Update: Image Hosting Services

[Tom Hildreth]

I have used two different image hosting websites for at least ten years. Each seemed to have features I appreciated that the other did not offer, and with a Pro account at each costing 25 USD/year it seemed wise to keep them both, in case one of them developed a problem. I didn't send the same photos to each one, rather, I used one for high-quality image linking for articles and website contributions, and the other primarily for slide shows of albums.

Recently, I was asked to approve the new terms of use on one of them.
These statements caught my eye:

"If you make your Content public, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to copy, distribute, publicly perform (e.g., stream it), publicly display (e.g., post it elsewhere), reproduce and create derivative works from it (meaning things based on it), anywhere, whether in print or any kind of electronic version that exists now or later developed, for any purpose, including a commercial purpose."

another statement was even more unacceptable:

"You are also giving other Users the right to copy, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and create derivative works from it via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, via services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content, and via social media websites)."

Certainly I would never have become a user of their service if these statements were in the TOU years ago. So, what to do? I needed to start working toward shutting my account down, but this first would require a massive migration of my images off their site. When I first started with my present ISP about ten years ago, all they offered for standard internet services was total web space of 50 mB. (One of the reasons I needed image hosting services). I was pleasantly surprised to learn they have upped that to 2 gB. (Thank goodness for the popularity of vieos, otherwise this may never have happened). A quick calculation revealed I could use my own webspace for the several thousand photos I needed to move. I completed that today. It took roughly 50 man hours working with a total of 125 html files to change the server information on each photo. This was only practical because I was able to use the browser's "Replace" function to change the information to dozens of photos at a time.

Have you ever faced a situation like this, and what did you do?


 

[br1078lum]

Which two services are you talking about, Tom?

PF

[jamesmck]

Tom - By Googling your quote, I see that it is Photobucket.  "If you make your Content public..." seems to be the operative here.  If one uses Photobucket only to host photos for 'publication' on forums such as NFf, it is not necessary to make your Photobucket contents public.  That is the way I use photobucket.  Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think I have ever agreed to such terms of use.

James

[Jim Evans]

Out of curiosity, I logged into my photbucket account. It's been a long time since I last logged in and I did get the new "Terms of Use" update that Tom mentioned.   Here are sections in question highlighted in red.

James, I wonder if you logged out and then logged back in if you would get the new Terms of Use?

I'll probably just delete my account as I never really use it anymore.  


•If you make your Content public, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to copy, distribute, publicly perform (e.g., stream it), publicly display (e.g., post it elsewhere), reproduce and create derivative works from it (meaning things based on it), anywhere, whether in print or any kind of electronic version that exists now or later developed, for any purpose, including a commercial purpose.

•You are also giving other Users the right to copy, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and create derivative works from it via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, via services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content, and via social media websites).

So when you post it, you are telling us and all other Users that the Content really, truly is yours - no one else's - and that the posting and use of your Content does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights, intellectual property rights, or human rights of somebody else. We're not responsible if it's not really yours or if you infringe on others' rights; you will be responsible if there are any costs for that.

The third on is a little confusing to me?

[Tom Hildreth]

First, I deliberately did not identify the service. That should have been obvious. I felt Craig/Moderators might feel sensitive about identifying them by name. I'm hoping your action of ID'ing the service will not result in this topic being eliminated. People need to know what's going on.

The paragraphs Jim Evans has reproduced in red are not acceptable to me. They are the words of a company that does not show proper respect for MY property. Again, I do not believe I ever saw these words until I got the request to review the terms of use recently. I emailed them and got back (after about 10 days) a reply that seemed cleverly-worded but unhelpful to me.

I then attempted a half-dozen times to set all my folders to "private", and curiously got hung up each time with a message on the bottom of my screen indicating "action blocked."   I then spent more time looking at FAQs and looking for help of any sort to no avail. Still curious, I reviewed my account status only to learn that after ten years or so as a paid Pro account, it had mysteriously become a free acount. This was likely limiting my ability to take various actions such as setting Privacy levels.  At that point the only thing left to do was to terminate the account.  I'll be checking to see if this has happened.   

[jamesmck]

Tom - You probably have seen this already http://support.photobucket.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/12/kw/privacy about changing privacy settings on Photobucket.  See especially the bottom of the page for settings of individual albums.  FWIW, I have been a non-paying user of Photobucket for years, and have had no trouble keeping things private.

[LarryD]

I sometimes use http://www.minus.com 10GB free and it is not just for storing photo images.

[Brian Sweeney]

I deleted my Photobucket account years ago.

I took a picture of the Smithsonian Art building, which included a big sign with a work of art posted on it.

They deleted the picture because I was not the copyright owner of the poster in my picture, the one in front of the building, put on public display...

These terms are about the same that Netscape imposed on their IP hosting service.

Maybe they will go the way of Netscape.