Instagram steals your soul.

[Audley Strange]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767537

Looks like Instagram are trying to consider your photos their intellectual property, which means Facebook will probably have to flog all your info to anyone with enough cash soon.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767537

Looks like Instagram are trying to consider your photos their intellectual property, which means Facebook will probably have to flog all your info to anyone with enough cash soon.

Lawsuit will be along shortly.

[Audley Strange]

and in fairness...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20777616

[orpheus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20767537

Looks like Instagram are trying to consider your photos their intellectual property, which means Facebook will probably have to flog all your info to anyone with enough cash soon.

From that link:

"To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos," it said.

Instagram chief executive Kevin Systrom said in a blog posting: "It is our mistake that this language is confusing.

"We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear."

Hmm. Here's the "confusing" language:

The originally proposed new wording that caused the controversy included: "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."

The terms also stated that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

Hmm. Nope. Doesn't seem like they intend to sell users' photos. Not at all. Nope.

Is that desperate backpedaling I hear? To that classic tune "Damage Control"?

[Tero]

You posted pics on the internet? They are there forever, especially if you are naked.

[pErvinalia]

yeah, but I want to get the money for them, not some megacorporation...

[JimC]

You posted pics on the internet? They are there forever, especially if you are naked.

I may post naked pictures of myself on the forum, unless enough people send me money...

[Thinking Aloud]

Hmm. Here's the "confusing" language:

The originally proposed new wording that caused the controversy included: "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."

This is pretty standard for any website where you post your own stuff that is then broadcast globally (and for the most part is necessary to permit the host to distribute your text and images over the internet). Usually the licence ends if you subsequently delete the content - that would need checking in this case.

The terms also stated that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

Hmm. Nope. Doesn't seem like they intend to sell users' photos. Not at all. Nope.

Is that desperate backpedaling I hear? To that classic tune "Damage Control"?

Heh - yes, this wording wasn't the best they could have chosen. My suspicion is that they'd intended a similar system to the Facebook sponsored ads, where, if you've liked or subscribe to an organisation, they can create "Joe Bloggs eats at McDurneys" ads with your profile pic, for instance - however the wording here is way broader than that, and yes, ought to be treated with the greatest of suspicion!

Being more generous, "paying [Instagram] to display..." only implies the transient use of your content - if the original licence to transmit your images ends when you delete them; in other words, I don't think you'd see your images in a TV advert, because you could technically remove that content prior to TV broadcast, which would end Instagram's licence to distribute, and thus the advertiser to use.

But yes, I think FB just lost the best part of $1bn.

[Audley Strange]

FUCK FACEBOOK!

[klr]

Do I hear the sound of frantic back-pedalling from Instagram?

"No, that's not what we really meant at all ..."

Actually, it's exactly what they meant. Wait for a re-write of the new TOC which is supposed to "clarify", but is in fact an about-turn.

... and then of course they'll try and sneak the money-making rules back in, under the radar and very gradually.

What else can you expect from a company owned by the Zuckster?

[Jason]

Hmm. Here's the "confusing" language:

The originally proposed new wording that caused the controversy included: "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."

This is pretty standard for any website where you post your own stuff that is then broadcast globally (and for the most part is necessary to permit the host to distribute your text and images over the internet). Usually the licence ends if you subsequently delete the content - that would need checking in this case.

Yep. Pretty standard. You have to start worrying when they claim ownership of your content.

The terms also stated that "a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos, and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."

Hmm. Nope. Doesn't seem like they intend to sell users' photos. Not at all. Nope.

Is that desperate backpedaling I hear? To that classic tune "Damage Control"?

Heh - yes, this wording wasn't the best they could have chosen. My suspicion is that they'd intended a similar system to the Facebook sponsored ads, where, if you've liked or subscribe to an organisation, they can create "Joe Bloggs eats at McDurneys" ads with your profile pic, for instance - however the wording here is way broader than that, and yes, ought to be treated with the greatest of suspicion!

Being more generous, "paying [Instagram] to display..." only implies the transient use of your content - if the original licence to transmit your images ends when you delete them; in other words, I don't think you'd see your images in a TV advert, because you could technically remove that content prior to TV broadcast, which would end Instagram's licence to distribute, and thus the advertiser to use.

But yes, I think FB just lost the best part of $1bn.

Oops! Looks like they're effectively trying to claim ownership of your content without the hassle of claiming ownership of your content.