News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Instagram's official response by ChuckMcM on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:30PM (#4940292)
I also noticed that they stepped short of saying they wouldn't be taking a non-exclusive perpetual license for any use out of the ToS. What does "ownership" mean in that case? Only that you can negotiate other deals with third parties.

It can mean that they cannot re-license your work, which is to say you wouldn't have to compete with them in terms of pricing to a third party but I don't know if that is what the ToS says so a closer reading is in order.

Re:Instagram's official response by eliasmacpherson on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:57PM (#4940412)
Licence is: "non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use"

So I would say "sub-license" means "re-license". It would be very unfortunate to have to compete with Instagram on pricing for your own content to a third party. Or some company that buys Instagram/Facebook out.

Just read this bit: "To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear."

So I think that clears up the 'sub-licensable' aspect. It doesn't rule out giving them away for free - which come to think of it, would hard to compete with price-wise! I'm really starting to wonder what they had in mind.

Re:Instagram's official response by ChuckMcM on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @07:17PM (#4940505)
Well there you go, hopefully you won't have ad agencies coming to Instagram as a clearing house to license images in their ads.