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 also want to open up the floor for suggestions and ideas regarding other services to try.

Bear in mind that this is not meant to be a definitive guide to these services or this industry as a whole. It is just a brief overview of the five services that I have used most in recent months and my thoughts on them.

What I Like

Lots of storage, lots of bandwidth and very fast downloads, all for free. Boxstr accepts all kinds of media including images, audio, video and documents. The service has been rock solid and Boxstr offers a great application for uploading your files to the service. Pro accounts are available to greatly increase bandwidth and storage at a reasonable cost.

What I Hate

The interface is kludgy and inefficient. Simple tasks, such as moving files, obtaining link codes, etc. take longer than they should. Boxstr requires that all images and audio have a direct link back to their service. As with Flickr, this can limit the types of images you use the service with. However, unlike Flickr, Boxstr buries this requirement in their TOS. Finally, the Boxstr app is Windows-only. Mac users, like me, have to get by with the kludgy interface.

Bottom Line

Fine for large files. such as podcasts, Boxstr is too hard to use and too restrictive to be a good image host. Best for occasional use where a little inefficiency doesn’t burn so bad and linking back to the original page is practical. A simple TOS tweak and Boxstr could have me as a paid subscriber.

My Rating: B-

What I Like

As far as features go, Divshare is by far the most complete. You can upload documents, images, audio and video to their service and make them either available for download or embedding through custom players. They also have a neat WordPress plugin that means you don’t have to visit their site to upload any content. On paper, Divshare is the perfect service to meet my needs.

What I Hate

Slowness. Divshare has not scaled well and the site and all of its files load incredibly slow. Images are noticeably delayed in appearing on the site, audio streaming is fickle and their “Add Your Logo” feature for pro members (allows you to customize audio/video players) seems terminally broken. Emails to tech support have gone unanswered and rumors of a buyout made me pull almost all of my content away from them.

Bottom Line

I like Divshare, a lot. I want to root for them but the slowness of the service combined with total silence from the higher ups, their blog has not been updated in nearly two months. I have a pro account with them, but only until I can figure out how to cancel it.

My Rating: D+

What I Like

Flickr is the mother of all photo sharing services and it commands a great deal of respect. It is fast, rock-solid, has reasonable restrictions on bandwidth/storage. It is run by Yahoo!, one of the better companies when it comes to copyright matters and has a great community behind it. Best of all, there are a slew of tools available for uploading and managing Flickr photos, including my blog editor, MarsEdit.

What I Hate

No video or audio hosting available. Furthermore, image hosting is clearly not the target of Flickr as a service. Finding the embed links can be a bit difficult and, worst of all, Flickr requires that all images be linked back to their Flickr page. Great for photographs and artwork, bad for logos and screenshots that likely need to be linked back to the sites that they were pulled from.

Bottom Line

If you’re a photographer and only interested in embedding your own artwork, Flickr is great. However, it works poorly for those seeking to other kinds of images and certainly doesn’t help much with mitigating against false DMCA takedowns.

My Rating: C

What I like

Fast, reliable and easy to use. Photobucket is a great service with a lot to love. Easy uploads, fast, reliable image hosting and no linking requirements. It even has a service called TinyPic that prevents you from needing to register an account. Simply upload, tag and run. An overall well-rounded and robust service.

What I Hate

Photobucket can only be used for images and short video clips. Audio is expressly forbidden and clips longer than a few minutes are not allowed. There is also no API so only a handful of applications work with the service making use of the site and its Web upload service almost a requirement.

Bottom Line

It gets the job done though it really doesn’t excel or inspire any kind real emotion. It works very well for images, it just fails to really simplify my life in any meaningful way by only offering some of the features I need.

My Rating: B+

What I Like

Webshots is power. With Webshots, you can crop and resize images online. In fact, every photo uploaded comes with five different sizes you can easily embed into your site. Webshots also accepts videos. The service provides unlimited bandwidth, no linking requirements and reasonable monthly upload caps and, all things considered, is a pretty effective service.

What I Hate

With power comes complexity. Going from upload to link URL seems to require about three times more steps on Webshots than elsewhere. Webshots also does not support audio and, as with Flickr, the main target of the site is not image hosting though, unlike Flickr, nothing in the TOS expressly prohibits you from using it as such. Also, as with Photobucket, no audio hosting is available.

Bottom Line

Webshots is a great site and a neat service. However, it doesn’t feel right for this use. Though the idea of being able to embed multiple versions is great, the system is just too complex to be appropriate for this. Using Webshots is like building a sandcastle with a bulldozer, fun but not really all that practical.

My Rating: C+

Final Results

In the end, none of these services really inspire any great feelings of love, just varying degrees of unimpressed. Of all of them, Photobucket is probably the best for image hosting, especially its TinyPic service, with Boxstr being used for larger files. However that isn’t exactly the type of elegant solution I crave.

Divshare would be that elegant solution, if images and files loaded promptly, and Webshots, though loaded with some great features, is just overkill. Finally, Flickr just isn’t targeted right and throws up unneeded roadblocks to make their service work.

So which do I use? Well, for this post, all of them. If you look above, all of the logos are linked from their respective service. If you want a “quick and dirty” load time test, hold shift and click “refresh” to clear your cache and reload all of the images. May the best site win.

As for what I’m going to do in the future. Writing this has, in all honesty, made me pine for self-hosted images. There’s a good chance that, until a more perfect service comes along, that I’ll resume doing just that, taking my chances with a DMCA notice, and waiting for a more ideal product to come along.

At least local hosting is built into MarsEdit.

What I Want

If anyone is wishing to build me “perfect service”, perhaps as a Christmas present, I would have the following requests of any such host.

Since it is unlikely that a company would/could offer such a service for free, I would be willing to pay a modest amount per month/year for it. In that regard, it would be like Divshare, but without the speed and reliability problems and with actual applications rather than just an unused API.

Conclusions

It really is a pity that Divshare doesn’t work. I really liked the service before the quality of it headed south.

However, I think it is an indication of the challenge that comes with trying to create such a complicated, server-intensive service. It is very hard to ensure that your resources outpace the requirements of your users. That makes the reliability of services such as Flickr and Photobucket all the more amazing considering they host billions of images.

In the end, I’m looking to see if someone out there has other suggestions on top of the ones I’ve mentioned above. I’ve used other services, just never enough to give a good review, but I would love to hear about your experiences in this area.

Please leave a comment and share your thoughts on this, I’d like to hear what you have to say.

However, doing so also means pulling it down from the Web and removing all evidence of its existence. Though the Web Archive may hold on to its copies, if it was indexed there, other caches will generally purge their copies of the work within a few days or weeks.

While that is great news for anyone who has been a victim of plagiarism, it can make keeping a record of what happened very difficult. That can make any later disputes over the takedown difficult to deal with. Though you can simply save a copy of the page or site to your computer, such archives are very cumbersome and provide little proof as they are easily manipulated and edited.

Fortunately, there are several tools available that help you not only preserve evidence of the infringement, but also greatly simplify your life by helping you organize and maintain your cached copies.

Furl is a bookmarking service similar to del.icio.us or ma.gnolia. It lets you add items to your bookmark collection, tag them, rate them and make them either private or public. However, unlike most other bookmarking services, Furl allows you to also save a cached copy of the site.

The idea is that, if the site goes down, you still have a backup copy of the work available at your disposal. Since that is a common occurense when dealing with plagiarism, it makes sense to take advantage of the service and, with Furl’s tagging and rating systems, it is an almost ideal way to keep track of your plagiarism cases.

For example, you could rate the cases based upon how severe the case is, tag it with information about the status of the case and use the comments section to take notes about any actions you have taken.

If you decide to use Furl for this purpose, do be sure to set your default privacy to “private” to keep other members from viewing your history.

Similar to Furl, Clipmarks is a social bookmarking service that lets you archive, tag and make notes on Web pages that you run across. However, unlike Furl, it focuses not on saving the entire page, but just on the most important elements.

It can be useful in cases where the plagiarism is only a small part of the page and saving the entire site is a bit of a waste. It can also help you prevent yourself from snagging other copyrighted works as you cache a plagiarist’s site, thus ensuring that you avoid any copyright issues as you seek to protect your own rights.

The limitation of Clipmarks is that it does not preserve the page as it actually exists and only saves the clippings. It can make it more difficult to tell “at a glance” what the site was doing and may be less useful as backup evidence. This largely stems from Clipmark’s focus on the social aspect of clip sharing and different target use.

Still, here is little reason to use both Furl and Clipmarks. Which one chooses will come down to a matter of personal preference and the types of works being dealt with. However, I personal prefer Furl’s ease of use though Clipmark’s targeting and extension are both very powerful and useful.

If you want to take advantage of the on-demand caching services of a site such as Clipmarks of Furl without the hassle of creating an account, take a look at StayBoyStay (SBS).

The interface at SBS can not be any simpler to sue. You type or paste in your URL, enter your email address and a cached version of the page is saved almost instantly. You are then provided with a URL to the cached copy to place in your records.

What makes this tool interesting is that both the date the archived copy was created and a hash of the page’s content are stored in the URL. Though this makes the URL very lengthy and difficult to save, it also helps protect against any modification of the cached copy after it was saved.

You can also get a free account to add some administrative features and the ability to archive and hash multimedia content as well as Web sites.

The main drawback of StayBoyStay is that all archived copies are publicly available via their “Browse” feature. This raises some copyright concerns and could, in some cases, result in your cached copies being indexed in the search engines.

Also, there are a few bugs in the service. My attempt to sign up for an account resulted in the registration email never being received. Even a check of my spam folder did not find it.

However, if these otherwise minor bugs can get straightened out, SBS could be a powerful on-demand caching service that could greatly benefit Webmasters trying to record and preserve incidents of plagiarism, especially those who already have an offline means of tracking such cases and simply want a URL to an archive of the site.

If archiving the site seems to be a bit excessive, then perhaps taking a screenshot of it would be a bit more appropriate. Though all major operating systems have an easy way to take screenshots built in to them or appropriate tools available for free, Webshots Pro makes the process even easier.

When you visit the WebShots home page, you are confronted with a form that asks you for nothing more than the URL of the site you want a capture of. After pasting in the URL, it is put into a queue and, after a set amount of time, the screenshot of the site is taken and made available for you to download.

Though incredibly simple, the process can take a very long time depending on how long the queue is. It is best to use the sites at odd times. Also, the screenshot only capturers the part of the site that appears in the browser, meaning that if the infringing material is deep in the body, it won’t be snapped up.

For most sites, it might be quicker and more efficient to use an internal screenshot tool to capture the site. I’ve already fallen in love with Mac’s built-in screen capture tools and have used “print screen” on Windows for years.

Still, Webshots may still have a role in capturing infringements, such as stolen Web templates, that are obvious in a simple screen grab and the user has a reason for wanting a standard-sized image for each infringement.

Consistency and simplicity are the perks of Webshots, speed and flexibility are not.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, than a video clip must be worth at least a million. Though not a site itself, Wink is a freeware application available for Linux and Windows that allows you to record videos from your desktop.

Wink can be very useful in cases where you need to record more than one page of information and showcase how deep the infringement runs on a particular site. It enables you, rather than grabbing a dozen or so screenshots or archives, to create one short video highlighting all of the relevant content.

It can also be used to grab a series of screenshots, either on command or once every few seconds, and the version for Windows has the ability to record audio over the video as you record it.

Though Wink might be overkill for most instances of plagiarism, it can be a useful tool for documenting large-scale infringements and storing them in a format that you can easily archive and preserve and hard to manipulate.

Of course, it also does a great job taking screencasts, which is why I am using it as my preferred application for the job.

Copyright Issues

As with any service or tool that enables you to copy and publish works owned by other people, there are obvious copyright concerns with these services, especially if the cache is made publicly available.

The best thing you can do is keep these cached copies for your own personal use, especially if some of the content on these sites is not under your copyright. When using these tools, sure to set your copies to private, if possible, and do not store them in places that could be publicly accessed.

Though the Google Cache was ruled to be fair use, there is no need to push boundaries in this area, especially with sites that disallow archiving. It is worth the time and energy to be safe.

Conclusions

Whether you handle a large volume of content theft cases or only a handful, it is important to keep good track of what you do and what the specific infringements are. However, preserving the plagiarism in a manner that is both practical and likely to carry weight in a dispute is difficult. Fortunately, we have a variety of tools at our disposal to help us do exactly what.

But what makes all of these tools so interesting is that none were built with plagiarism in mind. Furl and Clipmarks were meant to be social bookmarking services, StayBoyStay was designed to offer permanent links to content, WebShots is targeted at Webmasters needing screenshots to display on their sites and Wink is aimed at creating screencasts.

All of these tools were built for unrelated purposes but can play a major role in recording and preserving past instances of plagiarism. Their unintended positive uses can be a great boon for Webmasters struggling to keep track of plagiarism and cover their own bases as they battle content thieves.

To that end, I am eternally grateful.

Differences between the sites became clear as sites with more money, and thus better access to legal advice, had much more complete policies than those with more humble means.

However, social news is not the only growing segment of the Web. As digital photography and online artwork has become easier and more accessible, photo sharing and image hosting services have also grown rapidly in size.

However, the boon in online image hosting has also given birth to a sharp rise in image theft. Now, anyone with a Flickr account can trivially download an image and post it to the Web. There’s no need to have a Web site at all and the image can be embedded anywhere desired, including on social networking sites.

This has made the copyright enforcement policies of these image sharing sites especially important because, without cooperation from the major players, this type of plagiarism can go unchallenged.

So, I’ve decided to continue my analysis of DMCA policies on various sites by reviewing the policies of seven of the top photo sharing sites including Photobucket, ImageShack, Flickr and more. Here is what I found.

Format: Email
Email Address: abuse at photobucket dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright and IP Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Robust and to the letter of the law, Photobucket sets a very high bar for its competitors. Not only is its DMCA policy complete, including counter-notice information, but the site also offers similar policies for violations of trademark and privacy. The only complaint I can offer about their policy is that it is difficult to find. It is not included in their contact information, but rather, in the footer of their terms of service. A link to the policy, as well as information on reporting other abuse, should probably be located in an easier to find place. Still, the policy itself is very sound and offers great information for anyone looking to file a notice or counter-notice with the company.

Format: Form
Email Address: See Form
Location of Policy: None
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: In stark contrast to Photobucket, ImageShack completely lacks a formal DMCA policy. Though they provide a Web form to report infringing images, there is no other contact information (fax, email, address, etc.) and no guidance on filing a notice. Reports from others who have filed DMCA notices with Imageshack have indicated a spotty record on acting on infringing material when notified by this means. Worse, the default template of the abuse form is woefully inadequate to report copyright infringement in accordance with the law and, as of this writing, ImageShack has not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Though their relatively short terms of service mentions copyright three different times, their overall policy shows a general lack of planning.

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at yahoo-inc dot com
Location of Policy: Yahoo’s Copyright and IP Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Owned by Yahoo, Flickr shares its DMCA policy with the search giant. Yahoo has had a strong and robust policy for as long as I can remember for both its search and other hosting properties. Flickr benefits greatly from that experience. The information provided is short but complete, the policy is easy to find, located in the footer on every page, and provides all of the necessary information. Though the lack of counter-notice information is somewhat worrisome, that is likely something they handle when communicating directly with individuals that have been served with DMCA notices. All in all, it is a well-rounded and simple DMCA policy that is more or less what you would expect from Yahoo.

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at webshots dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Violation Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Owned by CNET, Webshots has a very simple but effective DMCA policy. Located in the footer of each page, the policy goes through the basics of providing a DMCA notice to the site and offers up all of the necessary information to get in touch with the designated agent. The site is also registered with the USCO. The only concern I have with Webshots is that they repeat the information in their terms of use but provide different contact information (the TOU says “General Counsel” while both the USCO filing and the IP policy directs it to the agent). Also, the IP policy in the TOU omits the email address. However, that is likely an oversight and, in general, their DMCA policy is very complete and well done.

Format: Email
Email Address: copyrightagent at smugmug dot com
Location of Policy: “Copyright Complaints”, Terms of Use
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: The only paid service on this list, SmugMug has one of the most unusual copyright/DMCA policies. Buried in the terms of service, where it is very difficult to find, the policy can be best described as “short but sweet”. It covers the basics including the agent’s contact information and the required elements of the notice but doesn’t offer much else. Strangest of all, the terms of use do not make any mention about copyright infringement being a violation of their terms and, outside of the policy, the only mention of copyright at all revolves around the protection of their own works. Perhaps even more disheartening is that they place their own copyright warning above their DMCA policy, thus highlighting their own protections before discussing their DMCA information. This site is not registered with the USCO and, though the policy is complete, it seems, in general, to be more of an afterthought.
Update: I spoke with the general manager of SmugMug. He was very grateful for this review and has already sent off his application for USCO registration in response to it. Also, he pointed out that their terms of service does make mention of copyright under their “License Granted by Users” section. They were planning on reworking their terms before this article and will likely rearrange it to make it more clear. Still, not seeing that was my mistake and I apologize.

Format: Email
Email Address: infringement at snapfish dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Infringement Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: A very basic policy. Provides the information required including the contact information for the agent and the required elements for notification but doesn’t go out of its way to help either those submitting notices or those seeking put-back. There is no counter-notice information and the policy itself is buried as link in their terms and conditions. The site has registered with the USCO and, by all appearances, has done everything required to comply with the letter of the law. All in all, Snapfish’s policy is unimpressive in every regard.

Format: Email
Email Address: abuse at bbridgetech dot com
Location of Policy: Last Item, Terms of Service
Registered with USCO: No
Comments: The cool photo sharing site with a funny name has a less than cool DMCA policy with a less than serious approach to the matter. Though their DMCA policy provides the email address to contact their abuse department and the basics for submitting a complaint. It does not offer much else. Zooomr has not registered with the USCO as of this writing and provides no other means of contact such as snail mail, fax or phone. However, these limitations are representative of their entire terms of service, limited, unprofessional and done with haste. It seems that their entire abuse system lags well behind most other Web sites in this field.

Conclusions

All in all, of these sites, only ImageShack was truly lacking in its policy. All of the other sites have policies in place and provide the necessary information to file a notice. Though three, ImageShack, Zooomr and SmugMug had not registered with the USCO as of this writing, the other four had.

It appears that, while many of these sites have flaws and concerns, that most of them are interested in at least following the law as it is written and working with copyright holders.

However, this is not a complete list of photo sharing sites by any stretch. I can think of at least a dozen others that are not on this list. I will likely return in a few weeks to create a part two of this series, where I will cover seven more photo sharing sites.

Also, in a bid to make this a regular “Thursday” event, I will also be posting on the DMCA/Copyright policies of top social networking sites as well as video sharing sites.

If you have any suggestions for this series or know of any sites that you want covered, please leave a comment below. I would love your input on this.