
Wil Wheaton on Instagram's new ad policy - mtgx
https://plus.google.com/+WilWheaton/posts/3o79SJWv4kG
======
casca
Axiom 1: Company is collecting and storing personal data that you voluntarily
provide

Axiom 2: Company does not charge you for this service

Axiom 3: Company has no other visible means of income

Axiom 4: Company has non-trivial operating expenses

Given that this covers a huge amount of "our digital life", there are a few
possible solutions:

\- Keep getting services without paying money but paying with privacy

\- Identify another way to get the services we rely on to be paid for

\- Hope that a large benefactor company will buy the services we use and write
the operational cost off out of the goodness of their hearts

~~~
jerf
Wil's point about companies using information about you that you did _not_
provide, and in fact have no relationship with, business or otherwise, is a
more interesting one. For some people, contact information is a very sensitive
matter, and celebrities are the _uninteresting_ case, compared to those being
stalked, witness protection, etc. How are we going to deal with this?

Especially in light of the fact that the data is essentially unprotectable. It
is not often observed that "DRM in general is impossible" doesn't just apply
to media conglomerates, but to people as well; there's no way to DRM your
phone number or address, either. So that's pretty much out. What's next?

~~~
Groxx
Maybe not DRM as DRM, but sure you can protect such things. Just not
necessarily with systems in place currently. Conceptually simple solution:
unique tokens for your phone / address that a routing system directs to you.
Your info is never even in the hands of e.g. someone you buy from, and you can
simply revoke the token to prevent any and all spam from now until forever,
regardless of what they do with it.

~~~
krickle
Revokable addresses are going to become a necessity in the not-so-far future.

------
zaidf
Meanwhile just to read this post, I must accept some google+ TOS and create my
nth g+ account:

 _Mobile terms of service

By tapping 'Accept', you agree that Google will use your location in this
product and accept the Mobile Terms of Service._

~~~
BitMastro
No you don't.

You need to join g+ only to reply to the post, but didn't I need to join HN to
reply to your post?

~~~
zaidf
Were you logged into a google account? I was logged in and got the above
screen. I was not trying to reply--kind of hard to when you can't even read
the post.

~~~
jonursenbach
If I open the link in an incognito window, I can read the post just fine.

------
alpb
Google+ is no different:

11.2 you agree that this license includes a right for google to make such
content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom
google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use
such content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 you understand that google, in performing the required technical steps to
provide the services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your content
over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes
to your content as are necessary to conform and adapt that content to the
technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. you
agree that this license shall permit google to take these actions.

~~~
takluyver
The current version of the TOS say, in part:

 _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. The rights you grant in this license are for the
limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to
develop new ones._

IANAL, but I don't think that includes a right to sell (sub-license) your
content.

~~~
minwcnt5
Yup, this came up during the uproar when Google changed their privacy policy
earlier this year. IIRC this language is needed to let them share your data
across services. e.g. showing your profile photo as part of their social
search results might quality as "publicly display".

Google's current privacy policy includes the statement:

"We believe personal information should not be held hostage and we are
committed to building products that let users export their personal
information to other services. We don’t sell users’ personal information."

------
tghw
While he's very much on the right track here, his mention of celebrities
muddles the point somewhat.

In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for
advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a
celebrity or not.

This is why photographers who think their photos might be used commercially
should get model releases from any identifiable persons in their photos. They
should also give copies of those releases to any company that wants to use the
photo commercially, so that company can defend themselves if the model tries
to sue.

The Photo Attorney blog has a more detailed article about it:
[http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/05/when-you-definitely-
nee...](http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/05/when-you-definitely-need-model-
release.html)

~~~
mistercow
>In most states (perhaps all), it is illegal to use someone's likeness for
advertising without their consent. This is regardless of their status as a
celebrity or not.

It's not all states, and it's not entirely clear cut in many states (it
depends on how the likeness is used), and their TOS does give permission to
use your likeness (which means that if the person in the photo is also an
Instagram user, they have a tougher case).

But Instagram would certainly be playing with fire if they tried that with a
celebrity, and I don't think they would. It's your ordinary folks who can't
afford to lawyer up against a huge corporation that are more likely to be
affected by this.

------
debacle
The celebrity angle is an interesting one, because based on previous contracts
a celebrity may not be able to grant Instagram the rights it outlines in its
TOS - they may already be granted to another entity.

------
jws
The celebrity angle is interesting here. I eventually killed a little product
because it was too hard to legally acquire face shots of celebrities and it
just didn't have enough zing without pictures by names.

If enough celebrities used Instagram, and Instagram could figure out their
accounts, they could open autopaparazzi.com.

~~~
joonix
What? There are plenty of photo services that will license you photos of
celebrities. Getty Images for one. We're not talking about publicity shy
people here.

~~~
tghw
It depends on the use. If you are using the photos for news purposes, then
yes, this works. But if you are using it for commercial purposes, then you
would also need a release showing that the person (celebrity or not) received
sufficient compensation for the use of their likeness. Without that, you can
be sued very easily.

------
__chrismc
Link to the same post on his blog, for the Google+ averse:
<http://wilwheaton.net/2012/12/regarding-instagrams-new-tos/>

------
jfb
A blog post musing about the threat to agency posed by free to use services
that rely on farming personal data for revenue posted on … Google Plus?

~~~
aroberge
There is a HUGE difference between a company using personal data about __you
__to target marketing to __you __, and company taking data (photos in this
case) provided by __you __(or by a third party about __you __) and using it to
market products to others.

If I see an ad about (insert product name) in my (insert Google product)
stream, it is something that only I can see. If you see a picture of me
(perhaps uploaded by a "friend" to a site like instagram) used to advertised
products to you, then my privacy has been severely breached.

------
wtvanhest
It seems that the vast majority users are 100% OK with giving up some level of
privacy for free service. I consider myself fully within that group and do not
mind targeted ads for example.

I believe where users draw the line is when a service uses their content to
distribute to others for a fee. Using images, essentially intellectual
property, is not OK with me. Nor am I a fan of Facebook using my name in
sponsored likes. The later bothers me less, but it still annoys me that it is
happening. Part of this is the fact that when you first logged on to facebook,
you viewed it as a way to share in a fairly private network with your friends.
Now your habits must change to protect yourself, but you have no alternative
(yet).

I don’t have an answer to the problem with how free networks should grow, but
personally, I am opposed to any use of my content as a distribution or free
use of images. Now I feel that I have to protect myself by not posting photos
to facebook in case they one day change their policy.

------
rmc
_Just as we have a "do not track" option for our webbrowsing habits, we're
going to need to have something similar for other aspects of our increasingly-
digital lives:_

Sounds like the EU's Data Protection law. Making it illegal to store personal
information about people unless they have opted in, etc.

------
mistercow
[Obligatory IANAL Warning yada yada]

The question of whether they can use someone's likeness is an interesting one,
and the answer to that apparently varies from state to state. Instagram could
probably get you to sign away the right to use your own likeness in their ads,
but that wouldn't apply to people who don't use their service.

I'm not sure how jurisdictions of other states apply (any actual lawyers want
to weigh in?) but Instagram is based in California where (if you can believe
it), publicity rights are quite strong (even dead celebrities get protection
there). There's a little gray area that Instagram could exploit there, but I
think the example Wheaton described there would be a pretty easy meal for
Rauch's lawyers. At the very least, Instagram's legal team would almost
certainly say "fuck no" if the marketing department showed them an ad like
that without getting permission to use her likeness.

------
ianstallings
This is dubious at best. He doesn't use it, he's not a lawyer, and his grasp
on what they are doing is plain wrong. I'm not saying that privacy concerns
are moot. I'm saying Wil Wheaton is your typical self-proclaimed geek these
days. He shoots from the hip at anything that might trounce his sense of
entitlement.

~~~
div
Would you mind elaborating on how his grasp on what they're doing is plain
wrong ?

Specifically, how is his example of a celebrity's silly picture being used by
Instagram to advertise a silly product plain wrong ?

I also fail to see how he comes across as entitled in his post. He's merely
expressing a concern, one that, at face value, seems to be pretty valid.

~~~
stevesearer
I feel like most people complaining about the whole 'Instagram will use photos
in advertisements' make it seem like the advertisements are going to be on
television or newspapers, etc. Or that said advertisements will say "Celebrity
X uses IG, you should too".

To me is seems like the ads are going to be more along the lines of promoted
restaurants and/or venues using photos the people you follow have taken. IG
basically knows where everyone goes based on people voluntarily tagging
images, and can now serve ads based on that in the same way FB serves ads from
pages you like.

An ad that says, 'Your friend recently went to X (with a photo they took at
said venue)', is a pretty engaging advertisement in my mind.

------
danboarder
The direction Instagram is going is similar to what Facebook does already with
what I'll call "endorsement advertising".

I've noticed ads where it says something like "your friend Dave likes
Verizon", with a clear link to an ad. I then ask Dave if he recently "Liked"
verizon and he says "No, but maybe a year ago or something for a contest". So
they are selling our likes as endorsements to brands already.

Instagram wants to do this with photos, I expect. A photo of you driving a
Prius might link to a Toyota brand page after you follow the Toyota instagram
profile, for example.

------
goatcurious
Does paying for a service help keep my data private? For example, if I'm a
paid user at Linkedin - does that mean they would treat my data differently
than that of the free users?

~~~
drcube
No. It used to be that you didn't get ads on cable TV because you already paid
for the channels. Then the ads came anyway. Just because you pay for an
internet service doesn't mean you avoided the privacy concerns that plague
free services. At best you just postponed them.

~~~
goatcurious
Agreed. Exactly my problem with the catch all argument that all these concerns
will go away if we buy the service.

------
001sky
_if I'm in someone's address book, and they use an app that grants the
developer full, unfettered access to their address book, I've now had my
information given without my consultation or consent to a developer, and I
never even knew it was happening._

== It used to be "pick your friends wisely"

But now, that's before the meaning of the term was of a different sort.

------
pokstad
While tech related sites like hacker news get concerned about these matters,
I'm pretty sure most Instagram users don't care about these privacy policies
just like most Facebook user's haven't cared. They get to use a fun cool
product for free and everything else happens behind the scenes (out of sight
out of mind).

------
OafTobark
I'll be honest. If it wasn't for Big Bang Theory, I'd have no clue who this
guy was. Even with reference to Star Trek, I can't remember his character. Not
sure why I'd care about his opinion on a semi-tech related topic (I know, not
about me and my own opinion).

~~~
tjr
I have no idea who most of the authors of essays submitted to HN are.
Sometimes I come to know more about them by reading more of their work, but
usually I don't know who they are before then. Same for the vast majority of
folks posting comments.

If we are interested only in the opinions of people we already know, how can a
site like HN even exist?

~~~
OafTobark
That's not my point. It's the fact his name was emphasized in the title.

~~~
tjr
The original post had no title, per se. The most title-looking piece of text
on it was in fact just "Wil Wheaton".

What do you think would have been a better title for submitting this piece to
HN?

~~~
OafTobark
A take on Instagram's new ad policy

I mean its not bad. I agree with your original statement that I too, don't
know the majority of people who post stuff to HN in general, and I don't have
issues with that. However, when someone submits a name in the title, I expect
it to be a name that is relevant or something I would consider important.
Names like Marc Andreesen or whoever makes a lot of sense. Wil Wheaton, not so
much. Of course thats personal opinion.

That said, even with blog posts by Marc Andreesen, you don't see stuff like
"<insert name>: title". That sorta irks me. Personal problem, I know.

------
songgao
This must be off topic but it's the first time I know Wil Wheaton is a real
person. I thought he was a virtual figure in The Big Bang Theory...

~~~
MartinCron
Stop whatever it is you are doing and watch Star Trek: The Next Generation.

------
andrewcooke
part of the problem here is that wil wheaton's price for "selling his privacy"
is higher than that of many others (largely because he is a celeb and so has
more earning potential there), but the current mechanism has no way to manage
a range of values.

it's _possible_ a more sophisticated "privacy market" could solve these
issues.

------
epsylon
"If you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold."

------
taylorbuley
This is yet another reminder that if you're using a product and not paying for
it then you are the product.

------
easytiger
can't see how this won't become a shitstorm

------
camus
Interesting. There are a few things though : \- Facebook did prove it : most
users dont read/care about TOS ( CGU here ), as long as they get stuff for
free. You can do the most outrageous things with user data ( google ), people
dont mind as long as they get value out of the service.

> Seth Green walking through an Urban Outfitters, does that mean Urban
> Outfitters can take that image and use it to create an implied endorsement
> by Seth?

\- Unless walking through an Urban Outfitters requires agreeing with TOS
before entering it, the exemple is irrelevant. When you sign up for
facegoogram , you basically sign a binding contract. Wether the terms are fair
, or even legal or not, it is another issue.

------
IheartApplesDix
sorry everyone, internet is closed.

------
pretoriusB
> _So Instagram is now going to use photos taken by its users in advertising,
> and they may or may not disclose to viewers when the advertising is
> happening._

No, they are NOT going to do that.

It's 2012. Why are people --and especially someone like Wheaton-- behaving
like it's 1994 and they are learning this "web" thing for the first time?

I've seen the same bloody story play up 10 or 20 times. They made a BS change
on their license terms, they are is gonna be a small fuss from their users
about it and they are gonna revert it.

It's not like Instagram-the-company even intended to do that in the first
place -- most likely they screwed up the phrasing but meant something
extremely more limited (like: we'd have be able to use your pics when
advertising Instagram-the-app itself).

Instead, people are acting like Instagram was really going to sell their
photos and not pay them, and like this thing won't be revoked in less than a
month.

That is absurd.

Why?

1) The backslash from the users, especially with 2-3 active competitors
against the company (Twitter, which added photo filters to its app, being the
latest heavyweight).

2) The lawsuits from users their photos they did attempt to sell.

3) It's not a way to make money, anyway. Instagram is not a Getty Images like
company -- and limited size pictures with cliched filters is not exactly a
stock image market. Getty actually partners with Flickr, which has actual
photos of ALL kinds and PAYS the photographer if it uses the pictures, but
it's not like anything lucrative came out of it, for either Flickr, Getty or
the users.

~~~
arscan
> _most likely they screwed up the phrasing but meant something extremely more
> limited_

I'm a pretty firm believer in Hanlon's razor ("never attribute to malice that
which is adequately explained by stupidity"), except when it comes to lawyers.
They tend to put a lot of thought into what they write, and understand the
ramifications of their words.

~~~
mcguire
Particularly the words "transferable" and "sub-licensable".

------
shizzy0
You are the product.

------
zipop
How Instagram uses celebrity photos is not at the top of my list of concerns.

~~~
tallanvor
How about how they use YOUR photos?

~~~
zipop
Yes, and that's my point.

