PhotoBucket, the Web’s largest image sharing service, has been drawing criticism from a growing number of artists over its practices regarding copyrighted material.
At issue specifically are two elements of PhotoBucket’s services. First, their image printing service, which is powered by Qoop, and second, their takedown system, which often leaves the work available on other parts of the site.
Some of the artists have banded together by creating a petition directed at PhotoBucket, which I helped author, asking them to change some of their policies to help better protect artists and photographers whose works are being posted, and even sold, on the service.
What makes this case unique is that the artists have not just specific concerns, but also specific solutions to the problem and have requested that PhotoBucket take a series of steps to help ensure that their rights are protected.
Buying Prints
The first complaint deals with PhotoBucket’s relationship with print-on-demand service Qoop.
Qoop works with other image sharing sites, including Flickr and Webshots, but at those sites the relationship is a bit different. Elsewhere, users can only request prints of their own photographs. however, with PhotoBucket, strangers can access users accounts, including those not logged in to the site, and request prints. All that they need is the “Share” URL, which is available in most search results.
This feature of PhotoBucket is not mentioned clearly in any of the marketing materials. Nowhere on the front page of the site or the registration page does PhotoBucket mention that, by default, prints of your work will be available to anyone finds your account.
Furthermore, PhotoBucket does not mention in any clear location that the way to prevent this from happening is to set your account to private or not display the “Share” URL under your images. This creates a very worrisome situation where not only are artists likely having their works printed after being uploaded without permission, but also photos being uploaded in the intended manner can be printed by complete strangers.
Few, I doubt, would be comfortable with a stranger printing a calendar based upon their family photos and this raises many unsettling possibilities.
Artists, however, also have to contend with Qoop’s printing service. Qoop does not make any attempt to filter out infringing material from their service, other than providing a standard terms of service and presenting warnings to the user. One artist, Sandi Baker of Wolf Song Studio tested this by logging into visiting a strangers account (she did not log into PB in any regard), one who had uploaded some of her images without permission, and printed several stickers of her own work, seen right.
All of this without her explicit permission or the permission of the person who created the account.
However, if an effective take down regime were in place at PhotoBucket, this problem might be significantly lessened. Unfortunately, as many artists have discovered, the take down system at PhotoBucket does little to actually stop distribution of their work.
Take Down Problems
Though all of the artists who have filed takedown notices with PhotoBucket agree that the staff is friendly and efficient, the problem is that takedowns rarely remove the work from the site.
Several artists have reported that their images are reuploaded, often within minutes. This often takes place through a series of spam-like accounts owned by usernames that contain a large amount of numbers and don’t seem likely to have been created by a human being.
However, filing a takedown of an image does not result in removal of all copies of the work, just the specific one mentioned. Given that there are over four billion images on PhotoBucket and the difficulties in search for images on the Web, especially if the title has been changed, it is unlikely that an artist can find all or even most copies of their image.
Many artists feel that, between the other copies of the work and the reuploading of removed images, that filing takedown notices with PhotoBucket is almost completely. It is impossible to remove an image, especially one that is popular with PhotoBucket’s users, from the service.
However, the answer to this problem might actually rest with PhotoBucket’s parent company Myspace as they have already cracked this problem, at least as it applies to video.
Solutions
According to the artists, the issue of photo printing can be greatly mitigated by limiting access to the service. The default setting for the printing feature should be set to “off”. This can be achieved initially by ensuring that all PhotoBucket accounts are initially set to private and are only turned to public with the express understanding that it enables printing.
A more permanent solution, however, would be to turn off the printing service itself, unless specifically requested, and limiting it to the user’s own account. Exceptions might be available in cases where well-known artists use PhotoBucket, such as with director accounts on YouTube, but those accounts would carry special rules and require more effort to create.
Though such a system would still enable users to grab an image they wanted to print, upload it to their own account and print the image, limiting the access to the feature greatly reduces the number of people who can produce prints and ensures that the person who requested the image is also the original infringer. This eliminates much of the “innocent infringer” argument and prevents people from accidentally making works available for commercial printing.
Regarding the takedown system, PhotoBucket’s parent company Myspace introduced a “Take Down Stay Down” system for their video offerings in May of last year.
The system works by taking a fingerprint of any video that a takdown is requested for and comparing it against all future uploads. If the video matches, the upload is blocked preventing the work from reappearing on the site.
Theoretically, such a system could easily be applied to images. Once a takedown of an image is requested and a counter-notice seems unlikely, the image could be fingerprinted, compared against other images on the service and against other uploads. If other copies are detected, they are either removed or blocked, meaning that the artist need only submit one DMCA notice to secure the removal of all of their images.
This would likely service PhotoBucket as well as the artists as, most likely, the majority of PhotoBucket’s DMCA complaints stem from a small group of artists dealing with a relatively finite number of pictures.
The technology for such a system already exists and can even detect if the image has been reduced, cropped or otherwise trivially edited. It is at least technically possible for Myspace and PhotoBucket alike to implement such a system.
Conclusions
There is little doubt among the artists that PhotoBucket is a good service and was built with the best of intentions. However, the service is having some unintended consequences and needs to be adjusted to make sure that rampant copyright infringement does not harm the reputation of the service with its target audience, artists and photographers.
There is no desire to “kill” PhotoBucket or to hinder the usefulness of the service for its millions of legitimate users. However, there is a growing expression of concern regarding the service.
As of this writing, the petition is closing in on fifty signatures despite being up less than 24 hours (Update: 10 PM CT Currently at 575 signatures). All of the signatories of the petition are visual artists, many of whom have had their works abused by PhotoBucket members. The current list includes many well-known artists, especially in the airbrush art communities.
Hopefully Photobucket will see these issues and make the needed changes before it is too late. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before the artists get more hostile towards the service and both the reputation of PhotoBucket and of its legitimate members starts to suffer.
But most importantly, the artists are trying to avoid a situation where others are tempted to try the Viacom route and simply go after PhotoBucket in court. That is not in anyone’s best interest.
With that in mind though, Myspace does not tolerate these types of issues with their video offerings and should not tolerate them with their image offerings either. Art and photography, though not always backed with the most powerful lawyers, are no less creative and require no less effort than video. They are also no less protected.
Still images deserve the same protections as videos. Let us hope that Myspace and PhotoBucket see it the same way.
I’m not a great artist myself, but I would hate to see my better pics being sold. Why let others make money off of my cruddy drawings?
I am glad that there are some forward thinking people on DA. The artists that do drawings and all types of things like that deserve better than some talentless individual taking their art and posting it as there own. It is about time that PB changes it policies otherwise the userbase might leave and take their bussiness elsewhere. Thanks again for those who signed the petition.
Ian: Same here, I hope that we can get these rules changed and make some progress in this area!
I haven’t had my art stolen either but like hell I’m gonna let some retarded douche steal my stuff and get credit for my hard work
@Edward –
If it does happen, let me know if I can help. I'll gladly do what I can!
I haven’t had my art stolen either but like hell I’m gonna let some retarded douche steal my stuff and get credit for my hard work
@Edward –
If it does happen, let me know if I can help. I'll gladly do what I can!
@Edward -
If it does happen, let me know if I can help. I’ll gladly do what I can!
I totally agree… it’s so frustrating to have so many talented artists that are trying to make a living off of what they do get ripped by those who upload their stuff to sites like Photobucket or even printing them out themselves… I agree with everyone. There should be a function where you can disable the ‘Buy Prints’ thing, because for one, it’s not Photobucket’s art and they have no right to be selling prints of someone’s art that they have no permission to sell.
[...] Who can print your photos: Does not actually disable printing of photos, just the ability for users to order prints via the Flickr partnership with Qoop. Users can still print the images themselves, especially if they can download the full-sized images. On the other hand, it is still much better than Photobucket. [...]
[...] in January, I wrote a post detailing the reasons why many artists were frustrated with Photobucket and their approach to copyrighted [...]
[...] Jonathan Bailey over at PlagarismToday hasn’t given up and gone quietly into the night on the Photobucket issue. He’s put together a great video on why we are concerned over Photobucket’s policies [...]
There should be a way for photographers to give permission to someone who would like to use a photo on a blog or website, with the photographer's knowledge. And a copyright notice, but NOT to make money on the picture. Ever.
Lynne
There should be a way for photographers to give permission to someone who would like to use a photo on a blog or website, with the photographer’s knowledge. And a copyright notice, but NOT to make money on the picture. Ever.
Lynne
I think that photobucket is a brilliant concept that could have been a marketing haven for artists and photographers. The site could of been arranged by artists where the works would appear for people to use. The images should all be small enough to view but not large enough to use commercially. All web resolution so that they can only be used for the web. I am sure that artists and photographers have plenty of images stored somewhere they are not using. Why not use them for marketing. I'm a blogger and I do not advertise on my blog, so I am not profiting from any of the images I use from photobucket on my blog. I would very much like to give credit to whomever the image belongs to, but that info is not available. All I can credit is photobucket and I do.
Bloggers need a site they can join where they pay a membership to use images for their blogs. I don't know why artists and photographers have not done this. Why haven't artists and photographers approached for example wordpress to provide such service for their millions of members. As great as photobucket is, there's a lot of stuff that I don't care to look at in addition to being very time consuming to go through tons of stuff I don't want. I think that there is a great opportunity being missed here not only by photobucket, but the artists and photographers themselves.
Mayra: I would take a look at Divshare for embedding and Photrade for marketing and selling.
Hope that helps!
I think that photobucket is a brilliant concept that could have been a marketing haven for artists and photographers. The site could of been arranged by artists where the works would appear for people to use. The images should all be small enough to view but not large enough to use commercially. All web resolution so that they can only be used for the web. I am sure that artists and photographers have plenty of images stored somewhere they are not using. Why not use them for marketing. I’m a blogger and I do not advertise on my blog, so I am not profiting from any of the images I use from photobucket on my blog. I would very much like to give credit to whomever the image belongs to, but that info is not available. All I can credit is photobucket and I do.
Bloggers need a site they can join where they pay a membership to use images for their blogs. I don’t know why artists and photographers have not done this. Why haven’t artists and photographers approached for example wordpress to provide such service for their millions of members. As great as photobucket is, there’s a lot of stuff that I don’t care to look at in addition to being very time consuming to go through tons of stuff I don’t want. I think that there is a great opportunity being missed here not only by photobucket, but the artists and photographers themselves.
Mayra: I would take a look at Divshare for embedding and Photrade for marketing and selling.
Hope that helps!
Thank you Jonathan:
I checked both of those sites and they're not what I am envisioning. For instance you need to get invited to join Phototrade. You see the problem that we really have is that people are more concerned about protecting their work than of making a successful and viable bussiness of their work. And the people who have the technology are not thinking about the rights of the artists, but on how to attract millions of members in advertising dollars. No one should profit from somebody else's work, but to think that you can control this in any way with technology such as the internet is futile. What ends up happening is that artists end up getting their work stolen and making no money anyway. We should all have learned from the music industry's failure to take appropriate action to prevent the loss of millions in revenue from record sales. Once you get people used to not paying for something, it is very difficult to change that mindset, but you know it can be done because water is free and people still pay for it even when their own tap water is cleaner than what they're buying at the store.
Going after Photobucket is not going to change anything. Photobucket is a cyberspace playpen for people. It was never meant for for professional or commercial use. What needs to be done is to develop a service that does work and where everybody is benefiting. I believe that it can be done, but the mindset needs to change and someone with resources who cares about doing what is right to step up to the plate.
Thanks for your help.
[...] the latest Photobucket Video went live and it seems to be doing very well. Though not as popular as the original article, it is garnering a great deal of attention on forums and other artist [...]
Thank you Jonathan:
I checked both of those sites and they’re not what I am envisioning. For instance you need to get invited to join Phototrade. You see the problem that we really have is that people are more concerned about protecting their work than of making a successful and viable bussiness of their work. And the people who have the technology are not thinking about the rights of the artists, but on how to attract millions of members in advertising dollars. No one should profit from somebody else’s work, but to think that you can control this in any way with technology such as the internet is futile. What ends up happening is that artists end up getting their work stolen and making no money anyway. We should all have learned from the music industry’s failure to take appropriate action to prevent the loss of millions in revenue from record sales. Once you get people used to not paying for something, it is very difficult to change that mindset, but you know it can be done because water is free and people still pay for it even when their own tap water is cleaner than what they’re buying at the store.
Going after Photobucket is not going to change anything. Photobucket is a cyberspace playpen for people. It was never meant for for professional or commercial use. What needs to be done is to develop a service that does work and where everybody is benefiting. I believe that it can be done, but the mindset needs to change and someone with resources who cares about doing what is right to step up to the plate.
Thanks for your help.
This is exactly the reason why I don’t feel comfortable with uploading my newer works online. I’d like to sell my stuff, but if anyone can just take my work and print it out, then that’s too much of a risk. It’s always said that copying is the greatest form of flattery, but plagiarism isn’t.
I know the time that visual artists put into their works and everyday I see that someone is being ripped off or their works displayed on another site, I could not agree more with this solution. Maybe it will teach people to respect what is not theirs and to have the decency to request the things they want rather than stealing them. It’s also true that photobucket is inadvertently making money from prints of stolen images, This take Down, Stay Down system seems to be a logical and successful solution to this issue at hand, so why not handle it in this manner? IThis system makes perfect sense to me …
I’m glad that it makes sense to you and seems fitting. Hopefully we can get this implemented! Thank you for your suppot.
You should take a look at Piczo. They use many artists work without their permission and redistribute it to fellow Piczo users or make the artwork available for redistribution. Most artists work on Piczo has been lifted from reputable sites, the images turned in to tubes and reused without having purchased a license.
Piczo work on the theory of fair use but if complaints are made about a particular image, they will take it down but is immediately uploaded again by the owner of the website.
I'll definitely take a look, thank you for the heads up!
I don't see how whether this was enabled or not how it would affect the printing of any digital image. First off, how hard is it even if it was disabled, to copy and paste the image into your own account just for the purpose of printing. There is no “fool-proof” solution to this when your picture is on any site. What could work for some people who have expessed concern over their media being “stolen” and uploaded to this site, if photobucket added some server side tracking of images and comparing them to a no-allow list, although writing something like this obvioulsy would be quite hard to catch all instances. Although as a fellow artist I take a more of an “open source” approach, I can see how this would be quite inconvenient for people who are trying to make some cash off of your art. My best of luck to you.
While I agree that it is possible to print an image from anywhere through any means, what is unnerving is that A) Photobucket is actively profiting from said printing of likely infringing issues B) That they are providing commercial-quality printing. Those are my biggest issues.
On that note though, your solution sounds a great deal like the “take down stay down” system I mentioned in the article. They use it actively on Myspace for videos just not on PB for images. I agree it won't catch everything but it is a step in the right direction.
Thank you for your feedback!
This is ridiculous. Even “IF” PhotoBucket will change their policy to soften the problems every artist encounter with, it WILL NOT stop the problem, (artists are not the first on the list, how about music, movies, and other media). Next day another similar to PB site will be run out of Zair, Chad, or Malasia. So that petion is DEAD!!!
ahhh…photobucket and myspace…the last bastions of censorship in america
[...] then decided to try Photobucket, an image sharing service I continue to have many sharp disagreements with, taking a similar set of steps that I did with Imageshack. However, once again, both the raw and [...]
[...] Bailey, J 2008, ‘Artists Express Concern Over PhotoBucket’, Plagiarism Today, 15 January, viewed 12 October 2008, http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/01/15/artists-express-concern-over-photobucket/ [...]
myspace owns photobucket? since when! valley wag: http://tinyurl.com/22n5vt and PT on copyright issues: http://tinyurl.com/2by6gv
Wait, so <a href="http://www.deviantart.comis” target=”_blank”>www.deviantart.comis connected with Photobucket. So anything an artist puts on there will be on Photobucket as well. It is nice that deviantart has watermark options but do they let users know that their works can end up being printed on Photobucket? What if you want to sell prints on deviantart would'nt the watermark get in the way? Anyone know?
Wait, so http://www.deviantart.comis connected with Photobucket. So anything an artist puts on there will be on Photobucket as well. It is nice that deviantart has watermark options but do they let users know that their works can end up being printed on Photobucket? What if you want to sell prints on deviantart would'nt the watermark get in the way? Anyone know?
dA is not related to PB in any way. What happens is that PB users seem to routinely put up dA images without permission. That is where the problem begins.
dA is not related to PB in any way. What happens is that PB users seem to routinely put up dA images without permission. That is where the problem begins.
[...] However, this controversy seems poised to only become increasingly ugly as the situation has become much more heated in the past 24 hours. To make matters worse, it involves another old foe of the dA community, Photobucket. [...]
i agree completely. people constantly steal art from real art sites and post it without permission. it's really annoying.
okay, first deviantArt is NOT connected to Photobucked. what they upload is not put on Photobucket right away. not until an art thief comes along and illegally puts it up on Photobucket. also, if you buy something with a watermark, the print wouldn't have it (I think)that clear things up?
It's even more annoying when one factors in the PB sells prints and so forth of images in their galleries. Scary stuff…
I'd like to comment about the technical measures you are proposing. Firstly the printing issue, while I feel your pain I would note that a modern colour laser eg:http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/product/home/108…..is very cheap and able to produce prints that an untrained eye will not be able to distinguish from professional prints. And a print that is "good enough" can often be produced from almost any inkjet printer.Because of this I would say a better solution to this issue would be notification, so the uploader is notified if the image is passed (directly) to the printing option. They can obviously do nothing about indirect or local printing.As for fingerprinting, Marcus said it a year ago, it's silly, just because something exists for video does not mean that the same technique will be effective for a still image. The simplest reason is that it's a lot easier to do a minor edit to an image than it is to a video.
Regarding the printing issue, I agree that any decent home printer or even Walgreens can do a respectable job, the difference though is that, by using Qoop and Photobucket, those sites are profiting from the infringement. You can't stop local printing, that is very true, but there is no reason for Qoop and Photobucket to turn a direct profit selling infringing prints, where at least printer makers earn their money selling printers.The fingerprinting issue has been licked elsewhere. When a company like Tineye, which is a tiny fraction the size of PhotoBucket and Fox can do very good fingerpriting, even when images are editied, it defeats that argument. See also PicScout for this one.
How do you get permission from the artist, in order to use their work?
What concerns me about Photobucket, less than the issues with plagiarism, is that they tend to remove images without notice. Plus they remove all information on that image so you never know what or why they removed an image. They just randomly remove stuff and leave an ugly Photobucket icon to let you know what kind of bastards they are. Their censorship rules are very large and too rigid.