[kach22i]

Originally Posted by john70t

Check the TOS.
I forgot which website, but one declared all uploaded pics to become their property with first rights, and to be used commercially any time.

Who Really Owns Your Photos in Social Media? (Updated 2013 Edition)
Who Really Owns Your Photos in Social Media? (Updated 2013 Edition) | Mediashift | PBS

Since Twitter began hosting images — first at PhotoBucket but now in-house — traffic at Twitpic has plummeted. However, Twitpic photos may still be displayed inline with tweets on Twitter.com.

What about larger photo-hosting services like Imgur, Instagram, Lockerz, PhotoBucket or yFrog?

Facebook bought Instagram in April 2012 and both companies recently updated their terms of service. After the purchase, Instagram’s traffic increased from less than 2 million unique visitors a day to more than 15 million in December, giving it more unique visitors than Flickr or PhotoBucket, according to Compete.

However, in December 2012, users objected to a TOS change implying that Instagram had a “perpetual right to sell users’ photographs without payment or notification.”

The company made a rapid about face, but there was fall-out.

The new Instagram TOS specifically addresses advertising but not how non-partners may use your content...........................

If you want complete control over your images, avoid Photobucket. The license described in the Photobucket TOS explicitly allows for reproductive and derivative use without prior consent (emphasis added):....................

An exception to this trend is the Imgur TOS, which prohibits commercial use of someone else’s photos:....................

Finally, yFrog. ImageShack operates yFrog and, unartfully, states that the yFrog license is restricted to the ImageShack network. Moreover, the service promises not to “not sell or distribute your content to third parties or affiliates without your permission.”

.......................The behavior at BuzzFeed continues, apparently unabated. For example, in a January 2013 sponsored post for the Nevada Tourism Commission, BuzzFeed embedded four photos from Flickr that are Creative Commons Licensed images, but the licenses prohibit commercial use. There is nothing on the post acknowledging that BuzzFeed has obtained the right to use the images commercially. Because one of the photographers is licensing his Flickr photos for commercial use via Getty Images, a logical addition to his credit line would be “used under license” or “Flickr/Getty Images.”

Last year, Madrigal wrote:

“[I]t’s very strange that Pinterest and Tumblr users don’t have to play by the same rules that media editors do…”

But they do, when it’s other people’s work. In other words, Tumblr and Pinterest users cannot legally appropriate someone else’s photos and publish them as their own....................................

ADVICE FOR MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS
It seems like common sense, but understand the terms of service on websites that host images before you appropriate a photo. And recognize that some services like Flickr host photos with a range of licenses, from generous (commercial use allowed) Creative Commons ones to locked-down, must-be-licensed-to-use copyright..............................

My (Kraig Baker, an intellectual property attorney) recommended host remains Flickr due to its variable licensing options (Creative Commons and traditional copyright) and its very clear statement of ownership and use:

“Photos and/or images found on Yahoo! Images or Flickr are the property of the users that posted them. Yahoo! cannot grant permission to use third party content. Please contact the user directly.”