Photobucket breaks billions of photos online, upsets millions of users

How do I get rid of the “proudly hosted on Photobucket” watermark on my images? Why am I seeing a “proudly hosted on Photobucket” watermark on images? I've upgraded my account, but I'm still not seeing my hosted photos.

Use online, but make sure only for images that you don't mind losing to ransomware by photobucket or whoever you are using, and only images that you are happy to give away to profit-making companies for free, without so much as an acknowledgement. How many entries to our model-making forum's competiton now look due to photobucket 's no-notice extortion.

How do I get rid of the “proudly hosted on Photobucket” watermark on my images? Why am I seeing a “proudly hosted on Photobucket” watermark on images? I've upgraded my account, but I'm still not seeing my hosted photos.
Photobucket allowed hotlinking photos uploaded to and stored on its servers for a long time. This was their business model, and they made money from ads on their own site, which users would be exposed to when they went to upload content.
If you're an avid Photobucket user, you woke up to a nasty surprise this past week: the photo storage and hosting service changed their terms, breaking billions of images online in one fell swoop, without so much as a courtesy notice. Some explanation is probably in order. Photobucket has been.
Photobucket allowed hotlinking photos uploaded to and stored on its servers for a long time. This was their business model, and they made money from ads on their own site, which users would be exposed to when they went to upload content.
How do I get rid of the “proudly hosted on Photobucket” watermark on my images? Why am I seeing a “proudly hosted on Photobucket” watermark on images? I've upgraded my account, but I'm still not seeing my hosted photos.

Photobucket Print Shop makes printing photos online simple and fun so you can preserve life’s best moments for future generations! Professional Photo Printing Order photo prints cheap on the highest quality photo paper online!

Thanks for breaking my pics in every forum I've used, Photobucket. Whatever you want to call it, one thing is certain: You hear that noise?

It's the stampede of users running pell mell towards Imgur. Moved everything from PB to Fotki. No issues with hosting images, and they helped with copying everything from PB as well. They way they did this and the amount they're demanding is the epitome of corporate greed. I was going to now set up a Flickr account, but I have to wonder if this sort of thing is going to happen there too in the near future.

A 30 Day warning would have been nice but people would still be "outraged" because that's what people do. Disney did not promise free hosting in perpetuity. If you built your business on this assumption you are careless and naive.

How many of the offended are "outraged" when they are asked to work for free? Is it OK for Disney employees to work for free? The entrepreneur has been widely criticised for price gouging" may the geniuses responsible for this travesty enjoy a similar fate.

I think DPreview should write an exhausting article about photo-storing and sharing sites, make comparison in terms of service, facility and price, and most of all the sustainability of business.. Clearly, a service must monetize itself somehow. We should be realistic about the "free hosting" sites. Some grab rights to your images, other flood displayed pages by ads, or trade your browsing behavior to ad targeting systems. It is likely that a service providing only your photography without the ads needs to be paid.

But, how sustainable is their business, is indeed a great question. I am still with PBase, customer service is probably not the best, but so far for so many decades it seems to work. Next great move could be to innocently apologizing and offering hot links for 2,49 a month. We could just as easily say, "Big thanks to Disney for gifting thousands of internet users free image storage for a decade without asking for a penny in return. I don't really give a hoot about photobucket.

In fact, this story prompted me to login to my photobucket account for the first time in years. What I do hate is whiny people pretending to be victims and acting like they are owed something for nothing. I'm sure you will feel better then. The person who writes dozens of lengthy rants on every article is telling me to take a chill pill?

That is irony in its purest form. The bar is set so head-imploding-ly low—just write a statement that doesn't require me to retroactively apply a hashtag to get the gist of what you're saying. I was one of users affected. I found that any newly uploaded images were also struck with the same problem. Hence this really is "blackmail" because they're not saying, "Moving forward we're charging users for new uploads and linking.

Maybe it has to do with the total volume of the images linked by the account i. I'm not saying that's "OK" In fact, that's just as bad in my book: I have a 10 year old account without any restrictions. I think they are pulling the plug on the heavy users because they cost them the most and don't bring in any ad revenue. There are literally thousands of blogs and websites that just use photobucket as free storage without driving a single visit to photobucket's site for ad revenue.

I don't think they really want that kind of customer. I am shocked that anybody in the photo biz would behave in a nasty profit-seeking way. I'd be curious how many, but we'll never know -- because presumably the whole thing'll be gone in a week or two Ontela sends us to voicemail". I am sure the payout will be HUGE when the judge finds out all the plaintiffs paid zero dollars for the service. No issue at all with the decision to charge Their prerogative I also find it nauseating that people expect a free service from anyone for purposes other than a trial period What is wrong here is the decision to change conditions, to lock up content without warning.

It amounts to theft of my work. As a result, no matter what changes they now implement, I have left PB and will never ever return. Yes, agreed, it's their prerogative to change the terms, even without notice. But I totally understand and support your decision to have no further dealings with them. It was reasonable IMO for users to expect it to continue to be be free because it was offered on that basis, with no mention or forewarning of impending changes.

What's now emerged is akin to a "bait and switch" manoeuvre. Lure people into becoming dependent on their service and 'invested' in it, then change the rules without notice so everyone has to cough up or be significantly inconvenienced at least in the short term.

If they wanted to start charging they could have handled things much better by simply charging for new uploads and not destroying existing links. All else aside, it's hard to see how they could have engineered a worse PR move. I am guessing there won't be many who will willingly do business with them after this. But you're right that in relinquishing control, people are leaving themselves open to this kind of thing. You have the illusion of ownership and control, nothing more.

Suave if ebay is the only site being used, probably a good idea. But if more than one site is being used, it would be nice to have a centralized location for storing images, rather than needing to upload multiple times.

The included photo from eBay is rather sized restrained. Nothing like a Full Screen Photograph of the product you're selling. That is how I sell my gears at premium price because People can see the condition of my camera and lens in much greater details than eBay is providing.

More detail is not better. For most electronics and small items, if you have a high res photo, you start seeing microscopic flaws that literally cannot be seen even when holding the item in hand. Whatever we say about it, this kind of "sweep change without warning" always happens. Even right at Amazon Some people quoted in the article have the cheekiness - or is it plain stupidity?

I have been paying them a subscription for six years and they have made this change when I still have six months of my subscription to run - but it isn't going to be what I paid for any more - that is why I'm complaining. How do you mean "leeching"? It was a free service explicitly allowing hotlinking.

No one broke any rules by using it. Suave, I guess there was some fine print about "fair use". Anyway, I am amazed at the "professional" users such as bloggers who thought they could rely forever on free resources in their business. Gediminai, to an extent I can agree. Is it stupid to fully rely on free third-party service when it comes to anything remotely important?

Does it justify Photobucket showing a middle finger to their massive audience? Not in a slightest. Any respectable company would at least go through a tiny bit of trouble of notifying its users about an upcoming radical change in business model. It is not only easy, but also right thing to do. Instead, they decided to screw people over and in hope of earning cash from those users that were unlucky and careless enough to host anything remotely important on their servers.

Too bad, I guess you will have to pay us bucks for the subscription to see them again. It's just a dirty business strategy that no one in their right mind would consider good for the company, unless you are going bankrupt and want to earn a final bunch of blackmail cash before you go down at an expense of reputation.

Note however that imgur in its terms and conditions seems to ban exactly the sort of usage that Photobucket has just attacked: If you do — and we will be the judge — or if you do anything illegal, in addition to any other legal rights we may have, we will ban you along with the site you're hotlinking from, delete all your images, report you to the authorities if necessary, and prevent you from viewing any images hosted on Imgur. Have they enhanced the service in some fashion? It definitely seems like they are looking for a specific consumer target now and are fine with losing all the free accounts.

They should learn how to handle and host they data on their own. It's not an easy task and there will be huge losses due to "no backup" scenarios here and there, but blaming a 3rd party service for weird looking forum threads is wrong. The fault is yours. This had to happen one day and it will happen again when the next major hoster shuts down or changes its terms of services. You need to clarify what exactly you mean by "hosting on your own", because as of this moment if you want to host a site or a gallery you either depend on a 3rd party host or have to get a business-level web service as, AFAIK, most ISP explicitly ban running a web server off your home machine.

NOT nice the way they conducted themselves this week I logged into my photo bucket account, and it works fine. I also saw no option for a paid account on their home page.

Maybe this is just targeting abusers with huge traffic with direct embeds and no ad hits? Nothing has changed for logging in and viewing your images. What's changed is you can't hotlink a URL to put your images on a 3rd party web site.

That used to work for free, now it does not. I have no problem doing that, either. Which makes me think they are targeting the people who generate too much direct image embeds. Did you pay for the ad free plan? I did that early this year and my links are still currently working. But I plan to switch soon instead of waiting.

I only use PB for inserting images into hobby forums and auction sites that do not host images themselves. I never came close to using up the 2 GB of storage space. If PB offered a low cost plan with minimal storage and bandwidth limits I might consider it. But for what they are charging there are better options. I have used Photobucket for a number of years, a couple of free accounts plus a paid one for about the last 6 years.

I've always liked the way they made it easy to get an image and thumbnail code for third party posting, but from the looks of things I'm going to need to get an account that has 20 times the capacity and costs 10 times as much in order to keep with them. I've sent them an email politely cancelling my subscription from December and am now looking for something that fits my needs better.

I'm not sure I'd have paid for Photobucket as, at least when I started using it, they reduced the quality of the images on my free account, so it was of limited use. I can certainly see their point that having someone turn up occasionally and upload a bunch of images which they will then have to provide to potentially thousands of users, while not getting to show them any adverts, isn't a good way to pay the bills.

Then again maybe there are a bunch of corporates using it for free hosting and it's them they are after? Even if so IMHO not the way to do it. For all those crying in the bucket I did register at Photobucket years ago, but never ended up using it, or possibly used it a few times, and I've forgot all about it. Whilst in theory they could make a packet, I think in actuality they will get very few takers and it will be commercial suicide for Photobucket.

It would be interesting to see if they get enough takers to make the service viable. If Photobucket find a complete lack of interest in their most expensive package, and try to backtrack and allow hotlinking on their cheaper accounts, I doubt many people would be interested because they'd be unable to trust Photobucket again.

People could never be sure they wouldn't pull this type of stunt again. I think overall the way this happened will cause such bad feeling and lack of trust, that Photobucket that in it's present shape is dead. I see what Photobucket did in slightly different way than most of those who already commented here. To understand my point of view, let's take an example of motor vehicle industry, the people who drive the cars and roads the cars are being driven on.

The car producers are the web service providers where the main presentation website is located here, the author mentions PetaPixel , the car drivers are the users who use the PetaPixel website to link the pictures they host on Photobucket.

Photobucket just realized that they were providing the most expensive part of this combination for free. This is just as if the State was expected to never raise any money for roads via taxation but, was required to provide excellent quality of roads and ever expanding capacity to accommodate more and more new cars.

But why try to squeeze their low-use subscribers as well as getting rid of the free ride which is often a good way of reeling in subscribers to the budget plans when they get near to the limits for the free accounts? I've been paying for 20GB for the last 6 years, of which I've never gone beyond 14GB - they are bringing in this restriction which makes the way I use their service impossible mid-way thorugh my subscription year.

At the moment my third-party links still work, but if they stop before December I'll be wanting a refund, because I haven't got the service I signed up to. I was rather trying to point out the free riders such as PetaPixel service providers who exteriorize the need for reliable and fast storage onto free service providers such as Photobucket.

This is the same with auto industry - they make cars, sell them and make profits but do not pay road specific taxes. Only the drivers and the State pay. Photobucket has trashed their name by through bad "governance.

Another reason why I am happy to stay with Smugmug. But of course this does not hinder them to raise their prices suddenly, too But basically this is somewhat like the recent cyberattacks, keeping your files hostage, except it's legal. They become more profitable as they no longer have to support all of those accounts which were freeloading. If I was considering an advanced plan -- I wouldn't choose Photobucket. In my mind, they are Black Listed, after this nonsense. You can then upload and link as many images as you want as well as have your own email domain and a website if you want one.

They'd be raking up cash. This is an important distinction -- instead of the users paying, which is like herding cats -- the DOMAIN at which the images are hotlinked could pay. Maybe they are already doing that, but I feel doubtful. I'm fine with companies trying to make a profit. But, Photobucket thinks they can charge more than smugmug? Otherwise it is still not more expensive than the own domain-based approach proposed below minus the involved time-consuming hassles.

Why reinvent the wheel, when you can simply hit upload? This is good news for SmugMug and they deserve it. Not accepting RAWs is what keeps them profitable. They are no almost free cloud storage service with unlimited capacity. They used to accept RAWs at a small extra fee. But Amazon who was the backend provider cancelled their contract with SmugMug. I am glad there still is one image hoster left who has top notch service and a viable business model to be a long term solution.

And I am happy I did not decide to use the Amazon service back then. Lord Photobuckethead demands a referendum on whether we should have a referendum to force Photobucket to repeal the paid account requirement. LOL anyone with mediocre tech skills can go to kimsufi. Install Ubuntu server, install Lighttpd and off you go. Post you image all over the Intertubes. Just rear up on now to mount the second drive in linux and off you go.

All you need is a share hosting account. You sing up and its all installed already. Just upload your photos to the space and link to them. Sorry, this makes absolutely no sense. You are asking people who want to post some pictures to become SysAdmins first. I used to do it for a living, and I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole just to post photos. Sounds like a false economy to me. Once you pay for the account its all installed and all you have to do to upload your photos is log into the control panel and upload.

If you can't do that that you wont have the skills to upload photos to this site. No different than using any other service and then you have full control of your photos and not give away any rights. I don't appreciate when people shoot down these kinds of ideas.

Honestly, he's the only one suggesting more advanced ways to get it done. Personally, I think that's valuable. These guys are making it sound like its some super complicated thing to do and you need to know Linux server administration which is not true and in fact learning your cameras features is 10X more complex. Most of you lose more per year from switching camera bodies chasing the pixel dragon. Well I guess fullstop knows something about me that I don't, heres a hint, you could just like me, get a shared hosing account and upload the photos and then link them in Dpreview threads like I did in this thread https: Do they have some kind of cast iron "no screwing of customers" policy?

Or are they exactly as likely as photo bucket to follow in their footsteps? Somehow that seems a bit on the optimistic side and clearly more revenue than they ever generated from ads buy orders of magnitude. Changing policy is one thing. Changing is stupidly is quite another. Photobucket will have to abandon this or go out of business. Why didn't they just make a small advertising banner on the bottom of their billion images they had on every forum on the internet? They know the ULR of the site the image is on and the traffic of the page so they could create a huge display advertising network overnight.

The money they would rake in would make the few million dollars they will get from this scam look like chump change. Is this what you want, and to the host who reckons you so stupid you should have to pay for the privilege.

Dont imagine relevant people see your work. It is something businessmen use to steal work of value. Well, that's a depressing outlook on life.

Some people just like to share their images and don't care if they make money from it. If you are a professional, ignoring online is just crazy. A lot of the time a client will ask to look at your Instagram and it can be the difference between getting the job or not. Companies check if you have 1k, 5k, 50k or a million followers and will often hire based almost solely on that number. So far, we are able to export more than kinds of formats, converts the input format over different format conversion.

Use Office Online Converter, will make you quickly office. Effectively improve the work efficiency. The world's largest online file converter. If have what problem please email: Video download ,, times. Just insert a Video Link YouTube. If you are a member, you can download various global website video, download no limit video size, and does not display any advertising. Try it once and you will agree that this is the most convenient Photobucket video downloader you ever used! Now you only need to copy a video YouTube.

We will start to convert the audio track of your video file to mp3,mp4 as soon as you have submitted it and you will be able to download it. Because of this our software is platform-independent: Do not worry, our service is completely free. We need approximately 2 to 3 minutes per video. Note click on a web resource name to see the details of downloading and saving files from it.

How to Download YouTube Video?

Photobucket is the one-stop-shop for digital content owners seeking an easy-to use, yet powerful platform to store, edit, share, and 3rd Party Image Host your photos. Store Safely upload & . Photobucket Print Shop makes printing photos online simple and fun so you can preserve life’s best moments for future generations! Professional Photo Printing Order photo prints cheap on the highest quality photo paper online! If you're an avid Photobucket user, you woke up to a nasty surprise this past week: the photo storage and hosting service changed their terms, breaking billions of images online in one fell swoop, without so much as a courtesy notice. Some explanation is probably in order. Photobucket has been.