Photobucket Oh No (New TOS)

[Gene Hunt]

I've also just had my account frozen and they want $400 per year to free it up.

That's not happening.

[Willow]

Jun 30, 2017 2:00:59 GMT -8 Gene Hunt said:

I've also just had my account frozen and they want $400 per year to free it up.

That's not happening.

That is what Photo Bucket wants for their upgrade? Phhht. They can kiss a HUGE portion of their customers goodbye.

[moonbeam]

I have a paid plan on photobucket, but I can tell you that I will NOT be upgrading to their new one. $400 year? No way. I'll be exploring my options and then removing all my content and deleting my accounts.

[davekyn]

Thankfully I am not as invested in my previous forum posts. None the less I feel for others who understandably are no doubt put out with this sudden change in dynamic.

I have thousands of photos @ Photobucket. Thankfully I also have many on my HDD as well. The limitation with Photobucket make it hardly worth downloading any of those I don't have.

RIP and adios to Photobucket.

I much preferred Flickr for both my Polished works and forum posts. I shared that post over here.

[♥ ℒʊ√ ♥]

$400 is crazy, and I won't pay it either. It's like ransom ware. 

They've provided the four different linking URLS since the company started years ago. If they were going to change their ToS, a heads-up should have been given. A reputable company would have done so. And holding everyone hostage to their highest tiered plan if you wish to share images isn't fair. It should be a tiered program depending on the amount of bandwidth a member uses. 

A blanket $400 is extortion. 

I've already signed up with Village.Photos and it's a simple enough format. 

[Kami]

Yeah honestly like. The lack of forehand transparency is really eyebrow raising for me. While I don't feel companies need to issue a heads up for a change in service terms, this isn't just a TOS change it's a massive /service/ change. And, I am highly ... suspicious that no email was sent out to inform users of the change once it was enacted; every reputable business I have used has informed me of changes of service terms once the occurred, and I find it highly irregular that instead they've opted to simply prohibit linked URLs from working immediately.

So yeah, a warning would have been nice, tho I suspect had they done so they would have seen an immediate mass exodus. A hunch, but now that they are essentially holding people's images for ransom I suspect that at least some people will be paying up.

I know that they need ads and paid services to keep going but I am in agreement that $400 simply for the option of posting your own photos on a third site is obscene. And I assume this is a recurring payment and not a one time option?

[brownrexx]

I think that it's an annual membership fee isn't it?

[Kami]

Jun 30, 2017 5:48:03 GMT -8 brownrexx said:

I think that it's an annual membership fee isn't it?

$400 annually is more than I pay to my domain registrar AND host annually; if folks have that money to pay them y'all better off buying your own domain and hosting package.

[Kami]

Also, please don't use flickr for your forum images (in-post images is fine so long as you have personally created them).

As per their TOS:

"Don't use your account to host web graphics or as a replacement for a content distribution network.

If we find you using your account to host generic graphic elements of web page designs, logos, banners, icons, and other non-photographic elements on other web sites, or if you show suspicious upload behavior that impacts the stability of our servers, we will warn you or delete your account."

www.flickr.com/help/guidelines

[D]

Jun 30, 2017 5:23:57 GMT -8 Kami said:

Yeah honestly like. The lack of forehand transparency is really eyebrow raising for me. While I don't feel companies need to issue a heads up for a change in service terms, this isn't just a TOS change it's a massive /service/ change. And, I am highly ... suspicious that no email was sent out to inform users of the change once it was enacted; every reputable business I have used has informed me of changes of service terms once the occurred, and I find it highly irregular that instead they've opted to simply prohibit linked URLs from working immediately.

So yeah, a warning would have been nice, tho I suspect had they done so they would have seen an immediate mass exodus. A hunch, but now that they are essentially holding people's images for ransom I suspect that at least some people will be paying up.

I know that they need ads and paid services to keep going but I am in agreement that $400 simply for the option of posting your own photos on a third site is obscene. And I assume this is a recurring payment and not a one time option?

Do you think maybe they're deliberately trying to price people out of their service? If they've taken the business decision that it's never going to make good commercial sense to allow people to hotlink images any more then they might think this is a way to deliver the blow more softly to their users.

[Kami]

Jun 30, 2017 6:17:55 GMT -8 D said:

Jun 30, 2017 5:23:57 GMT -8 Kami said:

Yeah honestly like. The lack of forehand transparency is really eyebrow raising for me. While I don't feel companies need to issue a heads up for a change in service terms, this isn't just a TOS change it's a massive /service/ change. And, I am highly ... suspicious that no email was sent out to inform users of the change once it was enacted; every reputable business I have used has informed me of changes of service terms once the occurred, and I find it highly irregular that instead they've opted to simply prohibit linked URLs from working immediately.

So yeah, a warning would have been nice, tho I suspect had they done so they would have seen an immediate mass exodus. A hunch, but now that they are essentially holding people's images for ransom I suspect that at least some people will be paying up.

I know that they need ads and paid services to keep going but I am in agreement that $400 simply for the option of posting your own photos on a third site is obscene. And I assume this is a recurring payment and not a one time option?

Do you think maybe they're deliberately trying to price people out of their service? If they've taken the business decision that it's never going to make good commercial sense to allow people to hotlink images any more then they might think this is a way to deliver the blow more softly to their users.

I think that it's an increasingly more viable theory as more details emerge about their new service methods, but I also wonder if there might be further problems with Photobucker's ability to sustain their service in the long term, and perhaps this is a last ditch (or nearly last ditch) attempt to recoup losses.

[Søren]

Jun 30, 2017 3:06:43 GMT -8 ♥ ℒʊ√ ♥ said:

$400 is crazy, and I won't pay it either. It's like ransom ware. 

They've provided the four different linking URLS since the company started years ago. If they were going to change their ToS, a heads-up should have been given. A reputable company would have done so. And holding everyone hostage to their highest tiered plan if you wish to share images isn't fair. It should be a tiered program depending on the amount of bandwidth a member uses. 

A blanket $400 is extortion. 

I've already signed up with Village.Photos and it's a simple enough format. 

They look good, might try them. Anything better then paying hundreds to use something that been free for me past 7+ years

Not sure what Photobucket are thinking with such huge cost so sudden with no warning. If views were issue I wouldn't minded even having small watermark saying they host it or all images linking back to them rather then this

[Gene Hunt]

It is $400 per annum as far as I can see which is outrageous. I most certainly will NOT be shelling that out for a substandard service such as theirs. In recent months it has become a total nightmare to even get to upload an image to their site let alone label it and attain the necessary link. There adverts are the cause of this. They could certainly learn a lot from Proboards and the way they incorporate their inobtursive ads on to our forums without any hit on performance.

I am now looking at getting my own domain and hosting package.

[Kami]

If one has the funds for it I think self host is the way to go; admittedly I am not an incredibly high traffic person forum wise, but I also use my hosting to host my business website and any related content. I pay $12 USD annually for the domain name, and $10 USD/mo for hosting.

High traffic forums may need something more expensive hosting wise but the average user should be able to figure something out in this regard for not a whole lot.

[brownrexx]

We are a gardening forum so people are posting photos that they have taken themselves so we may be OK with flickr

organicgroup.freeforums.net/