Post Your Amusements!

[Nooska]

In at least 4 european countries EULAs and TOS are null and void for legal contentions -which these companies should also have legal teams telling them.
Even if some terms are valid, unless the terms as a whole are valid, the whole thing is null and void, unless exceptions have been made for void terms.

In general, the legal side of it here is "if you put in stuff thats not legal, all your stuff is gone - caveat venditor - you are the one with the money and knowledge beforehand to know what should and shouldn't be said or agreed upon.

[Nooska]

That alst one is a part of the system - if you share a photo, and I then share it, then it doesn't disappear from my timeline because you delete it.

[Shoju]

So.. Instagram...

Working as only a subsidiary of Facebook (or perhaps Netflix) could, they first rolled out what they characterized as a simplification of their ToS, but of course allowed themselves vast new powers, and then pulled back when everyone revolted, except they really didn't pull back. Based on their new wording, which still isn't final, you still could see your images in ads, without compensation.

The best course seems to be to go back to Flickr if you really are a photographer, or start using something like Pick or Twitter if you are just sharing photos of your breakfast...

Will be interesting and amusing to see how it plays out.

It's already played out. They backed down on the language.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-575598 ... ur-photos/

They realized when they lost a substantial % of users and accounts in a 24 hour period. The revolt was quick, fast, and noticeable. I follow ~300 people on my "non personal" instagram account, and lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 people in the wake of the announcement. Professionals, journalists, artists. All gone.

[benebarba]

That alst one is a part of the system - if you share a photo, and I then share it, then it doesn't disappear from my timeline because you delete it.

Correct - which is its intended function (perhaps not all like it, but I can see it). However, legal wording is picky for a reason: a certain amount of vague wording *could* (I'm talking tin-foil hat here, but bear with me) allow for situations that the end-user may not have considered.

Really it's always been this way: simply asking you to say you understand a contract and then signing it means jack all about if you *actually understood it*... it's why contract law is a thing.

[Flex]

'we're gonna sell it to other parties too'.

Instagram has no ability, and you grant them no right to, sell your pictures. What it does say is that your pictures may show up in the stream of a sponsored party, i.e. the New York Yankees sponsoring a page and showing many Instagram pictures of Yankee Stadium from many different users.

[benebarba]

'we're gonna sell it to other parties too'.

Instagram has no ability, and you grant them no right to, sell your pictures. What it does say is that your pictures may show up in the stream of a sponsored party, i.e. the New York Yankees sponsoring a page and showing many Instagram pictures of Yankee Stadium from many different users.

I think you took my words too literally.

I was merely speaking about the difference between necessary copying/sharing clauses due to the technology and the use of said clauses in allowing their use by other entities who are paying for the privelege.

Sponsored ads are paying for a service which includes the photos - though the photos, nor rights to them, are not being sold themselves. It is questionable if the sponsors care about the photos other than not having to pay a stock photo company in addition to whatever fees they pay for the ads.

[Flex]

'we're gonna sell it to other parties too'.

Instagram has no ability, and you grant them no right to, sell your pictures. What it does say is that your pictures may show up in the stream of a sponsored party, i.e. the New York Yankees sponsoring a page and showing many Instagram pictures of Yankee Stadium from many different users.

I think you took my words too literally.

I was merely speaking about the difference between necessary copying/sharing clauses due to the technology and the use of said clauses in allowing their use by other entities who are paying for the privelege.

But the big point is that this isn't a new clause, it is a clearer clause with more limits on what can be done with your content, specifically the removal of the modify clause.

[halabar]

'we're gonna sell it to other parties too'.

Instagram has no ability, and you grant them no right to, sell your pictures. What it does say is that your pictures may show up in the stream of a sponsored party, i.e. the New York Yankees sponsoring a page and showing many Instagram pictures of Yankee Stadium from many different users.

Not quite. The first incarnation of the new ToS certainly left a elephant-sized loophole that they could certainly sell your images. They may not have the mechanisms in place right now, but it certainly left that option open.

Remains to be seen what the next incarnation of the ToS says.

The scenario you describe is the likely one. However, there are problems with that. It would be easy for the Yankees to take the photos in that stream and display them on digital signage at the stadium or on other websites. So suddenly any image tagged 'yankees' or yankee stadium' or whatever the keywords are become part of their photo stream, on all their different media. What happens when the people in your photos object?

Or another example, some company sponsors the word "wedding" and suddenly the photos that all the wedding photographers post on Instagram to promote themselves suddenly show up in other company's advertisements in Instagram or other places. I don't think the couples involved with be too thrilled.

What Instagram is likely going to do is to chase anyone who's a commercial photographer in any sense back to Flickr. The "art" community doesn't like the changes either, but Flickr is to plain for them. Everyone else posting their cat and breakfast pictures won't care.

[Flex]

Not quite. The first incarnation of the new ToS certainly left a elephant-sized loophole that they could certainly sell your images. They may not have the mechanisms in place right now, but it certainly left that option open.

Show me where that is, because I certainly don't see it.

It would be easy for the Yankees to take the photos in that stream and display them on digital signage at the stadium or on other websites.

Once again, that's not what the ToS allows.

[benebarba]

It would be easy for the Yankees to take the photos in that stream and display them on digital signage at the stadium or on other websites.

Once again, that's not what the ToS allows.

Yeah, I actually thought they were basically going to be akin to the facebook '<insert your friend here> likes <insert thingy here>' use of data: being served to other viewers and users of the site. The fact that it is an image attached to the text ad is the only new thing.

Could they display a webpage shot on the jumbotron? Probably... but I imagine that the companies involved would want them to pony up a bit for that privelege.


Certainly questions of user objections are valid: since it is unclear when/if your images will be used and what they will be used for. It's also entirely possible depending on how images are chosen that there could be ad purchaser complaints: what if I don't want that drunk college kid whizzing off the balcony as the banner image to my liquor ad?

[halabar]

Show me where that is, because I certainly don't see it.

Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. 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. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.
You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such.

Nothing there puts limits on where the "paid or sponsored content or promotions" occur. The scenario you described is a likely one, BUT, there's nothing here that limits that.

And if I was working for the Yankees, I would do as you describe, but I would also place that "photo stream" on the yankees.mlb.com page, and on digital signage in the stadium.


The other problem is here...

You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Service or otherwise have the right to grant the rights and licenses set forth in these Terms of Use; (ii) the posting and use of your Content on or through the Service does not violate, misappropriate or infringe on the rights of any third party, including, without limitation, privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, trademark and/or other intellectual property rights; (iii) you agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owed by reason of Content you post on or through the Service; and (iv) you have the legal right and capacity to enter into these Terms of Use in your jurisdiction.

You agree that Instagram is not responsible for, and does not endorse, Content posted within the Service. Instagram does not have any obligation to prescreen, monitor, edit, or remove any Content. If your Content violates these Terms of Use, you may bear legal responsibility for that Content.

Let's say I take a photo of you in a "public place", to extend the scenario, we both go to a Yankees game. I post that photo on Instagram without your consent. I can do that, it's covered under "art" and other fair use rights (same as a newspaper). Then the Yankees pay to use that photo. Suddenly that's commercial use, and you can sue me because that image needs your approval before it's used for commercial purposes.

[halabar]

Certainly questions of user objections are valid: since it is unclear when/if your images will be used and what they will be used for. It's also entirely possible depending on how images are chosen that there could be ad purchaser complaints: what if I don't want that drunk college kid whizzing off the balcony as the banner image to my liquor ad?

Or the drunk kid sues you because his photo is being used commercially.

But the easiest way to sink one of these commercial campaigns would be to post totally innappropriate images that would get picked up by the filters for that photo stream.

[halabar]

Could they display a webpage shot on the jumbotron? Probably... but I imagine that the companies involved would want them to pony up a bit for that privelege.

That would be very easy to do.. any sort of digital signage. I can see the Yankees encouraging that until the first surprise ass shows up on the screen.

[bldavis]

reading an article someone (i believe it was klaud) posted in the politics thread...
my god that shit makes my head hurt and makes me laugh at the same time

[Klaudandus]

reading an article someone (i believe it was klaud) posted in the politics thread...
my god that shit makes my head hurt and makes me laugh at the same time

which one?