Twitter has just launched it’s very own image hosting service (powered by Photobucket). For a couple of years now we have been used to 3rd party solutions such as Twitpic ( a name synonymous with “tweeted images”), YFrog, Mobypicture and Lockerz. All these image hosts allow a user to upload an image (from their phone or computer) to be hosted by them in order to share that content with other users via Twitter or other social media platforms.

As a professional photographer I know that controlling the use of my images by licencing the copyright I hold in them is vital. It’s how I earn my living. But for the general public, they may not be aware that some of these image hosting companies are able to effectively resell the images they upload without paying them a penny. So how can they do this?In this post I am going to aim to show you the good and the bad and explain what may happen to your images that you have uploaded. As usual the devil is in the detail: the terms and conditions you sign up to by making an upload to an image host’s site.  Let’s take a look in turn at the terms of some of the most popular image hosting services, but first a quick (and very basic) copyright & licencing primer for those that are not used to how images are commoditised in the photo industry so that this article can be understood a little better:

Copyright: As the creator of a photo on your phone or with your camera you are the automatic copyright holder. There are exceptions to this (i.e. if you are shooting for an employer) but for the UK & US and most of the world this applies.  You created it so you own it. 

So what is copyright worth? Why do I need it? Can I make any money out of it? : Yes you can. By selling the rights to reproduce the photo. This is known as licencing.

Licencing a photo: You don’t sell the photo, or the copyright (ever!), you just sell the right to use it. This is how images in newspapers and magazines get there. Photographers like me sell the right to reproduce the photos I make to magazines and newspapers and advertising agencies in return for a fee. That fee depends upon the photo itself, how it is used, how unique it is and a number of other factors.

This doesn’t just apply to photographers. Anyone, any member of the public who has an image that someone else wants to use can charge a fee to use their image. It’s that simple.

So, to recap. You take a photo. You own the copyright automatically. You can use that copyright to sell the right to publish the photo for a fee.

What has this got to do with me, I only take photos on my phone?

Most people will never be in a position to sell an image because they won’t have an image a publisher wants. But what if you were there when a newsworthy event happened and you had your phone or camera available? Something you’d see in a newspaper or a magazine. Then you would have a valuable image on your phone or in your camera. Other images can be valuable too, travel shots, weather shots, the list is endless.

What does this have to do with Twitter image hosts?!

A lot of people nowadays take a snap and instantly upload it to Twitter or other social media to share. The minute you upload your image you either retain control or lose control depending on where you send it to! It’s that simple.

Some of the image hosts will automatically be able to sell your image and pay you nothing at all. Your image may get on the front of a newspaper or magazine or on the TV and you will earn nothing. Why? Lets see…

When reading the reviews below remember, Copyright on it’s own doesn’t make you any money. The licencing of the copyright does. So while all these hosts say “The Copyright remains with you”, this is not actually giving you anything that’s not yours already. Some image hosts give themselves the permission to sell on your images to publishers (or anyone who wants to buy them) without asking you (because you’ve agreed they can do this via their terms).

Image hosts know they can (if needed) sell your images to markets you can’t reach. Especially in the event of you uploading newsworthy (i,e, valuable) content. Above all else they know user generated content is $$valuable$$ even if you, the creator, do not.


**The Ratings:**  Social media Image hosts, the good and the bad:



Twitpic are probably the best known 3rd party image host. They used to have a good set of terms but these changed in May this year. There has been a lot said about the change already but essentially they now grant themselves a licence to use or resell your images where and when they want with no recompense to you whatsoever..

Twitpic responded with this official post and it reads like they’re on your side. Well, sorry but it’s a skirt round the actual issue. Of course we retain our copyright Twitpic, and yes, we do (as we will see in a moment) grant you a licence to do what you want with our photos but hey, you forgot the bit about paying us when you sell them!

Here’s the detail in their terms you agree to when you upload to Twitpic:

You retain all ownership rights to Content uploaded to Twitpic. However, by submitting Content to Twitpic, you hereby grant Twitpic a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and Twitpic’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

You grant this for no fee whatsoever. None is mentioned. They can do what they want with your photos and you’ll not see any payment.

My verdict? AVOID



Twitter have just launched their own dedicated image host in response to the other 3rd party image hosts that have been around for a number of years. They are using the already well established Photobucket as their service provider so it’s their terms and conditions we need to look at to see how our image rights will be handled.

UPDATE 14/08/11 09:00 – please see comment section from this comment down. John Kalucki from has informed me that the Photobucket Terms of Service (TOS) do not apply and that the Twitter ones do. However the Twitter terms appear to have the same effect, i.e. a worldwide royalty free licence to modify, transmit etc etc.  I have sought clarification from John via @jkalucki and will update this section when I get his response.

UPDATE 14/08/11 16:15 – I am grateful for John’s reply.  I understand he does not speak on behalf of Twitter. The Twitter TOS that apply are listed below. I have struckthrough the Photobucket TOS but left them in for context. To see how the conversation re Twitter unfolded see the comments section from this comment. Thanks J

You would think that after the interest and commentary surrounding Twitpic and their terms, dear old Twitter would have taken note. Unfortunately not.

Here’s the detail in the Twitter terms you agree to when you upload to the new Twitter image service (hosted by Photobucket):

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

6.1  Photobucket does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, “Content”) that you post on or through the Photobucket Services. By displaying or publishing (“posting”) any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked “private” will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services. Photobucket and/or other Users may copy, print or display publicly available Content outside of the Photobucket Services, including without limitation, via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content).

Just as bad as Twitpic, though at least they have the decency to give a couple of examples of how others may profit from your content:

for example, services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content

You grant this for no fee whatsoever. None is mentioned. They can do what they want with your photos and you’ll not see any payment. Nothing says they will actively sell your images but nothing says they won’t. The licence granted is so wide it’s limitless.

Sorry Twitter but these Terms are not at all friendly to content creators. If you want to enable Tweets to go round the world without payment then separate Tweets (i.e. text strings) from uploaded images, videos and artwork. Have a wide licence for Tweets and follow Yfrog or Mobypicture’s lead for images.

My verdict? AVOID (applies to Twitter and Photobucket)


3) LOCKERZ (formerly PLIXI)

Lockerz recently came on the scene (previously known as Plixi). With Lockerz came a new set of terms. As far as I am aware Plixi’s old terms were much friendlier than Lockerz. With Lockerz we are seeing the same sort of all-encompassing ‘do as we please with your photos’ terms as before.

Here’s the detail in their terms you agree to when you upload to Lockerz:

You agree that in making a Submission, Lockerz shall not be required to compensate you for any such license or Submission, that any such Submission shall not be considered confidential or non-public once submitted to Lockerz, and that Lockerz alone is free to decide whether or not to post or use the Submission. Further, by providing a Submission to Lockerz via the Website or otherwise, you: (a) agree not to make any Submission that violates in any way the Terms of Use; (b) automatically grant Lockerz a perpetual, worldwide, unlimited, irrevocable, transferable, assignable, sublicenseable, royalty–free license to use the Submission, and exercise all copyright, publicity and other rights with respect to any such Submission; (c) subject to existing laws, waive any moral rights you or your licensors have in any such Submission; and (d) agree to pay for all fees, royalties, or other costs and expenses claimed by any third party arising out of you making any Submission.

At least they’re upfront enough to tell you that you’ll not get paid anything Lockerz shall not be required to compensate you for any such license or Submission” and if you upload anything you shouldn’t that causes another copyright holder to sue them, well….. you agree to pay for all fees, royalties, or other costs and expenses claimed by any third party arising out of you making any Submission”

My verdict? AVOID



Yfrog are the social media arm of Image Shack, which like Photobucket seems to have been around for an awfully long time.  I’m happy to report that unlike the previous three image hosting services, Yfrog actually respects the work you upload. Let’s take a look.

Here’s the detail in their terms you agree to when you upload to Yfrog:

The content that you distribute through the ImageShack Network is owned by you, and you give ImageShack permission to display and distribute said content exclusively on the ImageShack Network.

ImageShack will not sell or distribute your content to third parties or affiliates without your permission. Third parties may exercise the following options regarding your content:

  • Third parties may hyperlink to the page that displays your content on the ImageShack Network without modification and with proper attribution to you.
  • Third parties may request permission to use your content by contacting you directly.

All requests for permission regarding your content usage directed at ImageShack will be forwarded to you. All uploaded content is copyrighted to its respective owners. ImageShack directs full legal responsibility of said content to their respective owners. All content generated by ImageShack is copyrighted by ImageShack. ImageShack is not responsible for any uploaded content, nor is it in affiliation with any entities that may be represented in the uploaded content.

Fantastic! Finally a workable set of terms for content creators. Well done Yfrog and Image Shack that is a very respectful set of terms for all content owners considering this is an image sharing/hosting platform. Not only do they specifically state that they will not sell your content but they will direct all enquiries for usage back to you. Other users may link to your content but not modify it.




Of all the image hosts out there Mobypicture have desrevedly got themselves the reputation of being user content friendly. Taking a look at the Mobypicture terms we don’t see yards of legalese, just a simple statement that should reassure all users their content will be very much at home on a Mobypicture server!

Here’s the detail in their terms you agree to when you upload to Mobypicture:

All rights of uploaded content by our users remain the property of our users and those rights can in no means be sold or used in a commercial way by Mobypicture or affiliated third party partners without consent from the user.

It doesn’t get much simpler than that. Bravo to Mobypicture!  Long may you continue to respect the rights of content creators.




Unfortunately it’s a huge #FAIL for Twitpic, Twitter and Lockerz and a big #WIN for Mobypicture and Yfrog.

If you are using Twitter via a client that has selectable image hosting services available in its settings then do yourself a favour and change your image host to Mobypicture or Yfrog, and protect your content.


Until later…



Be Sociable, Share!

51 Responses to “Twitpic, Twitter, Lockerz, YFrog, Mobypic – good or bad?”

  1. Frank Says:

    Outstanding analysis and recommendations Jon! Thank you!

  2. mellonmarshall Says:

    Just out of curiosity what about Facebook

  3. jon Says:

    I don’t have a Facebook account (partly due to repeated concerns about privacy and data mining!). If someone can point me at their Terms I can take a look.

  4. John Kalucki Says:

    The section on Twitter photos is incorrect. The Twitter TOS applies to photos uploaded on The Photobucket TOS does not apply at all and is irrelevant to the discussion.

  5. jon Says:

    Hi John,

    Thanks for the clarification. I had assumed the publisher/host of the image would have final call, hence the Photobucket TOS. I will update the post above but can you just clarify that the Twitter TOS I’m looking at here are the ones that apply?

    If so they appear to be no different (save for the wording) from the Photobucket TOS i.e.

    By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).


  6. Steve Says:

    Hi Jon,

    I’ve been asking John Kalucki various questions concerning Twitter terms inlcuding:

    “John, Did you not see my other questions/ concerns? inc Twitter terms, making financial gain by image uploads…..”

    Response “Yes, I saw them. Assume that no reply is the same as ‘No comment’.”

    ….there seems to be a ‘slight’ lack of transparency.

    Good luck!

  7. jon Says:

    Hi Steve,

    We shall see :) John is saying Photobucket TOS don’t apply but the Twitter TOS is just as bad (same as Twitpic). I hope he will confirm I’m quoting the right TOS so I can update the post. I have tweeted at him so we’ll see tomorrow (given that it’s Sunday and we’re +6hrs or so)!

  8. John Kalucki Says:

    I do not speak for Twitter. General questions will only be answered by the Communications department.

    The most I will do is point out factual inaccuracies about certain parts of the product and engineering and ask questions to understand needs and concerns. I cannot fix what I do not understand.

    If you are concerned about unauthorized commercial content use, Section 4, Part 3, is the more relevant section. The next line after the section quoted above on August 14th, 2011 at 9:16 am is: “This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.” If you do not want your content distributed widely, then the recommendation to avoid Twitter is probably a reasonable one.

  9. jon Says:

    Hi John,

    Thanks for the post. I think the Developer T&Cs just muddy the water though. What you advise a 3rd party developer to do via your API is not the actual point of my post above (what happens when Joe Public upload images).

    The part you have quoted (Sec 4 Part 3) is:

    Using Twitter Content.

    Get the users’ permission before:

    – using their content on a commercial durable good or product (for example, using a Tweet on a t-shirt or a poster or making a book based on someone’s Tweets);
    – creating an advertisement that implies the sponsorship or endorsement on behalf of the user; or
    – using content in a manner that is inconsistent with the Display Guidelines and would require the user’s permission under applicable law.

    Which is good common sense and respectable policy in respect of the content posted by Twitter users that you make available via your API.

    But…. users are still asked to agree to the following Twitter TOS I posted earlier:

    By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

    You say that the following paragraph to the one above refers to Tweets. And it does. But this paragraph is related to Content, and content can mean tweets, pics, video, artwork. In fact anything uploaded via Twitter in whichever way. If it only meant Tweets (i.e. a text string) why isn’t it written as such?

    I understand you are not the official spokesperson for Twitter. I love Twitter. It’s an amazing piece of social media and I’ve made many friends. But as a professional image creator I think it’s treatment of our valuable content (i.e. images) is not at all good. Sorry. I’m quite happy for my Tweets to go viral :) I’m not happy for my uploaded images to be subject to a “worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute”.

    It’s my content and copyright and if it’s going to be used I want to know who by, where and when and yes, I want some money;)


  10. John Kalucki Says:

    I cannot interpret the text for you. Personally, I only see an honest attempt to very precisely inform both the user and third parties about a complex situation.

    In your post above, it is possible that you are erroneously conflating the distribution rights granted to Twitter with rights granted to third-parties.

  11. jon Says:

    Hi John,

    I am definitely not merging the two sets of t&c’s. I have only ever addressed the user terms in my original post, not the terms if you are a developer accessing Twitter content via the API.

    The user TOS grants you this worldwide wide-ranging royalty free licence to do whatever you like with uploaded content if you so wish at any time. That’s what I’m pointing out to users of your service and that’s what I object to which is why I can’t use your image hosting services. Others may see it differently or not be so concerned.

    I really can’t put it any clearer than that. If I’m wrong then someone needs to officially say that the clause in your user TOS allowing Twitter that specified wide-ranging licence does do not apply to uploaded “content” via the Twitter image service. Untli then it’s my interpretation that it does apply. BTW I am not a lawyer :)


  12. Steve Says:

    Jon, I was asking about the terms…

    “I see Twitter now has an upload photo button that strips metadata, all hosted via Photobucket. Where are the T&C’s for rights? @ImageRights”

    ok, it’s a simple enough statement/ question, so here’s the response from ‘PhotoBucketHelp’:

    “Here are the Terms of Use:

    Say cheese ;)

  13. jon Says:

    Lol :)

    Best we lump them in the same “Avoid” pot until one decides to do the decent thing and be nice to us overworked underpaid content creators eh? ;) :)


  14. Nikon D5110 Says:

    Terrific Post.thanks for share..extra wait .. …

  15. noodlemaz Says:

    Hmm, now I’d like to move all my photos (or at least some of them) from twitpic to yfrog… without just re-uploading all of them! Obviously I’ll lose the attached tweet in that case.

    I assume this is not possible. Le sigh.

  16. John Kalucki Says:

    In my reading, the title ‘Developer Rules of the Road’ does not preclude it from defining content use rules that apply to all consumers of Twitter data.

    I’m not trying to make an argument that Twitter fits your needs, as it may indeed not fit. But, to simplify, that Photobucket’s TOS does not apply, Twitter third-parties do not have free reign and the licence to Twitter includes verbs around distribution of content: ‘use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute’.

  17. jon Says:

    Hi John,

    Agreed, the ‘Developer Rules of the Road’ define “the policies and philosophy around what type of innovation is permitted with the content and information shared on Twitter”.

    That’s not in question. What a 3rd party can or cannot do with Twitter content is another area altogether.

    “Photobucket’s TOS does not apply”. That’s understood and reflected in the post above.

    The verbs around distribution of content “‘use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute’” are exactly what the problem is when it comes to uploading image based “content” to the image hosting service.

    That and the granting of the royalty free licence of course. For example if in the future Twitter decided to start it’s own stock library or indeed partner with a photographic industry reseller (as Twitpic have done) this wide-ranging licence would allow you (Twitter) to do this with any content that has been uploaded and without the permission of the copyright holder (because they already granted you the licence).

    That’s the real crux of the matter. This blog post seeks to make that known to those using services with this type of clause.

  18. Peter Nimmo Says:

    Another blog says that yFrog are not a good alternative. The article was written earlier than this one so I don’t know if they changes the TOS due to complaints.

  19. Peter Nimmo Says:

    It looks like they did indeed change their TOS, I’ve just read an update that confirms this (at the end of the article)

  20. jon Says:

    Thanks for the update Peter. Yes it looks like Yfrog have taken the unfriendly clauses out of their t&c’s now. If only all could be as simple as Mobypic though…

  21. Ray Wood Says:

    Great article Jon – thanks. I switched to Mobypicture when Twitpic changed their ToS. However, when I looked at my gallery yesterday, the one Twitter now makes from images posted by yourself on it, none of the ones posted through Moby currently show up. The most recent image is the last one I took using Twitpic. Any idea why that is?

  22. jon Says:

    Thanks Ray,

    I’m pretty sure YFrog hosted images don’t show either. I only noticed this new Twitter offering on the web interface a couple of days ago. It seems (and good on them for doing it) YFrog and Mobypic are not letting Twitter hotlink their content.

    Of course it could be exactly the reverse. Twitter could be deliberately not displaying YFrog & Mobypic images so as to frustrate users (by returning “missing image” notifications) and hoping to entice them into changing the hosting service to their very own?

    Lets see how this one develops.. ;)

  23. Lincoln Adams Says:

    This list should be updated to include Instagram as well, and maybe Flickr too, as I now use both to share my photos. Flickr is the easiest since it serves as my online repository, while Instagram has been equally as easy in sharing them across most social networks in a snap. : )

  24. jon Says:

    I think that would need a separate post Lincoln. The subject of this one is to identify good and bad Twitter image hosts rather than predominantly image sharing sites like Flickr or Instagram.



  25. Jessie Says:

    What about flickr?
    Oh and what if I use an image off a news site but then change it a little for lets say a blog I have is that breaking the law?

  26. jon Says:

    Hi Jessie

    Flickr is a photography site rather than a site where people upload content captured by phones etc so it’s outside the scope of the blog post. As far as I know (don’t use it myself) content uploaded there is not subject to being sold on by Flickr. Each user can mark their content with the licence of their choice.

    You are infringing someone’s copyright if you are “using” images from news sites on your blog whether changed or not and you have not bought a licence to use them or had permission given in writing. Those images are copyright the photographer or news agency who supplied the site you are taking them from. Many sites have lawyers with sharp teeth who will charge you a licence fee and damages if you are caught.

    Remember, just because it’s on the net doesn’t mean it’s free to use!! Almost all images are copyright protected unless they explicitly state otherwise.

  27. Waylen Bray Says:

    Thanks much for this outline. This was exactly the information that I was looking for. As a non-professional who enjoys sharing photos on occasion I was alarmed when I heard that Twitpic had changed their User Agreement and could sell the rights to photos that I had taken to share if they chose to. Based on your recommendations I will be trying Mobypicture now.

  28. MiddleAgedCred Says:

    Thank you for this brilliant article. I was aware that there were ownership issues with some of the photo hostings sites but this has saved me a huge amount of research.

  29. Social sharing of photos – are you giving away your rights for free? — Postcards from the Mothership Says:

    [...] more information on social sharing of pictures, copyright and licensing models, see Jon Boyes great blog post on the subject. There’s also been a huge amount of discussion on Facebook and photo rights, [...]

  30. Tom Says:

    Looks like Mlkshk is doing the same thing :(

  31. E.B. Says:

    I used so far, but it’s the same there; you give all rights to them. I think for some screenshots and that stuff it’s ok.

    I think if you made a real good photo, you can still post and tweet it (or whatever), through any service. Just make the resolution bad and put a text diagonal over it (“unlicensed image”). Anyone needing the image for a newspaper or whatever will have to contact you for a full resolution and clean image anyway. And at the same time, all blogs and stuff can use that free image instead.

  32. UberSocial User Says:

    Great article, but what if your Twitter client of choice doesn’t *give you* the free reign to switch to YFrog or Moby? UberSocial only gives its users a choice of Lockerz &!

    Should the aware non-amateur non-photog user then look for a Twitter client that allows the switch to a photoservice that uses respectful photo licensing? I’m a Blackberry user, so any help would be appreciated here…

    What alternatives can we use?


  33. JohnEdwa Says:

    What about Imgur ? ( )
    The only thing I noticed was “Don’t upload copyrighted material,”, so wouldn’t that mean I cant upload my own photos ?

  34. Aerliss Says:

    *jumps ship from Twitpic*

    I’ve been wanting to move for a while due to their awful TOS but have been too lazy to do the leg work to find a better service myself. Thanks!

  35. Finger weg von Twitpic, Twitter und Lockerz beim Foto-Upload, stattdessen Yfrog oder Mobypicture nutzen Says:

    [...] Jon Boyes hat in einem sehr informativen Beitrag die Nutzungsbedingungen von Diensten untersucht, die es erlauben, Fotos bei Twitter zu veröffentlichen. (Der Beitrag ist schon im August 2011 erschienen, aber weiterhin aktuell.) Das besondere an diesen Diensten ist, dass sie es einem auf sehr einfache Art und Weise ermöglichen, Fotos so hochzuladen, dass sie direkt und automatisiert in einem Tweet verlinkt bzw. in vielen Twitter-Diensten (wie Seesmic oder Hootsuite) oder Twitter-Clients (wie Tweetdeck) sofort angezeigt werden, ohne dass der Nutzer in einen Browser wechseln muss. [...]

  36. Picserv: Bilderdienst für das Social Web of Data » Datenwissen Says:

    [...] lange weg von Twitpic und Co. Solche Dienste sind zwar kostenlos und praktisch, im Kleingedruckten oftmals jedoch nutzerfeindlich. Hinzu kommen die gernerellen Probleme von zentralisierten Diensten, die ich hier beschrieben [...]

  37. Nathan Says:

    Is this article still up to date? Can’t find any other similar on internet. Echofon can only switch between Twitter/Photobucket, Lockerz and Twitpic. All got a negative verdict here.

    The twitter app can switch to moby or yfrog too. So maybe gonna use that instead… Since they both got good TOS.

  38. jon Says:


    Yep a good watermark and low resolution would be a deterrent but that’s not possible on a lot of phone apps (which is where the majority of content originates from)

  39. jon Says:

    @UberSocial User

    This is a problem, you can always upload to Moby from your camera roll by emailing the pic to the email addy you get with an account there (store it in your address book), then tweet the Moby link. Not ideal but a workaround.

  40. jon Says:


    As far as I am aware the TOS of the services are as written so yep it’s best to use a Twitter app that gives you a choice of the good ones! Or see my comment below to a post re emailing to Moby then tweeting that link etc.

  41. jon Says:


    Imgur looks OK, very few terms and nothing about granting of licences etc. I’d not heard of Imgur hence they weren’t in the article. They don’t want you to upload *other peoples* copyrighted work (naturally). Any image you create yourself is *your* copyright so fine to upload your own work.

  42. jon Says:

    Hmmm…. my comments aren’t nesting! Sorry folks I’ll edit the replies above with who they are in answer to. And sorry for the late replies, WP didn’t notify me there were comments held in the queue and I’ve had my head down in post-production so not visited as frequently as I should have!


  43. Indra Says:

    Interesting article Jon!

    Hope in the future you could give sometime to point copyright take over on other popular social media, like G+ or Facebook.

  44. jon Says:

    Hi Indra,

    Thank you! I have just (the other day) launched a website for my stock agency site over at and will be commenting on photo industry stuff over there. Just did a post about Pinterest and how it’s not very friendly to creatives. This is the latest website to make copyright infringement very easy, and most of it’s users won’t realise what they are doing. Will be blogging more there than here so pop over and take a look!

  45. Nos tweets vendus. De quel droit ? » OWNI, News, Augmented Says:

    [...] mieux les licences et les conditions d’utilisation, l’usager serait sans doute mieux à même de faire son propre choix, car toute cette chaîne d’exploitation des contenus repose en définitive sur le [...]

  46. Facebook droit sur Instagram » OWNI, News, Augmented Says:

    [...] services peuvent s’avérer encore moins voraces en termes de droits, comme Yfrog ou Mobypicture par exemple, mais Instagram se situait jusqu’à présent dans une bonne [...]

  47. What Will a Billion Dollars Buy Facebook? », News, Augmented Says:

    [...] services, such as Yfrog or Mobypicture, are less voracious in terms of rights, but to date Instagram has found a good [...]

  48. iPhone photography? I get it. Instagram? I don’t get it. :: Darren Carroll Photography | Austin, Texas | The Blog Says:

    [...] are other ways to do this. About a year ago, UK-based photographer John Boyes wrote up a damned good synopsis of the different image-hosting services and their terms and conditio…. Have a look at it. It’s worth the read. Then check out something like yfrog, which [...]

  49. ‘Too little too late’: the untimely demise of Twitpic | JOUR2722 Says:

    [...] Jon Boyes wrote a detailed summary on a number of Twitter compatible photo sharing tools, including Twitpic where he gives advice regarding the copyright constraints of the [...]

  50. Twitpic- The future of photojournalism but is it worth the hype? 42395779 | JOUR2722 Says:

    [...] to use or resell your images where and when they want with no recompense to you whatsoever.” ( Since May 2012, the site has acknowledged that the user has copyright, however maintains that once [...]

  51. Social Media Resource Report: What a twit! | JOUR2722 Says:

    [...] 3. Photography blog discussing the different available Twitter photo sharing platforms.  [...]