Sorry, the browser you are using is not currently supported. Disqus actively supports the following browsers:
This page is forcing your browser to use legacy mode, which is not compatible with Disqus. Please see our troubleshooting guide to get more information about this error.
The final squeak from a cloud-mouse. Bye-bye.
The problem with saying the "user can just leave" is two fold: first inadequate notice was given and second when you leave Instagram you leave any photos behind.
Second the license is broad enough that it is in effect a transfer of ownership of the photos.
I agree she could have just left, but it bothers me that Facebook/Instagram is trying to argue that transferable license to use is not the same as ownership.
It what sense is it not?
The true owner cannot override facebook's decisions and, for example, demand their beach photos be pulled off a p*rn site. The licensee facebook has granted rights to can further sublicense the images to others.
the petitioner had the option to terminate her account if she disagreed with the new terms
I think thats the bottom line here. I am not an instagram fan, but they do offer a free service and if a user doesnt agree with the terms proposed then they are free to remove their content and leave the service. This lawsuit seems frivolous.
I say LEAVE IT! Screw Instagram!