Does Twitter do photo/video hosting yet? Why not?
They've only got so much VC money to burn, I guess.
Twitpic makes deal with news agency to sell users' uploaded photos
31–38 of 38 posts
Re: Twitpic makes deal with news agency to sell users' uploaded photos
#32I don't see the problem with this. They host your photos for free and they want to try to make some money out of it. Sounds like a fair deal to me.
Re: Twitpic makes deal with news agency to sell users' uploaded photos
#33I think there is need for a Twitter image service designed for artists and journalists. Something they can brand (logo and colors) and display clear usage terms/licensing. Possibly watermarking and licensing/payment as well.
That seems to be the goal of http://whosay.com/
ex:
Re: Twitpic makes deal with news agency to sell users' uploaded photos
#34They're going to be selling a lot of photos of food and cats.
Re: Twitpic makes deal with news agency to sell users' uploaded photos
#35What's stopping twitter itself from doing something for photo sharing ? Seems like it's a tested market, users will always prefer twitter image sharing service and there is no risk in trying this.
Re: Twitpic makes deal with news agency to sell users' uploaded photos
#36There is related lawsuit pending between a professional photographer and Agence France Presse, who stole the photographer's photos of the Haiti earthquake from TwitPic without permission, and sold them to newspapers around the world via an agreement with Getty Images.
They claim that the TwitPic TOS allowed them to use (and profit) from the images, and even further, their initial filing even went so far as to say something along the lines of "well, you posted it on the internet, so that means it's in the public domain".
http://copymarkblog.com/2011/05/11/twitpic-photographs-and-c...
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-in-lawsuit-wire-service-a...
Re: Twitpic makes deal with news agency to sell users' uploaded photos
#37I don't see the problem with this. They host your photos for free and they want to try to make some money out of it. Sounds like a fair deal to me.
It's all fun and games until a picture makes big bucks. Then, you'll see lawsuits; I didn't read the user agreement well, didn't understand it, it's unfair, it violates [insert law of any US state]...and so on.
Have you seen that CNN and the likes make it absolutely clear the intention when they seek pictures or video for live events (earthquakes of example)? Not hide it on what would page 83 of an agreement.