
Instagram's official response - kurtvarner
http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening
======
rauljara
I find this thread really fascinating. I have a hard time imagining a more
better apology from Instagram. They accept responsibility, there isn't a trace
of hostility towards any of the people who 'misinterpreted' their terms, they
are upfront about needing to make money, and they communicate (or attempt to)
that they were never in favor of any of those kind of downright villainous
things it seemed like they were in favor of. If anyone in the masses of angry
Instagram users could be appeased by words, this is probably about as good as
you could do at appeasing them.

However, judging from the responses here, a lot of Instagram users are
unappeasable, and I don't think unreasonably. Their motives are basically
unknowable by anyone not in their inner circle, so all we have to go on is
their actions and their words. If your internal heuristics say that when it
looks like a social media company is trying to steal your personal
data/intellectual property, they probably are and will then lie about it after
the fact... well, that seems like a reasonable heuristic to have this day and
age. I'm not sure I buy into it unreservedly, but I wouldn't try to convince
anyone they're wrong about it, either.

This whole event shows me (or at least, reminds me) that there are limits to
what words can fix.

~~~
smegel
"To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos."

Weasel words. What's so hard about saying "we _wont_ sell your photos,
promise, fingers crossed", unless they actually do want to keep that option
open.

I imagine a rock solid guarantee that users photos wont be used without their
consent would go a very long way in appeasing people.

"If your internal heuristics say..."

No, when the _company TOS say_ they will appropriate _my_ property for their
financial benefit, it is reasonable to assume that they may in fact act
accordingly.

The right words can and do go a long way in rectifying mistakes. Weasel words
that create even more uncertainty and appear to be hiding an agenda tend to
infuriate people.

~~~
unreal37
I respectfully disagree.

I've been involved in writing Terms of Service for a few big web sites. The
back and forth with the lawyers is of course frustrating. And at the end of
the day, you have something that comes off overly broad just to "cover
everyones asses" from some future theoretical lawsuit.

So even though the TOS allows it, it was not their intention to actually do
it. They're going to go back and revise the wording to be what they actually
do intend.

Great apology.

I am always on the lookout for weasel words too, don't get me wrong. The "I am
sorry that anyone was offended" apology always rubs me the wrong way, cause
the person saying that is not sorry for saying it and doesn't regret saying
it, but just sorry for offending. But this apology comes off to me as genuine.

------
jonknee
Take it with a grain of salt. They tried to sneak this by and it blew up in
their faces.

While under oath, Kevin Systrom: “No, we never received any offers,”

Reality, Instagram had an offer from Twitter and Kevin Systrom had direct
knowledge.

[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/disruptions-
instagr...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/disruptions-instagram-
testimony-doesnt-add-up-2/)

That said, at least it looks like they're going to tweak the TOS change in
favor of their users. But with Facebook pulling the reigns, we all know where
this will end.

~~~
blhack
Oh for crying out loud, they did not try to "sneak this by".

Stop trying to cast a simple snafu regarding a ToS as some evil conspiracy.

Remember that the people running this company are you _peers_. It's disgusting
watching the community salivating over burning them all at the stake today.

They're your friends, or just like your friends. Knock it off.

~~~
23david
I disagree. This was a carefully worded response. Notice "commit to you that
we will be doing more to answer your questions, fix any mistakes, and
eliminate the confusion. 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." They expected this.

It's a classic move from the Facebook playbook. Push out a far-reaching
privacy policy or feature update. Release a message or press release saying
that "we're listening". Make token changes and say "we've listened and made
changes". And just in case people start to sue, vigorously lobby and donate to
government officials to keep the regulatory heat off their backs.

They are trying to get away with as much as they can. These stupid companies
are going to be the reason why 10 years from now the Internet is going to be a
morass of government regulation.

Don't work for or support companies that act like this. Shame on them. Period.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a
domain name or start an Internet company without taking a licensing exam.

~~~
nokcha
>I wouldn't be surprised if at some point soon you won't be able to register a
domain name ... without taking a licensing exam.

Who would impose such a requirement of licensure? Certainly not the government
--- that would be a _prior restraint_ on freedom of speech/press and therefore
unconstitutional.

~~~
pepr
Well, they would first impose it and then somebody sues them and it starts
bouncing around various courts for the next 5 years. It would take some
serious time until there would be a final ruling.

------
shabble
There's something I can't quite put my finger on, that makes this response
seem a bit forced and insincere.

"Legal documents are easy to misinterpret. So I’d like to address specific
concerns we’ve heard from everyone"

My understanding is that legal documents are written precisely to be as hard
to misinterpret as possible. They say exactly what they mean, and (subject to
possible judicial interpretation) mean exactly what they say.

I'm sure the average layperson might misunderstand or not realise the
consequences or scope of a particular term, but as I understand it, the
original concerns appear to have been raised by an EFF lawyer[1] who
presumably does have a reasonable grasp of the matter.

That sets the tone for the piece.

"Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to
others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that
this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your
photos."

We are selling a package. Which might include some photos and some other
advertising or whatever services, juicy user data, etc, but we're definitely
not selling the photos. Only the package thing.

"Ownership Rights: Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not
claim any ownership rights over your photos."

My understanding is that this is irrelevant to everything except maybe
attribution; they're granting themselves sufficient rights to transfer & sub-
licence the works, which is essentially everything necessary to
sell/use/licence a copy. In fact, the existence of a perpetual royalty-free
transferable/re-licenceable licence will significantly devalue the content, if
the actual owner wanted to sell or exclusively licence the content.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. But it definitely feels like the Non-Apology-
Apology "We're truly sorry that you feel upset about how we're trying to shaft
you good & hard."

[1] mentioned in [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-
says...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-
has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/) as Kurt Opsahl[2]

[2] <https://www.eff.org/about/staff/kurt-opsahl>

~~~
dustingetz
> legal documents are written precisely to be as hard to misinterpret as
> possible

legal documents reuse diction that has been ruled on and has court established
precedent, which creates a bias towards diction which ended up in court in the
first place.

i read that in a HN comment somewhere, sorry, no citation.

~~~
shabble
That's a very interesting "survival of the most litigated" sort of evolution.
I wonder how much of a given document is unnecessary evolutionary baggage copy
& pasted because it's part of That Standard Clause. I'd love to read more if
you happen to recall the comment/story

------
suprgeek
There are several variations of "Our real intention is....", "we are aiming
for...." in this post. Instagram users really need to realize that "Actual TOS
agreement" trumps a thousand "our real intention...." blog posts.

Plus as other posters have pointed out there are some pretty clear giveaways
in the Phrasing of some of the denials. In the very first paragraph is " Since
making these changes, we’ve heard loud and clear that many users are confused
and upset about what the changes mean...." Basically saying that our changes
were not bad it is the users that are confused.

If you have not already --- ABANDON SHIP

~~~
creativityland
Abandoned.

------
Mystalic
I don't think Instagram/Systrom had any intention to sell user photos or do
anything as drastic as the blogosphere made its TOS changes sound.

It did the right thing responding so quickly to user feedback. Hopefully it'll
result in a TOS that lets Instagram monetize without infringing on the privacy
of its users.

~~~
jonknee
> Hopefully it'll result in a TOS that lets Instagram monetize without
> infringing on the privacy of its users.

And maybe just maybe they will review further TOS changes before unleashing
them. If these terms were really against Instagram's plans, it's almost even
more pathetic.

~~~
tharris0101
I agree. There is a lot of attention paid to TOS changes lately. How could
they not see that this would come with heavy backlash? I know he keeps saying
"not our intention" in that post, but intentions don't amount to anything if
the TOS clearly gives them carte blanche with your photos. Just some really
bad public relations going on there.

------
davewiner
They want to use your pictures to sell products to your friends. Say you take
a picture of your friends at Domino's Pizza. They can show that picture to
your friends and say "Look this guy who you know loves our pizza. Come try it
out." Now you may not mind making an endorsement. But with this plan they
don't have to ask you for permission. They can just do it.

And if you turn out to be a hit they can use it to sell the pizza to everyone
not just your friends.

And if you're really a hit, they can use it to sell underwear. Or adult
diapers. Or contraceptives. Or whatever you might not like them to use your
imagery to sell.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"They can show that picture to your friends and say "Look this guy who you
> know loves our pizza. Come try it out.""_

They actually can't. There's a world of difference between using a photo to
depict an event, and using a photo to endorse.

"Domino's is featuring $5 large pizzas, here's your friend Bob at Domino's
last week!" is legal.

"Look at Bob who loves our pizza, come try it out!" is not, unless Bob has
signed off on it. You've crossed the line into commercial endorsement, which
is a civil suit waiting to happen.

Now, there _could_ potentially be an argument that depicting Bob at Domino's
next to a paid message by Domino's is implied endorsement - that's something
Instagram will have to figure out. IANAL, though I have studied commercial vs.
editorial usage of photography reasonably deeply.

Using someone to endorse a product is a legally non-trivial proposition. It's
not as simple as "we can use your photo here".

~~~
daltonlp
I fail to see the difference between the two examples. They both imply
endorsement.

In both cases, Dominoes has paid Instagram to promote its product. In both
cases, Instagram has taken a photo of Bob (taken by Bob? Taken by a friend of
Bob's?) And attached it to a marketing effort on behalf of Dominoes. In
neither case does the photo's subject (Bob) or its author (Bob?) have a say
over the photo's use.

~~~
fluidcruft
The difference is that one case is clearly explicit: when the ad says "Bob
likes our pizza", Bob liking your pizza is an explicit endorsement. The other
is more statement of fact: that Bob ate there. For all you know he could have
hated it.

On the other hand, add the context of Facebook. What if Bob hit the like
button in facebook? You could argue that hitting the button is an endorsement.
Or perhaps if the ad is only displayed in a Facebook context where "like" is
understood to mean pushing a button on a page, you could argue that the
traditional meaning of "like" doesn't apply so it's not an endorsement.

~~~
potatolicious
Indeed, and that's the subtle (but significant) difference. I've noticed for
example that in my Facebook feed it never says "Bob likes Pizza Hut", it says
instead "Bob liked a page: Pizza Hut".

It certainly goes into a gray area - but something as explicitly as "Bob likes
Domino's! You should get Domino's too!" is a legal minefield I doubt anyone
would willingly wade into.

------
comice
What they claim their intentions were is unimportant.

They were granting themselves irrevokable rights to do things people didn't
ever want them to be able to do.

~~~
jaggederest
A possible negative scenario: They grant themselves these rights and then get
spun off / acquired by someone with malicious intent. The rights never
expire... Can you guarantee that your company will respect the rights of users
a decade from now? A century?

~~~
shabble
Also, you now can't ever sell exclusive rights[1], because there's a perpetual
sub-licence capable party floating about out there.

[1] IANAL, but I think that's how it would work; for any licenceable aspect
which you wish to grant exclusively, they can grant the same to one or more
others, making it non-exclusive.

------
AlexMuir
This is a completely different style of incident response than parent company
Facebook's. I much prefer this (relatively) straight up approach, although
I'll admit it's more likely to come back and bite them in the arse a few years
down the line.

~~~
MattSayar
Why will it come back to bite them?

~~~
tharris0101
Because some day they will want to do the things he is insisting they "have no
intention" of doing and this post will come back to bite them.

~~~
mark-r
How will it bite them? The blog post has no legal bearing, and they can just
claim they changed their minds - circumstances have changed, etc.

------
newishuser
As a non lawyer who likes to pretend he knows what he's talking about, I say:
"Lovely, now let's get that in writing."

~~~
chmars
I absolutely agree, the legal Terms of Service (ToS) are relevant and not some
blogging about intensions. The legal text is in particular important because
according to the ToS, you are now allowed to sue Instagram but you have to
revert to arbitration.

------
danso
>> The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can
be part of an advertisement. _We do not have plans for anything like this and
because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question_.
Our main goal is to avoid things like advertising banners you see in other
apps that would hurt the Instagram user experience. Instead, we want to create
meaningful ways to help you discover new and interesting accounts and content
while building a self-sustaining business at the same time. ---- <<<

.

This whole time, I was thinking, "whatever they do, they won't back away from
this language...why else would they drop a bombshell if they weren't willing
to suffer the blowback"...And it turns out, it was just some optional path
they were considering and thought, "what the hell, let's just put in there for
now, no biggie"

???

Is that seriously the mindset of a billion dollar company? All I can imagine
is:

1) They are lying

2) They really thought people wouldn't read the TOS (hasn't Facebook learned
by now that _someone_ will read it and make a big deal about troubling
language?)

3) They are an incredibly careless company who will make other "mistakes" that
could harm users.

I had been mostly ambivalent about this whole thing, as I don't maintain a
very active Instagram account. But now I might just put in the energy to
delete my account.

------
jburwell
There seems to be a disconnect between the TOS and this statement. If/when it
comes down to brass tacks, a legal agreement between the Instagram and its
users trumps a blog post about intentions. Talk is cheap -- codify the
intentions expressed in the blog post in a TOS revision before the current
changes take effect.

------
hexis
"To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos."

That is less clear than saying "We will not sell your photos." It's either a
knowingly slippery statement, or they forgot how to not be slippery.

~~~
listaware
This was exactly what I stuck with me. Intention can be either direct or
indirect. So they could sell something as a package, which would be indirectly
selling something, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)> .
I'm no lawyer, but it does sound like that statement had the once over by a
few.

------
stfu
_One of the main reasons these documents don’t take effect immediately, but
instead 30 days from now, is that we wanted to make sure you had an
opportunity to raise any concerns._

I see, they learned quite a bit from politicians. First push for the extremes,
and if you get buried by bad press, produce a watered-down compromise.

Still, it is a surprisingly fair statement from a Facebook owned company.

~~~
Flenser
Is it bad press? Or free advertising for their new features for promoting
accounts? I don't think there was any downside to making the TOS changes the
way they did.

------
gyardley
_The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can
be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and
because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question._

Interesting use of the present tense in the second sentence, in an "I am not
having an affair with that woman" sort of way.

------
javajosh
Does anyone else find the phrasing "Legal documents are easy to misinterpret.
So I’d like to address specific concerns we’ve heard from everyone..." to be
eerily similar to Dr. Breen's PSAs in the beginning of Half-Life 2?

Dr. Breen: "Let me read a letter I recently received. 'Dear Dr. Breen. Why has
the Combine seen fit to suppress our reproductive cycle? Sincerely, A
Concerned Citizen.' Thank you for writing, Concerned. Of course your question
touches on one of the basic biological impulses, with all its associated hopes
and fears for the future of the species. I also detect some unspoken
questions. Do our benefactors really know what's best for us? What gives them
the right to make this kind of decision for mankind? Will they ever deactivate
the suppression field and let us breed again? Allow me to address the
anxieties underlying your concerns, rather than try to answer every possible
question you might have left unvoiced."

------
aculver
I don't want "innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram" any
more than I want what Facebook has done with advertising in my timeline.
Please just give me an option to pay a monthly fee to turn all that garbage
off.

~~~
wmeredith
I've paid for and really enjoyed Flickr's Pro service for years. The fact that
they just released a really nice app made it easy to kill my Instagram account
once and for all today (I'd thought about it when they first got acquired by
Facebook, but never followed through).

------
itsprofitbaron
I posted something similar on here[1] about how Instagram cannot sell its
users photos and what they're _actually_ doing is trying to monetize similar
to how Facebook does Sponsored Posts.

Instagram's terms of service stated that was their intentions:

    
    
      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.
    
    

And "Section 106: Exclusive rights in copyrighted works aka. 17 U.S.C. §
106"[3] essentially states Instagram _cannot_ sell its users photos and it
_cannot_ use its users photos and alter them in any meaningful way.

The problem was how they communicated the change and they've admitted that
too[2] although they've started to fix this with this blogpost and will
continue to communicate this.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4939650>

[2] <https://twitter.com/instagram/status/281133360833773568>

[3] <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html>

------
ryguytilidie
At my last job, our Director of Operations was responsible for rewriting the
company rulebook/handbook. People didn't really know why, since we were a
small company and I don't think anyone had ever read the handbook. Obviously,
as you can imagine from someone with the title of Director of Operations, no
one was asked for input.

A few weeks later, we;re all given copies of the handbook and ordered to sign
it. People read the handbook and it was very clear that the new rules were not
in line with company culture at all. No drinking in the office when we had
multiple beer fridges, stuff about how you can be fired with less notice, etc.
Of course, no one in their right mind would agree to an amended rulebook while
at a company, especially when they could freely move to another startup.

The thing that amazed me most though, was in our next company meeting, people
kept asking the Director of Operations about the rulebook and he finally
snapped to say "Look, I made some changes, if you dont like them, its just
really not a big deal, I don't think the rulebook actually means anything
anyway".

Okay so lets recap. Our director of operations spent months writing a
"meaningless" document? Doubtful. If so, why WRITE the document at all? This
is the parallel I see here. There was no reason whatsoever to change the
terms, yet they had some presumably high priced lawyers rewrite them. Why
would they do this? Do we really believe they spent time an effort updating
these terms for no reason? To me, this reads as some SERIOUS backpedaling and
I would be shocked if they actually didn't intend to use data in the exact way
people were upset they would.

------
kurtvarner
Great, now all the bitching can change to be about their plans to advertise.
The sense of entitlement that people have is getting ridiculous. Why do you
_deserve_ an absolutely free service?

~~~
nhangen
I don't think users feel that way. What they want is to be acknowledged and
respected for helping build the server to what it is today. No users = no
service. Don't sell us out just because you chose to take money and sell for a
cool bil.

~~~
clarky07
The users didn't help build anything. Instagram built a cool service, and the
users used it. They didn't build anything.

Now obviously network effects help something like this grow, but don't kid
yourself. They aren't running a charity. They are running a business. At some
point you have to start making money or the service just goes away. Then all
that those amazing users "built" will be gone in a second when they flick the
power switch.

~~~
mirkules
They aren't running a charity, you're right about that. But I think they
misrepresented their business by giving it away for free, _knowing full-well_
that it won't be sustainable in the long run under that model. Their response?
"Oh ok, no problem, we'll just switch the terms of use while nobody is
looking."

~~~
clarky07
You could characterize it that way, or you could assume that all of your users
aren't complete fools and realize at some point they will have to make money
to pay for the costs of running the service. They also _know full-well_ that
it isn't sustainable to run this service for free forever.

~~~
nhangen
They know and they don't care. It's not a customer's prerogative to worry
about how a company makes money. As much as people like Instagram, if it
disappeared or went under, people would move on and forget about it. I would
say that the onus is on the company to find a way to monetize that does not
insult, mislead, or deride their users.

~~~
clarky07
How does adding ads "insult, mislead, or deride their users"? This whole
discussion is silly. 99% of the users will keep happily using the service with
ads. They were smart enough to know they were coming eventually. A 1% very
vocal minority will piss and moan on internet message boards about how pissed
they are and how absurd it is that this coming isn't continuing to give away a
nice service.

Everyone bitched when Facebook added ads, but guess what, they keep growing
and people keep using it. Shocking.

------
blhack
What an absolute shock! Instagram hasn't actually decided to cut off their own
hands!

------
rjd
To late they lost my trust when facebook brought them, and even rumours of
facebook behaviour was enough to walk away.

My account is now gone, same with atleast a dozen people I've talked to in the
last day or so. I'd hazard a guess the quick response has been in response to
sudden surge in accounts deleted.

------
ianstallings
What blows my mind about this whole mess is how quickly this community has
gone off on some witch hunt. Just read the comments. This is apparently what
you have to look forward to if your startup is successful and you eventually
try to monetize. Good luck everyone.

~~~
forensic
Boo hoo, the multi-millionaires are getting insulted when they try to fuck
their users!

Won't someone please think of the feelings of the millionaires!

I'm pretty sure they can wipe away their tears with $100 bills and their
feelings won't suffer permanent damage. Since their feelings are so much more
important than all of the people they are trying to fuck over.

~~~
ianstallings
Are you an adult? These are your peers not billionaire bankers leeching off
the backs of the poor. You know, programmers, marketers, entrepreneurs. They
made it. And you want to tear them down because they've been successful? Now
that they have money they are automagically evil? What planet am I on?

~~~
pfortuny
Wow, sorry your argument has nothing to do with the ToS. Peers really? And why
is it that it is the CEO who answers and not those nice engineers?

Come on, the engineers made the product, the lawyers and the board made the
company's legal arrangements. And they are utter bullshit.

~~~
ianstallings
That CEO is Kevin Systrom, my peer because he is a programmer and
entrepreneur. Your whole argument is baseless. He wrote Instagram with his
partner Mike Krieger.

------
fernly
Exactly what part of "you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to
display your ... photos (along with any associated metadata), ... without any
compensation to you" is "confusing"?

It is not complicated legalese; on the contrary it is admirably terse and
lucid English. The reason that "it was interpreted by many that we were going
to sell your photos to others without any compensation" is because that is
EXACTLY what it says they will do.

Unambiguous. Not confusing. What's confusing is that Kevin Systrom now claims
it does not say what it very clearly and unambiguously says.

------
clarky07
<rant> I really have no idea what people are complaining about. What are you
putting in your Instagram photos? It's a cool service that lets you share
pictures with friends. What is it that you think your pictures are worth?

When you sign up for a free service, you have to know that you are the
product. PERIOD. Don't sign up for free services if you don't want to be the
product. Go pay flickr. They will take your money. Stop bitching about free
services adding ads so that they can keep the lights on and keep offering your
free service. </rant>

------
richardjs
_Legal documents are easy to misinterpret._

It's a shame this is the case. Isn't it part of the point of legal documents
to be _hard_ to misinterpret? Isn't that supposed to be why they use such
stiff language?

------
darushimo
It's difficult to believe that the language of the ToS communicates things
they 'don't intend', Especially following this potential Twitter-acquisition /
possible perjury situation.

Also, lets not forget that this is not a startup talking to us anymore--this
is a Facebook-owned company. I would expect Facebook to take full advantage of
their intentionally vague legal wording.

Although with that said, they don't need to stop the bleeding as much as shut
up the major negative press about it, and this statement will probably do
that.

------
tripzilch
> Legal documents are easy to misinterpret.

Actually the reason legal documents are written in a quirky funny dialect is
to make them _less_ ambiguous, not more so. If they are, whoever's written
them is doing it wrong.

In today's social environment, the way people are made to feel like
customers/users, only to later be sold as _product_ , with little regard to
privacy and/or control over their data and profile, isn't it funny how people
are starting to assume the worst?

In all fairness, except for that bad start, later on you write the confusing
language _was_ your mistake, so you probably meant to say "Legal documents are
hard to write, especially when people actually read them".

> Ownership Rights Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not
> claim any ownership rights over your photos.

Um, yeah. What's "Ownership Rights"? It's not a legal term. Yet you
capitalized and bolded the term. I'm sure you didn't mean to say "Copyrights"
because you know what those are very well and take great care to not mention
them. Also you can't have meant "Personality Rights" because they're generally
non-transferable.

On the other hand, at least you acknowledged the public's reaction. And rather
quickly, at that. That's good.

You also say you're listening and will improve the wording of the TOS. How
that will turn out remains to be seen, when it happens. If so, I hope you'll
excuse my skepticism.

------
reasondiscourse
Another way to approach this might be to ask yourself specifically what uses
you as a user do not want Instagram to pursue with your photos. Then look at
the TOS and assess whether the TOS give you any protection against those uses.
If the TOS do not protect against those uses then you can tell Instagram
directly via feedback what you do not want them to do with your photos. It is
easier to amend the TOS by adding specific, unambiguous restrictions on
certain uses than it is to try to define the full scope of the permissions to
users using random examples.

To restate this another way: Instead of trying to imagine everything Instagram
might be permitted to do under the TOS, imagine what you as a user do not want
them to do, and then ask for explicit restrictions on those uses.

------
wbharding
What the blogosphere seemed to miss when getting all crazy about Instagram
selling their pictures to businesses for advertising: what business in their
right mind would want the bad press that would go along with exploiting
Instagram users? The first time a business used a user's picture without their
knowledge, the Internet would go crazy with rage, and rightfully so. It was
never going to work that way, because businesses wouldn't want to be part of
that game any more than the users would.

The FUD that CNet was able to perpetrate far outweighs any reasonable outcome
that I can foresee. For this reason, I take Kevin at his word: both that they
aren't going to do stupidly publish user pics on the side of buses, and that
they will learn from this blunder.

------
level09
I guess you still need to work on your language, Can't you just use clear
sentences with straight meanings ? e.g. > we respect that your photos are your
photos. Period wouldn't it be better to just say "we are not going to use your
photos without your permission ? "

------
uptown
It's odd. The vast majority of Instagram users seem to leave their accounts
open to the public - more so that most photo-sharing services I've used in the
past. Instagram presumably has business relationships with all sorts of
entities. And Instagram has APIs allowing users to access the data exposed by
these public galleries. It seems the pieces are already in place for a 3rd
party to enter into a business relationship with Instagram to pay for access
to the data contained in their users photos. Why were the new terms even
necessary?

------
dntbrme
Why don't they just offer to share some of the profit of selling/using the
photos? I think this would gain more users who would not mind being in
promotional post, as long as they get a cut.

------
jmgrimes
I think that a possible positive side effect of all this is that customers
might start realising that they actually would rather pay for web-based
software.

------
piyush_soni
Sorry. The damage has already been done, and we clearly hear your intentions,
instagram. I deleted my account and don't plan on joining back.

------
onedev
All of you a pathetic. Along with the blogosphere.

~~~
bobsoap
> All of you a pathetic. Along with the blogosphere.

Care to spellcheck and elaborate?

~~~
onedev
No, because that was a typo and typos happen.

------
timkly
_Let’s say a business wanted to promote their account to gain more followers
and Instagram was able to feature them in some way._

Isn't this just exactly how facebook fooled the world? You pay x to gain y
followers and when they have bleed that river dry, they roll out another
update that requires you to pay z if you want your posts to show up in their
feed?

------
hoi
Seems to me this is a test. Push the updated terms of service out, if no-one
complains, or if there is only minimal response then cool, it's acceptable by
the users. If complainst come around, mitigate that risk by issuing an apology
afterwards. As the phrase goes - " Do What You Think Is Right & Apologize
Later "

------
babesh
The more interesting question is what is Instagram planning to do that caused
this change in terms of service. I would bet that they are going to group
photos together that show off a product or to attach advertising around your
photos based on location or what the photo shows. I think that they are doing
this soon.

------
tobyjsullivan
I like this response. Terms of Service often need to change over time and, as
of late, the Internet seems to have made a game out of ripping the changes to
shreds when put forward by a known brand.

I'm looking forward to seeing how companies handle ToS changes moving forward.
Is there a way to avoid the backlash altogether?

~~~
frossie
_Is there a way to avoid the backlash altogether?_

Err, write TOSes that are not a land grab of other people's intellectual
private property and/or private data? You make it sound like it is
unreasonable to care about that.

~~~
tobyjsullivan
I think you underestimate the Internet's ability to find things to misquote
and complain about.

The predominant backlash to Google's recent ToS changes come to mind as an
example of selective content being reported out of context.

------
jlgray
If they had said we're setting up a market to sell Instagram photos. You can
opt-in any of your photos, we'll take a cut for running the service, and you
get the rest. The problem would be filtering out the junk, not getting people
to sell their cat pictures.

------
thekevinjones
For those that would still like to easily move their Instagram images to
Flickr, without exporting to a zip then reimporting,we built a small webapp
that will allow you to do so only a few clicks.

<http://freethephotos.com>

------
nemof
A little bit of balance for the pitchforks crowd:

[http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-
te...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-
service-what-they-really-mean)

This story is giving me a headache.

~~~
spangborn
It's already been pointed out that the Verge ignored several important pieces
of the ToS when writing that article - take a look at the comments both on HN
(for other articles) and The Verge to see.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4940062>

------
bhashkarsharma
Is it just me who feels that it is just a re-run of the classic 'Zuck' way of
doing things: Make mistake and apologize when it blows up? What's happening
inside the company is any outsider's guess, but I definitely don't feel
reassured.

------
alecdibble
Hopefully the take-away is an explanation would have been helpful when the ToS
was changed. Everyone was given limited information and they interpreted it
how they could.

Maybe sites will think about this next time they quietly changed their ToS.

~~~
MichaelGG
If they needed an explanation to say "the terms say this, but we don't really
mean it" then perhaps they should just not release a ToS with stuff they don't
actually mean.

It's little comfort for a company to say "oh the contract says X, but don't
worry it's not true".

The take-away here is to actually properly review the ToS in light of "how
might a user interpret this" not in "how can we make sure we have the absolute
most coverage on our side".

------
DigitalSea
I am happy with this apology. Everyone loves to hate on something, once one
person starts hating others join in the mob mentality against someone or an
entity continues until it gets to the point where the arguments have lost
sight of what they were originally arguing about. What kind of apology were
people expecting? An apology using animated GIF's and infographics?

Considering the photo quality of Instagram photos is extremely questionable,
are people really upset that a photo of the nicoise salad they had could be
used in an ad for for promotional purposes? Please. 99.9% of the photos on
Instagram wouldn't be fit for advertising considering they're most shots of
insecure teenagers taking photos in the mirror and the rest pictures of food.

Calm down.

------
nikunjk
Kevin Systrom is the man. To be acquired, be part of a public company and
still respond quickly, succinctly and effectively their monetization plan is
something a lot of companies can learn from.

~~~
jonknee
It's not hard to say what people want to hear, especially when you're not
under oath.

[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/disruptions-
instagr...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/disruptions-instagram-
testimony-doesnt-add-up-2/)

------
davidcollantes
For me, that's too late. Flickr mobile app is getting better, using it.

------
gkanai
I deleted my Instagram account and won't be going back. Flickr's new mobile
apps and their much more user-friendly TOS is where was before Instagram and
where I want to be in the future.

------
ianstallings
Not like it will matter. The witch hunt has started and nothing can disperse
an angry mob. Except free pie of course.

------
ck2
I still don't get why instagram is evil and facebook is fine.

Is it because instagram is more disposable/replaceable to people?

------
Splendor
Too late. I already deleted my account.

~~~
numbsafari
Same here. I'm also working on deleting my FB account. That one is a lot
harder to do because so many of the small businesses and artists that I follow
have abandoned maintaining their own blog/website in favor of just using FB.

~~~
g-garron
what a big mistake! What if FB is suddenly turned off? they do not even have
their own url.

Well, not everybody thinks about worst case scenarios.

~~~
numbsafari
It's really true.

What it really gets to is that there really aren't very good/affordable
resources for artists and venues to reach a large audience.

Hiring a local "designer" is often really expensive and you end up with a
crappy website that is hard to maintain.

Even using something as "simple" as WordPress can be way too technical for a
lot of people.

FB has the benefit of giving them a platform that enables them to quickly
connect with their audience.

I see it as a failure of the rest of the internet ecosystem.

------
li-ch
I don't trust the legal opinions from the sales and marketing people. I'll
read the ToS myself.

------
lnanek2
tumblr seems to be doing quite well just letting users promote their posts.
instagram could be moving that direction, not just for businesses. i guess
they have facebook doing it from the business side, though, so it is natural
for them

~~~
mherdeg
Speaking of which, how cool is it that Instagram's official blog is a tumblr?
That infrastructure is everywhere!

------
julienmarie
"Legal documents are easy to misinterpret." => Isn't their goal the opposite ?

~~~
mark-r
Easy to misinterpret by people who aren't lawyers and judges is the
implication. But when actual lawyers come out and warn you about what it
really means, you need to be concerned.

------
aptwebapps
The proof is in the pudding. Let's see the new TOS.

------
Tloewald
And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

------
mikebonnell
Decent response, but I remain unconvinced.

------
patrickgzill
imgur.com is something like $24 a year, and AFAIK they don't claim any
ownership on your photos...

------
thekevan
tl;rd: We're not selling your pictures, just using them for our own ads.

------
lalwat
Still out.

------
drivebyacct2
When you're getting into bed with Facebook, writing poor terms of service in
the same week that you lie about acquisition offers is a pretty damn good way
of souring the well. If they revise the ToS and remove the offending sections,
good, but for some, it will already be too late.

------
ygmelnikova
These mistakes are so common among billion dollar corporations. Can they not
anticipate these sort of reactions? Do they get 'Larry' down in legal to
quickly write something up and then post it without another thought?

~~~
forensic
If it slips by unnoticed, they are looking at hundreds of millions, possibly
billions of dollars.

So the upside is VERY VERY big. Well worth the risk.

------
DRMAN
It's time to say goodbye to both Instagram and facebook and say hello to
iphoto!

