|
On December 19 2012 12:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 11:35 Caihead wrote:On December 19 2012 11:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On December 19 2012 10:32 poor newb wrote:
a company went public and screws their customers over for every last penny they can get? should have seen this coming a mile away More like a company changes a few lines of legalese and no one bothers to figure out what it actually means, or what it actually entails, before starting a witch hunt about it. For instance, lets look at TeamLiquid's ToS: With respect to any content you elect to post on any area of the site, including blogs, forum comments and any and all other posts, you grant TeamLiquid a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use and display such content worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology, without compensation or attribution to you. Look familiar? Except... TL hasn't changed its TOS. That's the point of this thread, that the TOS is being changed. Effective January 16th infact. No, the point of this thread is a massive knee-jerk reaction that confuses several different licensing and rights issues. Changing the TOS is not surprising in the slightest. In fact, if people actually stopped to read the TOS, they'd see they've already agreed to allow InstaGram to change their TOS.
Well, when I agreed to my TOS, I promised I'd never take the advice of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Granted, you're in the sheep, but I'm still wary.
|
well, i guess there's one more reason for me not to make an instagram
|
On December 19 2012 12:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 11:35 Caihead wrote:On December 19 2012 11:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On December 19 2012 10:32 poor newb wrote:
a company went public and screws their customers over for every last penny they can get? should have seen this coming a mile away More like a company changes a few lines of legalese and no one bothers to figure out what it actually means, or what it actually entails, before starting a witch hunt about it. For instance, lets look at TeamLiquid's ToS: With respect to any content you elect to post on any area of the site, including blogs, forum comments and any and all other posts, you grant TeamLiquid a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use and display such content worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology, without compensation or attribution to you. Look familiar? Except... TL hasn't changed its TOS. That's the point of this thread, that the TOS is being changed. Effective January 16th infact. No, the point of this thread is a massive knee-jerk reaction that confuses several different licensing and rights issues. Changing the TOS is not surprising in the slightest. In fact, if people actually stopped to read the TOS, they'd see they've already agreed to allow InstaGram to change their TOS.
And people are perfectly allowed to discontinue usage of a product at any point, where a change in the ToS is a perfectly good reason. Why are you upset at people exercising their right as consumers?
|
Is the service free? Then if you don't like it, don't upload or use it. Simple.
|
Isn't this that website that a lot of kids use to Sext eachother? I guess they need the rights to a lot of child porn for something
|
|
|
Sad that copyrights, IP, etc. seem to be a one-way street. People get jailed for torrenting files due to the movie/entertainment industry but companies can make subtle changes and essentially hijack ownership of any and all photos.
|
On December 18 2012 18:28 Beavo wrote:
So don't use their service anymore if you don't like their policies. Whats the big deal?
I'd agree with this. As long as they do give you notice in advance that they are doing this and allow you to opt out (which they are). Shitty deal for the users, but it's within their rights.
|
On December 19 2012 12:15 Ldawg wrote:
Sad that copyrights, IP, etc. seem to be a one-way street. People get jailed for torrenting files due to the movie/entertainment industry but companies can make subtle changes and essentially hijack ownership of any and all photos.
this.
also i feel like they wanna show that if you have money you can do whatever the fuck
|
On December 19 2012 12:15 Ldawg wrote:
Sad that copyrights, IP, etc. seem to be a one-way street. People get jailed for torrenting files due to the movie/entertainment industry but companies can make subtle changes and essentially hijack ownership of any and all photos.
Well, it's more so that companies simply need to disclaimer ahead of time when changes to terms of service will take place, which is still completely arbitrary.
|
On December 18 2012 18:24 Solarist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:19 Severedevil wrote:
Yeah, no. The pictures were uploaded under drastically different terms. There's no fucking way "we get your shit unless you opt out" can be legal. It actually is quite legal, its almost the same terms as with facebook. You dont own any of the information on your facebook, facebook owns it
thats quite sketchy too.
an illustrator, you posted his works on his facebook page do not lose his right of copyright, neither he has to share it with facebook.
|
They're Wal-Marting photo advertisements, too! Instead of paying a professional (or amateur) photographer, of buying the rights to use an existing photo from an artist or an art resource, they'll take your photo and probably pay a fraction of the price to FB in order to use it maybe even indefinitely?
Kind of ironic. A lot of facebook users that just link to their instagram every time they take a photo of a fallen leaf or a picket fence in grayscale or bronze or some other dumb pretentious photo jerking now has a chance to be shown EVERYWHERE in some other form of media or maybe even a McDonald's employee manual.
|
mods can we change the misleading title of this thread?
|
On December 19 2012 12:08 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 12:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On December 19 2012 11:35 Caihead wrote:On December 19 2012 11:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On December 19 2012 10:32 poor newb wrote:
a company went public and screws their customers over for every last penny they can get? should have seen this coming a mile away More like a company changes a few lines of legalese and no one bothers to figure out what it actually means, or what it actually entails, before starting a witch hunt about it. For instance, lets look at TeamLiquid's ToS: With respect to any content you elect to post on any area of the site, including blogs, forum comments and any and all other posts, you grant TeamLiquid a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use and display such content worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology, without compensation or attribution to you. Look familiar? Except... TL hasn't changed its TOS. That's the point of this thread, that the TOS is being changed. Effective January 16th infact. No, the point of this thread is a massive knee-jerk reaction that confuses several different licensing and rights issues. Changing the TOS is not surprising in the slightest. In fact, if people actually stopped to read the TOS, they'd see they've already agreed to allow InstaGram to change their TOS. And people are perfectly allowed to discontinue usage of a product at any point, where a change in the ToS is a perfectly good reason. Why are you upset at people exercising their right as consumers?
People are perfectly entitled to stop using a product for any reason they want. Or even without a reason.
Starting a shit storm because you completely misinterpreted the legalese, however, is just stupid.
|
So now they changed their minds? Seems like they wont be selling your photos afterall
|
edit: del in face of update ^^ \o/
|
i wonder why people still think that using stuff on the internetz is free...
you get what you pay for.
|
On December 19 2012 17:26 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
So now they changed their minds? Seems like they wont be selling your photos afterall
See, this is what I'm talking about...do you people even bother to read the TOS in the first place? Most of the crap everyone is freaking about is already in the existing TOS.
The changes don't allow Instagram to sell your photos, and nothing in the legal text even remotely suggested they were claiming ownership or selling your IP. However, they already had the right to use your content for commercial advertising and promotional purposes.
|
So basically they do this to sell your pics to various food companies to advertise food, right?
|
On December 19 2012 17:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 17:26 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
So now they changed their minds? Seems like they wont be selling your photos afterall See, this is what I'm talking about...do you people even bother to read the TOS in the first place? Most of the crap everyone is freaking about is already in the existing TOS. The changes don't allow Instagram to sell your photos, and nothing in the legal text even remotely suggested they were claiming ownership or selling your IP. However, they already had the right to use your content for commercial advertising and promotional purposes.
This is true and you are right in the points you make. However I get the feeling there is more behind the reaction as first meets the eye. Facebook currently has such a bad reputation for preserving the privacy of the things you upload that everything and every change they make through their established channels is going to be heavily criticized and burnt down.
Not talking about if the actual change is good or bad. It's the image they have in combination with the way they communicate and implement changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
