« An intere ting pu lication | Main | Problem: how to win a book »



Agree with all of this!


I understand why the "clarification" has been well-received by the crowd. It's because people didn't read it carefully. There is a world of difference between, "We won't." and "We'll try not to." The latter leaves the door as wide open as it was originally. It just means that when they are caught, a head might roll in the interest of PR Pablum, and that there will be no grounds for a lawsuit.


A more likely scenario might be for Instagram to license the use of the image without selling anything.


This is exactly what I've been trying to tell people! The legal language isn't "confusing", it's very clear and intentionally broad. If you agree to those terms, Instagram can sell your photos, whether its their current intention or not.

I found the whole "apology" to be very condescending and misleading.


I agree. The apology just confirmed that I did the right thing, for me, in deleting my account. In the end it'll probably "only" be social advertising, the way facebook does theirs, but the idea of my kid-pics being used in this fashion make me want to not participate. I've had it with the free, social, advertising-covered toys. What they give me in momentary fun & distraction isn't worth removing the privacy of the next generation, IMHO.

Doctor X

Well said! Bully! Radical! Awesome!


Thank you. I am outta there already. Embracing flickr more. http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocreatr/sets/72157632294747420/with/8291147844/


here is what a new-paradigm company would do ...

announce a revenue sharing program with its users, placing great photos with great companies dividing the wealth with the photographer ...

imagine the buzz around THAT!


They're not contradicting themselves at all. The word "sell" does not appear in the initial offending paragraph. (Neither does the word "license," for that matter.)


It all comes back to media literacy and understanding how tone can be used to manipulate users.

stu fox

Since the original paragraph says that businesses may pay instagram for your content, but instagram won't pay you for someone else using your content, don't you think that the company believes your content belongs to them?


This is well written, however, in the closing it states that the "clarification" has been well received. I, for one, have not accepted the clarification. The writer assumes the people have fallen for their "tone". I have not.

Frau Haselmayer

Seriously, this statement made it even worse for me. I hate that they are trying to make it appear as their users are just to dumb to understand these new terms (well, unfortunately lots are or get lulled by their excuse). To me they also made themselves and their intentions pretty clear. And they admitted that they put them out 30 days early to see if any concerns arise...what does this mean? To me this means: Let's see how far we can push this and if your dumb users will notice what we are up to. Nice!

I really do not want to leave as I am going miss instagram and the community there but I definitely will!


Is Instagram an exception? THis blog is on Typepad, correct? Read the following and tell me what you think: (Extract of TypePad's TOS)
...But by using the TypePad Service or TypePad's Web properties through which the TypePad Service is available, you are granting TypePad a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable right and license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform and publicly display your content, subject to any restrictions on such distribution which you may implement through any content distribution controls provided to you by TypePad as part of the TypePad Service.


Nick - Editor

Perhaps they should use StyleWriter to edit the terms into plain English.

Giovanni Savino

A very interesting, well written and important analysis. An angle of the recent IG events I am glad someone took the time to explore.

Nick Asbury

Thanks for all the comments on this. Should make clear that this blog is concerned with the writing / communication angle. I'm not really offering an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the Instagram terms of service, just the communication around them.

As far as the Typepad terms of service go, my reading of them is that they set out the bare minimum required to run any kind of blogging service - you need to have permission to publicly display content on a variety of platforms.

Heath Gaville

Instagram isn't for people with minds. Most users there don't even know what they are doing. Just about right that I left them in the dirt. :)



The comments to this entry are closed.