Instagram will come. Eventually

[sa1816]

So i found this on the instagram website in their FAQ

When are you going to make the app for Blackberry, Windows Phone 7, iPad, etc?

We are currently working on making the iPhone and Android experiences as solid as possible. Only then will we consider other platforms, but currently we have nothing to announce.

 

[Chregu]

All I can see here is a: "We don't plan to publish an app for Windows Phone."

 

[George Ponder]

No big loss.

I know.... Instagram is a popular social network but I just don't see the lack of an "official" Instagram app breaking the system. Could it help? Sure but I don't think the success of Windows Phone hinges on Instagram.

Plus I'm still leary of the Terms of Use Instagram tried to sneak through. They can claim it was all "confusing" legal wording but it wasn't that confusing. It would have basically turned Instragram into a stock photo vendor using your photos.

Wouldn't surprise me if they tried to change the TOS once the dust settles again.

 

[ttsoldier]

Another IG thread...

 

[jimski]

My solution is simple. I don't, and won't use Instagram, on any device. Respect goes both ways.
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express Pro

 

[aubreyq]

So i found this on the instagram website in their FAQ

When are you going to make the app for Blackberry, Windows Phone 7, iPad, etc?

We are currently working on making the iPhone and Android experiences as solid as possible. Only then will we consider other platforms, but currently we have nothing to announce.

No offense, but how did you make the leap from what Instagram said to the topic of your thread?

 

[jhoff80]

Plus I'm still leary of the Terms of Use Instagram tried to sneak through. They can claim it was all "confusing" legal wording but it wasn't that confusing. It would have basically turned Instragram into a stock photo vendor using your photos.

I don't use Instagram, but no, it wouldn't have, at all.

 

[George Ponder]

I don't use Instagram, but no, it wouldn't have, at all.

Under the original language of the TOS that was to go into effect next month, yes... Instagram had the license to sell your pictures. You still own the rights to the photo but you extend Instagram a license to use your photos as they see fit, royalty free, including distribution through media channels. Only those images marked private could not be distributed outside Instagram's internal services.

Read it as you will but in my experience as a freelance photographer, Instagram TOS gave them too much license with your photos.

 

[jhoff80]

Original TOS:

Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services.

They had the right to do anything with people's content in their original TOS. They tightened those rights up so they actually had less right to users' content, but because people never read the original terms, there was a backlash. Read the article I linked to, it's all there.

 

[George Ponder]

They hide behind their position that they do not claim ownership of your photos but it's the license to use that is what is important.

I've seen TOS that allow services to use material for advertisement and promotion but Instagrams' takes it a step further where they can alter or distribute (sale) the photos.

You may read things differently, but I'll prefer not to give someone that amount of license without royalty.

 

[mlm1950]

Another IG thread...

View attachment 25861

Make sure your meme makes sense and then repost. Thanks.

 

[tibere86]

Another IG thread...

View attachment 25861

You missed a word there Walter. Do you see what happens when you **** a stranger in the ***?

 

[jhoff80]

They hide behind their position that they do not claim ownership of your photos but it's the license to use that is what is important.

I've seen TOS that allow services to use material for advertisement and promotion but Instagrams' takes it a step further where they can alter or distribute (sale) the photos.

You may read things differently, but I'll prefer not to give someone that amount of license without royalty.

No, the original terms of service, the ones everyone wanted to change back to, gave them permission to modify the photos. The ones that had everyone in an uproar specifically removed that permission. But hey, now what everyone accomplished is that Instagram changed their terms of service again, making them not nearly as specific as the 'bad terms', which gives them more leeway again than the supposedly bad ones.

And out of curiosity, I wonder how you expect a cloud hosting site, which uses thousands of servers, to operate WITHOUT the permission to distribute your photos? Distribution refers to moving your content between servers more than it means to sell them.

But if you don't want anyone to have the right to modify or distribute your content, I hope you're disabling Skydrive on all your Windows devices:

When you upload your content to the services, you agree that it may be used, modified, adapted, saved, reproduced, distributed, and displayed to the extent necessary to protect you and to provide, protect and improve Microsoft products and services.

 

[George Ponder]

But if you don't want anyone to have the right to modify or distribute your content, I hope you're disabling Skydrive on all your Windows devices:

You can do that?

And how can they operate without distributing photo? Easy. Add language that distribution does not mean to sell the images. I've never had an issue with any hosting service or website that I post or upload images to using those images for advertising or promotional purposes. It's the selling or potential of selling that rubs me the wrong way. If distribution means between servers or for internal use, then say so.

TOS shouldn't be something left to interpretation but the lawyers take simple language and booger it up where you can read it one way, I can read it another and they hope a Court will read it their way if it ever comes to issue.

I guess it all boils down to a lesson I learned the hard way years ago. If you don't want a picture sold, hijacked or otherwise used without permission... don't click that upload button.