People love to freak out over legalese they only partially understand; makes for a nice sensationalist headline, like when Dropbox changed its terms a bit and everyone's like "omg! they claim ownership over my files to derive variations as they please?!".
Anyway, back to Instagram: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/12/18/167559536/the-day-instagram-almost-lost-its-innocence http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Raffaele Fragapane < [email protected]> wrote: > Now, take a deep breath, go and read the old license, read the new one, > and realize it just got MORE stringet for Instagram. > > In the midst of all the sensationalist hype by less reputable sites like > CNet and other cheap shot, hit gathering ones, The Verge actually took the > time to write a semi-decent one: > > > http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean > Several more legalese and copyright focused websites concur. > > What is even funnier in all this, is that people are jumping ship to > another app or two, or back to flickr, without realising that the > apparently more restrictive, but in reality just vague, terms of those > ACTAULLY do screw you up. > > In example: With the change of license Instagram has basically waived the > right to derivative work coming from your pictures, the alternatives people > want to jump ship to haven't. > > This is exactly the same crap of the name of the brother of the shooter > going viral a few days ago, or when people were pasting the inanely stupid > posts on facebooks about not giving permission. Ignorant people jump to > conclusions, they write an article about it, and because it's on the > internet it must be true. > > I detest facebook as much as anybody else with half a neuron has, > especially for being circumstantially forced by peers to use it for certain > parts of my social life to function, but in this case it's just people > jumping the gun. > > As you were. >
