Instagram Reverts Back to Old ToS After Backlash

[exfileme]

The world will no longer end thanks to Instagram reverting back to its old Terms of Use.

Instagram Reverts Back to Old ToS After Backlash : Read more

 

[sacre]

It was intentional and they were hoping it would slide. I'm guessing they received threats of somesort and now are stepping back.

Of course they're going to BS their way out of this by saying "that it failed to communicate its intentions clearly".

Screwed up company should be shot down.

 

[WithoutWeakness]

"Naturally the statement about making money off an Instagram member's username, likeness, and photos without compensation caused quite a poop storm."

The end of this sentence had me laughing at my desk.

 

[unoriginal1]

What is the difference between this
"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 this?
"Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, 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."

It's just a reword . It's like instagram first said We are going to **** you in the *** then was like... Oh you guys got mad? Our fault sorry sorry let us be clear. What we really meant was We are going to make sweet love to you in inappropriate places. (sorry if my examples offended anyone)

 

[dextermat]

Instagram : blacklisted check!

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]iknowhowtofixit[/nom]Who does Instragram think they are, Apple?[/citation]

First of all they are now owned by Facebook, so:

1. They think they're Facebook, ie. get as much information about people as possible and try to use people's personal info/pics to make money even if its to sell it to very shady 3rd-party companies.

2. Next they'd think they are Google who is index, analyzes more information about people outside of Facebook. Ie. tracking people locations on their Android phones, analyzing people's emails, etc, etc.

3. And a far distant we could consider Apple...

 

[mrmaia]

Seems like people love some hypocrisy. They know their stuff will be sold, it was written there, and when they make it clearer there's a "poop storm". They reword it while keeping the same meaning and everyone calms down. Keep photographing your food, people.

 

[wannabepro]

In the words of Julian Smith's Grandma.
.

 

[wannabepro]

Too late NOOB
http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9m9hcEnYeM

 

[CaedenV]

all that really needs to be said: http/xkcd.com/1150/

 

[-Jackson]

Meh? It's not like they don't sell your information already..

 

[hitman400]

[citation][nom]iknowhowtofixit[/nom]Who does Instragram think they are, Apple?[/citation]
Oh the contrary, Youtube, which came pre-installed with previous iOS versions, NEVER had any advertisements whatsoever. It wasn't until Google released there piss-poor youtube app that they started jacking people with Ads.

 

[Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer]

I really can't believe they thought they were going to get away with this...

 

[professorturtle]

Well - it's too late. I've deleted my IG account and moved it all to Flickr. I won't be returning.

 

[f-14]

don't worry facebook will find a way to force this down all instagram users throats

best thing you can do is pull all photos and info now and or patent everything you have on the site and eliminate your accounts with facebook/instagram now while you still can.

 

[IndignantSkeptic]

Can someone explain to me what is so clever about Instagram?

 

[Kami3k]

[citation][nom]hitman400[/nom]Oh the contrary, Youtube, which came pre-installed with previous iOS versions, NEVER had any advertisements whatsoever. It wasn't until Google released there piss-poor youtube app that they started jacking people with Ads.[/citation]

Because Youtube was costing Google money. Youtube wouldn't exist if it wasn't for that move.

 

[Kami3k]

[citation][nom]IndignantSkeptic[/nom]Can someone explain to me what is so clever about Instagram?[/citation]

Nothing.

 

[NuclearShadow]

What I never understood about such a practice is what if someone uploaded a photo that they did not have ownership to? As a example though as unlikely as it is they upload a photo of Micky Mouse and Instagram then begins to sell that picture or use it for their own purposes?
Surely this could not be a legal act. While it is unlikely to happen with widely known people or characters it is bound to eventually happen to lesser knowns. Another issue is pictures of others that you did take but the person never consented to being put on Instagram or possibly even pictured at all.

The entire practice seems to not only be morally wrong but a issue that tip toes on a minefield of legal issues.

 

[makaveli316]

I'm i the only one who doesn't use instagram and knows enough about it, so he can say "what a useless piece of crap"?
I mean, since when a photo sharing site/app is so relevant?