Image: Ben Wiseman
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Instagram, the phone app that lets you take pictures, apply artsy filters and then share them, is huge. So huge that in 2012 Facebook bought it for $1 billion.
Then, late last year, Instagram did something massively stupid: it changed its terms of use, the document of rules for using the service. The new terms included this gem: “You agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos … without any compensation to you.
The backlash was swift and vicious. Bloggers heaped disdain. People quit Instagram en masse. Lawyers filed a class-action suit.
The CEO of Instagram sheepishly apologized, reinstated the older agreement and explained: “Instagram has no intention of selling your photos, and we never did.” He had also remarked that “legal documents are easy to misinterpret.”
Yes, apparently they are. Instagram was hardly the first Web company to publish appallingly rapacious, tone-deaf terms of service, trigger a public revolt, and then backpedal and apologize.
In 2009 Facebook's new agreement stated that users gave the company perpetual license “to use, copy, publish … modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute … any User Content you Post.”
After a ferocious public backlash, the company reverted back to its older terms (although it has again offered new ones). “It was never our intention to confuse people,” a spokesperson said. “Facebook does not, nor have we ever, claimed ownership over people's content.” Wait, what?
Google has lived through this cycle, too. When it introduced its online Google Drive storage, the terms-of-use document said (and Google's general policy still says) that if you put files onto the Google Drive, you give Google “a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify … and distribute such content.
After ire from users, Google pointed to other language in its service agreement that says, “What belongs to you stays yours.”
What's going on here? Who owns your material?
“That sort of language is typical in any site with user-generated content,” says Los Angeles–based intellectual-property attorney Alan Friel, who writes these agreements all day long.
This “license to use, modify, distribute” talk is called facilitative rights. You're giving the company permission to process and display your stuff on their site. “Modify” means, say, “reformat for Facebook's template”; “perform” means “permitting playback of music or video you've posted”; “distribute” means “copying to multiple Facebook servers”; and so on.
What about the “derivative works” language? That's to protect media companies from lawsuits. “They're concerned that if they let users start posting stuff or submitting ideas, then they'll get sued when they create a TV show that may be similar,” Friel says.
In each terms-of-service drama, the public seems to think that the Web company is claiming ownership of content. Instead these agreements give the company a nonexclusive license to use your stuff, usually in innocent, or at least understandable, ways. But could a company take those rights literally? Could it “modify” your post beyond recognition? Could it license your Instagram photograph for use in an ad for something like the NRA?
Technically, yes. Yet it's unlikely. Consumers would revolt—and flee the service in droves. And by distributing a user's content to outside parties, a company such as Facebook or Instagram would cease to be protected legally if the content, say, was already copyrighted.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add Comment"Could it license your Instagram photograph for use in an ad for something like the NRA?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the reasons I stopped subscribing to your magazine was it's relentless and (surprisingly) unscientific stance against Second Amendment rights.
The NRA isn't "something", it's a group of millions of people who see the evidence that firearms are a positive force in society, not a negative one.
Why not 'something' like the AARP, or the NAACP? Those are also advocacy groups that and support their members particular interests.
This constant demonization of the NRA and it's members is simply propaganda. Discredit the messenger to discredit the message.
You, of all people should not be pandering to the anti-firearms hysteria being promoted by the gun control lobby and the mass media.
A magazine like yours should not be engaging in cheap shots like this, plain and simple.
I and the other 5 million of so NRA members expect an apology.
"One of the reasons I stopped subscribing to your magazine"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm must have felt the pain.
"(surprisingly) unscientific stance against Second Amendment rights"
Shooting from the hip? So the NRA is a militia? Its members only joined to defend the country from invasion and bad politicians, bad politicians being everybody who does not agree with them? A minority wanting to impose its will on a majority? You call that democracy? Do you only have an idea of what democracy means?
"The NRA... a group of millions of people who see the evidence that firearms are a positive force in society, not a negative one"
The anti-NRA... a group of even far more millions (read above: democracy). Do speak your mind but use at least rudimentary logic. Although, NRA... logic...
BTW the NRA has far less members than it claims. Simply add and combine those numbers it is forced to publish and you arrive at something like 3.5, many of which are members, but not necessarily favouring semis.
In the end, what you say is an OPINION. Which is NOT the same as evidence. And a few million can be extremely wrong in their opinions. I was in Germany last week. They know something about a minority of millions of war weaponry carriers being very wrong.
From another point of view, the scientific evidence points to something being very wrong with your opinion. Ever considered the possibility that you might be completely wrong?
Opinions, especially such as yours, are very close to religion. Now, it's hard to discuss facts with religious fanatics. So I'm not really discussing, I'm counter-weighing your comment for the sake of third party readers, simply so you don't have the run of the field. Because that would be a great mistake and would look as if I accepted Newton as simple collateral damage.
"Why not 'something' like the AARP, or the NAACP? Those are also advocacy groups that and support their members particular interests."
Or the Klan or al-Quaida or the Cali cartell. When people associate it is not necessarily a good thing or there wouldn't be such terms as "criminal association". Learn to differentiate.
"This constant demonization of the NRA and it's members is simply propaganda."
Next thing someone will pretend that Newton was a PR stunt by the anti-NRA propagandists. You sound like LaPierre (who gives even simplistic propaganda a bad rep).
"You, of all people should not be pandering to the anti-firearms hysteria"
Why SciAm not of all people? Quite the contrary, if not them then who? I EXPECT SciAm to print the numbers and the facts despite the NRA's best efforts at smoke-screening the evidence.
"(anti-NRA opinion) being promoted by the gun control lobby and the mass media"
... and concerned citizens and parents and sociologists and scientists and intelligent people etc.
I know this is generally killing a discussion but you really want to read LaPierre e.a. comments side by side with those of Goebbels, a German expert in simplicistic propaganda defending his "people's" party's attacks against those who saw them as a danger to society.
But hey, what do I know. So tell me this:
The European Union has slightly more inhabitants than the US. How come the US has 9 times more firearm murders?
Or is it something in the drinking water?
Or are you contesting the numbers?
"A magazine like yours should not be engaging in cheap shots like this, plain and simple."
If shots weren't as cheap and easily available in the US there would be less murder. Nearly all killings are due to cheap ammo and easy access to guns. Every idiot can shoot and kill, not every idiot can think and write. It's one of the reasons why I subscribe to SciAm, not American Rifleman. BTW, it's interesting how the word "american" is used in this context. Reminds me of similar nationalistic publications in Europe's past. If someone is using cheap shots here it's not SciAm. Fortunately you don't seem a good marksman, not a Chris Kyle by a long shot.
"I and the other 5 million of so NRA members expect an apology."
That number is an NRA hype. It has never ever even closely proved it. It's bull, but not eye.
As to the apology. Your demand reminds me of another one when the speaker demanded an apology. Google "speech Reichstag 1 September 1939". You'll feel strangely familiar with the turns of phrases, vocabulary and the argument construction. Which is why in Europe I've heard NRA interpreted, for laughs of course, as the Nazional R....d Americans.
But this is not my center of interest. I am more interested in that what most NRA members share, such as ethnicity, religious beliefs, political opinions, interpretation of democracy, national exceptionalism, their opinions on climate change and nuclear energy, education and cultural interests. I combine a few fields into one. There's a name for what I do professionally but I'm afraid you'd construe it as something communist. Worse than climatoligist. But the US is a great country, it's young, it has a right to find its own way and I am absolutely convinced that it will eventually grow into a civilized whole.
As to where I come from and I have as much evidence as you. Get this. I declare to speak here in the name of the anti-NRA and its 40 millions members.
Personally? I am a rather good shot, still shooting for sport occasionally, am in favour of shooting clubs and private ownership of sports gun excluding all semi-automatic and non-sports guns, support weapon carrying by the national militia as represented by the police and the armed forces, agree with weapons for hunting if that is your thing or your necessity, demand strict regulations of weapon ownership and handling including very restricted use of weapons if a citizen can prove a professional or other reason to carry for self-defence.
I'm sitting in a hotel lobby right now, my fav spot for SciAm comments. You know the difference between a US and a UE lobby? In the US there are always a few guys walking around with concealed weapons. What for? To defend themselves against nutters walking around with concealed weapons? And most of the time these are the very people you least want to carry.
You took your shot, you missed. I don't want bad shooters carrying.
Reading matter:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/nra-gun-manufacturers_b_2468565.html
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/01/nra-membership-whos-paying-those-free-memberships
BTW you wouldn't happen to be a paid gun-lobby hitman or whatever the NRA calls their shills?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW - how are you able to enter a comment that exceeds the comment text entry box limit by 3654 characters?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI cut the c..p
jctyler,your comment, however, very eloquent, is vague in certain aspects. I do agree with you but that is not my purpose for commenting here. You said America is a young country, I find this to be a very arrogant and ridiculous statement. In terms of literal time of existence true, but insinuating it is like a child that is crap. The politicians of this nation are not affected by elapsed since independence. The United States is a rather established and developed nation along with its own culture that diffuses across the world. I'm not saying we are an idol, I am stating that if you would have spoken with more humility you could have had a flawless argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You said America is a young country"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the place you call, erroneously, America is as old as Greece? Or Egypt?
"I find this to be a very arrogant and ridiculous statement."
How would you then consider some top USamerican politicians' habit of referring to "old Europe"? Which BTW I agree with. Europe is old and it needs to recreate itself. Italy still deals with its Roman culture, especially its less fortunate effects. Greece has still not overcome its heritage. They have not even come to terms with the reality that without the Arabs we wouldn't even know most of its philosophers today. All countries go through life cycles.
But you being an "American", and you sound like a very typical, loud, brash, arrogant, ignorant, you would of course believe and try to impose on everybody else that the US is in fact a very adult country without any growing pains, better governed and far more equal than everybody else, a shining example of fair elections and perfect democracy, in fact, didn't you invent that along with its slogan "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", the latter being a USamerican dialect spoken in the bayou, which would prove that Napoleon was cajun. Come to think of it, didn't you invent Europe?
"In terms of literal time of existence true, but insinuating it is like a child that is crap."
Spoken like a true "American".
From outside: it's a young country and it's far from behaving like an adult. Consider only its utterly unfounded belief in being leader of the world, exceptional and superior. How childish, or at best, teenagerish is that? Way to go.
"The politicians of this nation are not affected by elapsed since independence."
Remember Rummy's reference to old Europe? A reference accepted and propagated happily by all his "class" which was in fact completely off.
As I see it, the real old Europeans are Rumsfeld, Bush e.a. They still believe in a slightly updated understanding of society that most Europeans who emigrated to the US tried to get away from. They are the descendants of the bigots who landed in Portsmouth because England had become too TOLERANT for their taste. You've got to know your history before you foam at the mouth.
Your leading "caucasians" are still extremely old Europe. And while this had its reasons and advantages in the past their time is over. The US is slowly growing up and getting away from the "caucasian" grip on its society. It's part of the growing up process, part of becoming mentally, spiritually independent.
"The United States is a rather established and developed nation"
That is YOUR view from the INSIDE. You don't even have a working health care, are very far from a just society, you have election fraud at the highest level, a crime rate that is beyond belief, no country in the world has as high a percentage of its population in jail - and you tell me you're a developped country? You're RICH (by abuse, rip-off, natural resources, brain drain and illegal labour) but barely Second World.
Your point of view is at the root of how the US is perceived in other parts of the world. A large part of the globe does not share your POV at all. Your arrogance feeds terrorism. Remain on your socio-egocentric point of view if you wish but don't try to impose it. It will as it has always backfire. Why do you think you have your image abroad? We don't like that old-fashioned US banana-boat bullying anymore and we don't take it anymore either.
"along with its own culture that diffuses across the world"
Do you mean Miles Davis or Mickey Mouse?
"I'm not saying we are an idol"
So you moved away from you point of view of a few years back? Good. It's a sign you're growing up.
Seriously, how do you think a non-USamerican would interpret your comment? I know the US rather well so I don't mind you saying what you say as I see where you are coming from and I know your cultural context but big parts of the world would be rather insulted by your amour-de-soi (an old European word).
"I am stating that if you would have spoken with more humility you could have had a flawless argument."
I am replying that if you would have spoken with more humility you would come across less as an old-type "American".
On the funny side, I've heard arguments like this before. As long as my argument concordes with your point of view, you consider me logical. As soon as I apply the same logic to you, suddenly my logic is flawed. Been there, produced the t-shirt.
Your reaction is actually what is considered in the rest of the world as typically USamerican arrogance. YOU may find it "normal", we don't. It's this arrogance that has cost you all the credit your country still had in the 50s. Of course you don't see it as arrogance, how could it be when you are the greatest country in the galaxy - in your opinion? Except that your opinion is wrong.
But you're mentally and culturally young, you will learn.
As long as you get away from your old-European-transposed-to-the-US attitude.
I want to make sure you understand this as it's meant:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But you being an "American", and you sound like a very typical, loud, brash, arrogant, ignorant"
I am not saying you ARE like that, I am saying you SOUND like that to non-USamerican ears. It's how you come across, it's what defines your image. You want to improve your image you've got to start with some serious introspection.
I trust you see the difference implied.
Do you understand why 95% of Europeans were against Romney? A big part of that was because Romney was so old European that he represented everything that is frowned upon in Europe whereas for most white male USamericans he was the archetypical "good old American boy". He isn't. He represents the past.
My online comments here are obviously my intellectual property but you may copy, distribute or quote them as you wish as long as you source them to SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this