Why I have left Twitpic, and why you should too.
Well as you can probably tell from the image on the right, this is all to do with a matter of copyright. As a photographer copyright is very important to me, it’s how I make money from photographs and it’s what ensures thatI get credit for my work which brings in more work. It also ensures that I have control over the final look of an image, if it is to be associated with my name, so that I can protect my name or brand.
I saw a retweet of an update frorm @iA this afternoon which pointed me towards the terms of service of Twitpic stating that as of 4th of May they were claiming copyright license on all images uploaded to their service. Understandably annoyed at this, I followed the link and had a read, to find the following paragraph (emphasis mine):
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 also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in media Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your media from the Service provided that any sub-license by Twitpic to use, reproduce or distribute the Content prior to such termination may be perpetual and irrevocable.
What this means
That first bold bit there essentially says they can do whatever they like with the image, at no cost, including selling it or transferring their license to any and all third parties which they chose, including the ability to make derivatives works (which would cover removing any watermark you may happen to have placed on the image).
The second bold bit basically covers them for anyone they like to be able to use their images, you have no say in who can use or license the image.
The third emphasis says that even if you delete the image, if they already have a sublicense in place then there is nothing you can do about it, and that license will still stand.
Imagine these scenarios:
- You happen to be there when something major happens, they can sell your images to the news services.
- You upload images of a friend, they sell those images and they are used without yours or your friends permission to advertise something unsavoury or adult.
- Your image / likeness is used to promote a product or service you feel strongly against (a pregnant mother in anti-abortion ads, when she is pro-choice)
- Those “Meet singles in your area” adverts you see on the right of Facebook, how would your husband feel to see you in one of those?
- A photo you took of a product is used, and the trademark owner decides to sue for that use, you as copyright owner could potentially be dragged in to it.
- An image of yours is used in a negative way, and the stigma of that is associated with you name which could affect business if you are a photographer.
Those are just the uses I can think of off the top of my head, there are bound to be plenty more.
Reaction
I immediately deleted all of the images I had on Twitpic, thankfully none of which had been uploaded since the change of terms on the 4th, and removed Twitpic’s right to access my twitter account. I uploaded one final picture which simply said in huge letters “Bye Twitpic You Bunch Of Thieving Bastards” which I can categorically say I have no qualms about if they wish to sublicense or allow the use of by anyone, anywhere.
One of the main reasons I used Twitpic was because of it’s ubiquitous support in Twitter clients, and the fact I had been using it for so long (813 days according to the oldest picture I deleted), and that it is the only choice for picture service native within the Android version of Tweetdeck which I use.
What to use instead
Thankfully the wonderful @alittlebit recommend Posterous, which I have now signed up for and will be using in the future to post pictures on Twitter, probably as well as a few short video clips and suchlike.
Like Twitpic it automatically sends out the tweet for me (as well as also being able to automatically post to a myriad of other services), and there is a handy app for my Android phone which will upload them for me, so in usability terms I lose nothing, but gain the ability to also upload pics via email and to add extra content or information to the post / pic before it is published and obviously retain the copyright, as it should be.
And just in case you’re wondering what Posterous terms of service have to say on the same matter;
You shall retain all of your ownership rights in your submissions; however, by submitting material to Posterous you grant Posterous fully transferable rights to use, reproduce, distribute, modify, transmit, prepare derivative works of, display and produce the material in connection with Posterous and Posterous’s business, but solely in accordance with these Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
The key difference there is that you are granting license only in so far as may be deemed appropriate for the promotion and advertising of the Posterous service (which is likely to cover them for screenshots in news magazines etc), and not that they can sub license the images for any other use.
Final thoughts
You think that Twitpic would have learned from the mistake that Facebook made when they attempted much the same thing last year, and then very quickly withdrew the clause from the terms of service after massive outcry from their userbase. You can bet that Twitpic have something in mind for this, you don’t add something like that to your terms of use without having a reason to do so, but I for one don’t intend to be around to find out what that is, and hopefully neither will you.
If you want to sign up with Posterous you can do so by clicking here
You can follow me on twitter by clicking here.
UPDATE: There is a follow up to this article here: http://www.shepy.co.uk/blog/2011/05/twitpic-why-i-wont-go-back-and-why-you-shouldnt-either-a-follow-up/
~Shepy
| This entry was posted by Shepy on May 10, 2011 at 7:49 pm, and is filed under Computers, internet, news, Photography, Rant, Security, Twitter. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
- TwitPic are scum « Ciara Ní Ghabhann
- Twitpic Owns Your Pictures « XSReviews
- » Bye bye Twitpic x christine morris
- Le foto ? Sono mie, parola di TwitPic » Italia SW
- Twitpic, Why I wont go back, and why you shouldn’t either. [A follow up]
- Twitpic Apologises for the wrong thing « XSReviews
- wedding planning
- Free Offer
about 9 months ago
I remember the whole facebook “incident”.
I’ve never used twitpic personally, but I’ve seen so many posts on twitter which have used it, I hope everyone is aware of this, because as you rightly state it could cause issues for people who upload to them. I would never use any service with such terms, and twitpic is something I’ve considered joining, but never got round to it as yet. I’m sure I never will now!!
about 9 months ago
I thought TwitPic clarified this today such that “your pics are your own”? Or am I wrong?
about 9 months ago
You’re wrong unfortunately, thought they made the blog post the items in the terms of service saying they can sublicense and transfer their license to any affiliated company is still there.
about 9 months ago
Geeze, every big company manages to find out a way to own everyone’s photos.
about 9 months ago
Why not just watermark it before you upload? Let them have a right and license to the watermarked version, not the original.
about 9 months ago
@TheDude : because they’re allowed to edit out the watermark if they so wish, as described in the TOS changes.
about 9 months ago
TheDude, as TheLeica correctly says, they can edit out the watermark if they so desire, such an edit would be covered by the “derivative works” allowance.
Also, it’s a bit more troublesome / effort to watermark things on a mobile device, which is what I anticipate being the likely source of most of the images that may be re-used such as for news stories.
about 9 months ago
Same Terms on Flickr and all the other image upload websites.
I guess it comes down to what you use these websites for and what value you put in the work you upload to them.
about 9 months ago
They have since updated their copyright terms following the backlash, see: http://blog.twitpic.com/2011/05/your-content-your-copyrights/
about 9 months ago
People. People. People.
Let’s analyze this, because I’m sick of people who don’t understand how copyright law works pontificating on it.
As to the first bolded section:
They require that in order for the service to work. Like most web sites, they pay Akamai to serve up good chunks of their content. That means you not only need to grant Twitpic a “redistribution right”, but it also needs to be a right that Twitpic can sublicense and transfer out to Akamai or their CDN of choice so that your image can actually go out to the people who want to see it.
“What about the derivative works?!” you cry. Well, a thumbnail is a derivative work. So if the site is going to offer thumbnails of other images you’ve uploaded, they need a legal right to make those thumbnails.
On to the second bolded section:
If Twitpic was sold tomorrow, without that clause, the resulting company would have no legal rights to the imagery that’s been uploaded. They’d have to go back and get permission again for all the users involved, some of whom might not even be easily reachable. It’s simply something that needs to be in the ToS for it to be viable.
The third bolded clause:
This is protection against bad data-replication. When you “delete” your image from a server in California, it might take some time for the information about that deletion to make it to, say, the Stockholm server farm. During the time between your “deletion” and the time when Stockholm actually stops serving the image, without this clause, they’re technically acting without a license.
The worst part is not the terms and conditions but the fact that the internet-using populace still doesn’t actually understand this sort of thing after it being an “uproar” over and over again. When it happened with facebook, and when it happened here, they didn’t “revert” the changes people decried — they can’t really, they need those rights to do the job you want them to do — they just end up explaining it in monosyllabic tones to the masses.
about 9 months ago
Let me rephase/clarify something about the second bolded section. They don’t necessarily “automatically lose the rights” in a M&A situation, but that clause removes a point of contention that might occur should a M&A situation arise.
about 9 months ago
Thanks for the heads-up on this. Just read article on TechCrunch covering the same thing http://bit.ly/mate5s and talking about MobyPicture as an alternative
about 9 months ago
Derek is right. This post is simply naive, alarmist nonsense.
about 9 months ago
After looking into it a bit it appears that TwitPic is just simply the last in group to switch to something like this. Yfrog has the same exact language in it as does Lockerz (formerly Plixi). Lockerz one ups it though by demanding attribution in print if you uploaded your image to their service and linking if posted on the web elsewhere besides their service.
about 9 months ago
Thanks so much for this article. While I don’t use twitpict…some of the companies that promote my designs and products do use it…I don’t want someone else being able to license my designs and making money on them…so disturbing.
about 9 months ago
I was going to comment to debunk a lot of the things in this post, but Derek has already said everything I was going to say.
about 9 months ago
What the sock puppets in here are skipping over is that twitpic has given exactly zero assurances they won’t sell your images, and has in fact asserted rights FAR beyond what they need simply to run a website.
Why, exactly, would they need the ability to produce derivative works in the course of running a website that posts my pictures? Why do they need the ability to show my pictures to any media format without my permission? Shouldn’t I be in charge of that, unless they’re planning on selling my image? Why is there nothing in the agreement about what happens when you take a picture down, except “we get to keep using it.”
Imagine you’re a graphic artist and you take a Twitpic of a logo you’re developing for a client. Twitpic now has the right to sell that logo, in any form, to anyone.
It’s true, they aren’t _taking_ your copyright – but they are giving themselves a copy of all the rights you have. Forever. That’s pretty shitty.
-Wil Shipley
about 9 months ago
Thanks for the heads up on this..
about 9 months ago
While Dereks comments may be accurate there is nothing in the this agreement that stops them from doing what they want. The next person put in charge of media distribution may see it differently. Let me put it this way, would you sign this agreement in any commercial situation without considerable compensation?
about 9 months ago
Sorry to be such a wet blanket, Shepy; but Posterous’s terms of service – as quoted by you – explicitly provide “fully transferable rights…in connection with Posterous and Posterous’s business”, so it does not forbid the sublicensing of any user-submitted photos or limit their use of user-submitted photos to promoting and advertising Posterous only. On the contrary.
The truth is these very broad licenses are – or will soon become – the norm for this type of service. At any rate, Posterous’s terms of use are hardly an improvement over Twitpic’s.
about 1 month ago
I think it goes to show that its worth keeping your eye on copyright issues with things like FB and Twitpic… having said that, i do wonder – even if they held full copyright to your images – what they would plan on using it for to make money…?