photo hosting sites

[slantasaurus]

I'm not sure if anybody saw this article but you might want to take a look. Strangely it doesn't mention Photobucket, but I'm going to check their policies anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/twitpic-copyright_n_860554.html?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk2%7C212988

[ra7c7er]

It's funny that they leave out photobucket. Since Photobucket has actually been sued for selling photos. All of the sites have very similar wording and thy all basically "own" anything you upload.

[stewart]

Wow. Very eye-opening. I did not know that. I don't really care for myself as I don't upload any pictures worth selling but that does not seem right.

STewart

[jbwelda]

this may seem petty and shortsighted, but i have a major problem with anything that contains the word "twit" in its name.

just sayin...

[SoCalCarCulture]

Kind of a scare tactic article but it has made the various legit photo hosts respond!

Read the TOS of whatever photo host you use to get the true story, here's Flickr's response today...

At Flickr, your photos are always yours

This holds true for Fotki as well!

[niteowl7710]

Whomever wrote the original article clearly doesn't understand the difference between owning the copyright of something, and then the subsequent licensing of that copyright to others.

The original Twitpic ToS didn't say you couldn't license you work to others, it just said you couldn't license you work to others on THEIR servers. Which is understandable, most people when linking a picture on the internet, certainly don't download the photo, and then re-upload it to their own servers. In essence they don't want their through-put (aka bandwidth) being used up by others, which as someone who foots a server bill of my own, seems perfectly reasonable to me.