Curious about the terms of service on photo sharing websites? This table provides a summary of a more detailed Google spreadsheet.
| Site | Alexa | License | Date | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Sublicense Non-exclusive |
N.D. | License provides for undefined “use” by anyone for content made public | |
| Flickr | 74 | Limited to Yahoo! Services Non-exclusive |
11/24/2008 | Third party use must be approved by account holder |
| Google+ | 1 | Google (and those we work with) | 3/1/2012 | This license continues even if you stop using the services (for example, for a business listing added to Google Maps) |
| Imgur | 92 | Sublicense Non-exclusive |
4/10/2012 | Unauthorized commercial use prohibited. |
| 78 | Sublicense Non-exclusive |
1/19/2013 | Will not sell/rent content without your permission | |
| Lockerz | 1675 | Sublicense | 12/2/2011 | License provides for undefined “use by others” |
| Moby | 5,330 | No license | 5/10/2011 | No commercial use w/out permission |
| Photobucket | 182 | Sublicense Non-exclusive |
9/22/2011 | Allows derivative works such as t-shirts by both PB and users |
| Posterous | 1,137 | Limited to Posterous | N.D. | Does not mention third-party use in TOS |
| Tumblr | 32 | Sublicense Non-exclusive |
3/22/2012 | “Derivative works” limited to sharing content; license continues even if you stop using the service |
| TwitPic | 468 | Sublicense Non-exclusive |
5/10/2011 | Third party use must be approved by account holder |
| 10 | Sublicense Non-exclusive |
11/16/2010 | Makes your tweets available to the rest of the world | |
| YFrog | 1,623 | Exclusive | N.D. | Will not sell or distribute without your permission |
2 replies on “Photo Sharing Sites: Terms of Service”
[…] at desk. Photo from imgur.com (479+K views). Clear violation of Imgur TOS; note, Imgur provides embed code. “By downloading a file or other content from the Imgur […]
You chart raises a question about FB and the fact they don’t spell out how what “use” means, but do you think this is a real concern?
I agree that it could be worded more specifically, but there’s nothing here that seems to be granting any privileges that would contradict Agence France-Presse (AFP) v. Morel. I think it’s just saying that if you share publicly, be aware that the whole world can see it and FB can’t control it. Still, there’s no copyright issue here, do you think?
I think it’s the same as the warning they give about sharing with others – the IP license ends when you delete content but if you have shared with others, it’s still on the server. Kind of like if you send someone an email. It’s now in their inbox and you can’t delete it.
“You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.
This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”
Would appreciate your further thoughts.