and secondly, pirates can't legally make money out of it whereas when a company imposes a ToS - change like this on its userbase they actually CAN then legally make money out of your content. That makes the whole premise of the situation quite different, with pirates mostly focusing on consuming the content themselves, and companies focusing on monetizing the content.

Re:Human hypocrisy (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387111)

I know you're trying to make a point, but the situation isn't really comparable. For one, pirates do not claim ownership over the content, and secondly, pirates can't legally make money out of it whereas when a company imposes a ToS - change like this on its userbase they actually CAN then legally make money out of your content. That makes the whole premise of the situation quite different, with pirates mostly focusing on consuming the content themselves, and companies focusing on monetizing the content.

And that is the reason I'm indifferent to pirates. I may not like them, but they are a necessary evil in this day and age.

Re:Human hypocrisy (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388891)

I know you're trying to make a point, but the situation isn't really comparable. For one, pirates do not claim ownership over the content, and secondly, pirates can't legally make money out of it whereas when a company imposes a ToS - change like this on its userbase they actually CAN then legally make money out of your content. That makes the whole premise of the situation quite different, with pirates mostly focusing on consuming the content themselves, and companies focusing on monetizing the content.

And that is the reason I'm indifferent to pirates. I may not like them, but they are a necessary evil in this day and age.

I'm a pirate and it's okay, I still like you.

Re:Human hypocrisy (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387569)

Therefore your point is that Corporations like Facebook are an order of magnitude worse than the typical pirate.

I completely agree.

Re:Human hypocrisy (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388293)

a thieving person can ruin your day.

a thieving corporation can ruin your whole life.

Re:Human hypocrisy (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#42391497)

That's one dimension, but there is a second:

A thieving person can ruin a handful of people's days.

A thieving corporation can ruin millions of people's days.

Nice strawman you've got there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42387089)

When we're using other people's content for free to make money it's bad

FTFY.

Re:Human hypocrisy (3, Insightful)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387105)

Not a bad comparison, though there is a difference between sharing and selling. Namely, the exchange of money. If Facebook/Instagram said your photos would be copylefted, I don't think people would object as much. But profiting from other people's work is a little shadier than just giving it away.

Re:Human hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42387155)

When Facebook uses the content we create for free it's bad, but when we use other people's content for free RIAA is bad!

First of all there is a pretty large difference between commercial and non-commercial usage then there is the requirement of the end result not being completely reliant of the used content. Add to this the requirement of a source reference.

Re:Human hypocrisy (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387157)

When Facebook uses the content we create for free it's bad, but when we use other people's content for free RIAA is bad!

The folks with the most money: hire the best lawyers, buy the best Congressfolks and bribe the best judges.

They decide what is good and bad. Hell, they even direct the FBI to execute major dubious law enforcement activities in New Zeeland.

To Godwin this thread early: "the company did explicitly disclaim ownership interest in the uploaded photos after a wave of complaints"

"Hitler did explicitly disclaim ownership interest in starting WW2 after a wave of complaints"

On my cynical side, who really believed anyway, that Facebook and their retinue had no ownership interest in your data? They have been acting like they own it from day one.

Re:Human hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42389115)

I'm sure that others will take the time to school you regarding the erros of your thesis, I however would like to take this opportunity to engage in an an attack against the person and call you a clueless dick.

Re:Human hypocrisy (2)

X.25 (255792) | about a year and a half ago | (#42389483)

When Facebook uses the content we create for free it's bad, but when we use other people's content for free RIAA is bad!

Facebook is (supposed to be) profiting from that 'usage'. People downloading movies off the Internet are not.

I understand the difference might be really hard to spot, but at least try.

Allow me to FTFY (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42389503)

When Facebook SELLS the content we create for A FEEit's bad, but when we USE, BUT DO NOT SELL other people's content for free RIAA is bad!

They have no cause (4, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387015)

They can simply refuse the new term of service, and their photo will not be covered by the new TOS meaning instagram/FB won't be able to use them anyway. Naturally they lose usage of their photo but hey, so is life when you trust some random company with your stuff when you are obviously the "product" of that company. But i see no cause to sue the lawsuit will prolly be rejected at judge level.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/instagram.png [xkcd.com]

Re:They have no cause (3, Interesting)

Khyber (864651) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387235)

There's plenty of cause to the suit.

Look up "Contract of Adhesion" then re-read the old and revised TOS.

There is literally no 'meeting of the minds' here and the new/old EUA/TOS is quite overreaching with regards to personal copyright.

Re:They have no cause (1)

Spamalope (91802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388125)

Exactly.

Show me the facebook owned property that allows you to delete pictures or your account. facebook allows you to stop publicly serving pictures in feeds. They'll often still serve the pictures to anyone with the link. Public information indicates that facebook never, ever deletes user information including 'deleted' pictures. They won't even allow you to delete an account. Instagram is now a facebook property.

The TOS took every right of ownership except liability. If I used the service I'd be appalled. Subscribers got a hosting service in exchange for behavioral tracking. To 'change the deal further' and take the right to use my photography for marketing, possibly undisclosed and with at least implied endorsement of the people in my photographs and I. No. Hell no. That's not the same at all.

In the first agreement fb took all license rights. If a professional photographer licenses a photograph with all rights, fb can use the shot for any commercial purpose and let anyone else use it. Wouldn't that be true here? If this TOS is a valid contract, the photographer would be liable if a person in the shot sues because it was used without a modeling release, right?

Re:They have no cause (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388909)

They can simply refuse the new term of service, and their photo will not be covered by the new TOS meaning instagram/FB won't be able to use them anyway. Naturally they lose usage of their photo but hey, so is life when you trust some random company with your stuff when you are obviously the "product" of that company. But i see no cause to sue the lawsuit will prolly be rejected at judge level.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/instagram.png [xkcd.com]

but what happens to the photos that are already on it?

Umm... Don't use it? (4, Insightful)

Holistic Missile (976980) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387021)

If you don't agree with the terms, don't use it. No one's forcing you to.

I don't have, and never will have, a Facebook account due to privacy concerns (data mining, etc.), and concerns over use/abuse of users' writing/photos/whatever.

Anyone can use your photos/whatever for whatever they want - the general consensus seems to be that if it's on the internet, it's free to use. ZDNet got called out on a photo lifted from another website in a recent article/blog entry in the comments to that article. The author/blogger's response was 'Oh, is that where that came from?' I don't agree in any way with big media's take on copyright, but at least give credit, or better yet, ask permission, for something you're using.

If you don't want people using your photos, don't post them publicly on the internet. Try this: open a browser window to images.google.com, and drag a photo from another website onto the input field. Look at how many places it shows up! Try it with some of your Facebook photos - you may be surprised!

Re:Umm... Don't use it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42387921)

I don't have, and never will have, a Facebook account due to privacy concerns...

Are you in the USA? If so, you may be a bit naive. As Facebook growth quickly slows, they know they will need more users in order to allow their early employees and favorite stockholders to exit with a big pile 'o cash. At that point, the newly minted cabinet member or senator (Zuckerberg) will remind people of how we "need" a national "Net ID" to combat anonymity and to "think of the children" and "prevent terrorist attacks". Everyone in the USA will be required to have a Facebook ID and use it in order to even access the internet.

Think about it.
Notrildamus

Re:Umm... Don't use it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42388245)

If you don't agree with the terms, don't use it

Your approach requires:

(a) personal responsibility, and
(b) the lack of a sense of entitlement

Thus it is off limits to 99% of the population.

Nice try.

Re:Umm... Don't use it? (5, Insightful)

sacrilicious (316896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388351)

If you don't agree with the terms, don't use it. No one's forcing you to.

Consider this similar logic: "If you don't like the Patriot act, don't live in the USA. No one's forcing you to."

This "free market" response to such issues is bullshit. The free market works when there is a lot of varied competition and when there is near-zero cost to transitioning from vendor to vendor. Neither is true in the case of picking a place to live, and neither is true in the case of Instagram. And when you try to pretend that free markets solve all and therefor nobody should give a damn, you make me want to blow your ass away with my 12-guage. Don't like it? Go live on a planet without guns.

Re:Umm... Don't use it? (1)

Adam Appel (1991764) | about a year and a half ago | (#42389643)

Like you I have privacy concerns with Facebook. But after X years I have to wonder what damage FB has done to in any regards to my information? I get less junk mail then ever before, I don't see targeted web ads (does anyone?) and I am not a huge consumer other then my esoteric areas of interest. Where is the harm of Facebook? So for you not worth it and for me it is. Both are acceptable positions but a class action lawsuit seems not applicable? How could the criteria for harm be shown?

I guess Apple fanboys.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42387091)

... are as litigious as their masters.

annoys (2, Funny)

sacrilicious (316896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387173)

From the article:

"We believe this complaint is without merit and we will fight it vigorously," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in an e-mail.

So this guy's name is "A. Noyes". I find that fitting somehow.

(I usually don't go for the ad hominem humor, but can't help myself in this case, sorry)

oblig. xkcd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42387193)

http://xkcd.com/1150/

so don't use it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42387299)

If you agree to terms like, "The other party can change this agreement in any way at any time and there's fuck all you can do about that", well... you deserve what you get.

I think it's fine to agree to that, but then, don't go crying about the results. You made your bed, you sleep in it. Everyone gets to decide on their own whether that is acceptable. I and many others have decided it is not, so I do not use such services. If you decide it is, then stop fucking whining about what YOU AGREED TO!

Easy way out for Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42387397)

Just introduce a $10/month fee for users who wish to maintain complete ownership over their own content.

Facebook is not forcing anyone to use Instagram and they are not obliged to provide "apply-this-effect-to-your-pet-photo-and-think-you-are-Salvador-Dali" service free of charge. They need to make money somehow, so either give Facebook right to use your photos or pay up.

This will shut up the entitled free users and I bet %99.99 would not be paying a dime and would rather their "Art" be licensed to Facebook.

So, its ok for facebook? (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387607)

I dont have an Instragram account, so i didn't pay too much attention to the hype around the ToS changes. What I did gleam from it was the change saying Instagram could sell your images without paying you a dime or even letting you know about it. That's essentially what Facebook's user agreement says without expressly saying so. You own the content, but they sub-license it. IE. They do what they want and you're screwed.

Where can I obtain the corporate... (2)

3seas (184403) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388063)

...book of lies?

Why You Don't Surrond Yourself With Synchophants (2)

assertation (1255714) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388747)

The Instagram move has to be the most brain dead decision from the tech world since Google Buzz.

In both situations any ordinary person would be asking themselves

"How could they NOT think that this decision would upset their users, big time?"

To be un-PC, not everyone who works in tech, especially management has an autism spectrum disorder.

That leaves management surronding themselves with and reweard synchophants.........yes men, who insulate them from reality, letting them make assinine decisions like this one.

They deserve to be sued.

Re:Why You Don't Surrond Yourself With Synchophant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42389451)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sycophants

And the business world is packed with ToS changes that give the user the shaft. Companies like Facebook are really desperate to get some revenue to at least convey the idea that they are profitable, at least to postpone their myspaceification.

It wouldn't be Slashdot without a car analogy (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42389791)

So your buddy Joe lets you borrow his car whenever you want. He has a GPS and his car is so efficient he actually makes money by selling the GPS data on which stores you went to. One day he tells you, "If you want to keep using my car you have to let me take pictures from any angle of you or your stuff at any time you're in the car and sell them".

He regularly sends you long, long boring letters that you both know you don't read and this stipulation is hidden inside one of them.

If you believe them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42389853)

"Ok ok we won't sell your photos....but we still own them."

Re:If you believe them... (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#42390403)

Actually it's the opposite, they don't claim to own the photos but they intend to sell (actually license) them as if they do.

Meaningless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42393927)

Because when you sign up for an account, you agree to the current TOS. The current TOS includes verbiage that states that they can change the TOS and what you can do if you don't like the changes.

This one won't go anywhere.

What class action? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42396997)

"Users of the Instagram image sharing service owned by Facebook filed a class action against Facebook for the recent change in Terms of Service."

No, they did not. Class action is only such when court certifies. And only a tiny fraction of PROPOSED class actions (as this PROPOSED is) gets to be certified.

Stupid journos.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>