Photobucket third party hosting

[Heather74]

I don't appear to have a problem? I was given a choice of small, medium, large or full size ?

[Heather74]

[70s kid]

This is all very well but would it affect the jpeg sizing? Currently the thumb nails are just too small. You used to be able to size them into small medium and large. Why has this facility disappeared?

[sixtyten]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

Not used them in years now. Anything I need to post on here, I now post direct to the page
i have backup of all the pics i’ve posted On here, so not fussed about the watermark.
Tis ugly though

[George 1978]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

I have boycotted Photobucket.

[George 1978]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

Had to pay them again because the watermark had returned.

[George 1978]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

As a last resort, I paid Photobucket whatever the $4.50 is in pounds sterling, and after a long battle, the annoying watermark was removed. It took a while, but I am not going to speak too soon about it in case it comes back, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

I had to sign in, and then an intrusive message comes on the screen where I had to confirm the email. The message doesn't go away when you click on Submit, and it only does so when pressing Enter on the keyboard. As a result I ended up with around 200 emails in my inbox within a minute that say "Please confirm your Photobucket account email address" in the title box. I thought that I would warn people who want to remove that from their images if it has them on.

Please be aware about them and don't use them - please use alternative ways of hosting your pictures if you need to put them online. I just about managed to get that watermark off the pictures but can be costly in time and money to some people.

[George 1978]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

Please see my next post.

[sixtyten]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

Small print.. no one reads it when signing up for these things, but its usually all there "I agree to hand over rights, etc"

[George 1978]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

Also, it's a bit like someone having someone else's photograph in their possession, and saying to them "pay me to get back or I will damage it". No doubt that if I said that to someone, the chances are I would be arrested and be accused of theft and attempted criminal damage. Why doesn't it work the same way when it comes to websites and things like images? Is it because it is regarded as being in the public domain once it is online, even though the ownership still lies with the person who officially owns it?

When it comes to so-called online companies, there seems to be very little most people can do.

[George 1978]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

?!?!

You said that PhotoBucket were showing our photos again ..
I simply enquired if you ( or anyone) knew why photos were back !?

The images are back and have been since September or October but in hindsight it made me think that at least when they were absent, they would not be able to leave their watermark on them thanks to their decision at the start of this month. I don't mean to be rude in response, but I am seething about this happening, and from what I have found out on other forums others feel this way as well.

I would like to add that I am just a bit surprised that I made a post yesterday on here referring to the fact that Photobucket have defaced people's images with their logo on them, and you actually quoted the previous post where I mentioned that the Photobucket images have reappeared (which at that point didn't have the Photobucket watermark on them). As that post was made back in July and the fact that made another one only yesterday, I was very surprised that you quoted the July one - something which you could have done three months ago of course. I find it a bit ironic that I made the more recent one, and only then you quoted the one from July as a result.

The defacing of our images by Photobucket is something that I feel strongly about, and this sort of thing is a bit like having a photograph of a loved one and someone scribbling all over it. If I wanted to display precious images of a special event (a wedding, birthday party, Christmas etc) on a website or social media for people to see, the last thing I want to happen to them is some intrusive mark over the image.

We can pay to have it removed and line their pockets (although why should we have to?), but on that website it only displays the American price of four dollars a month or something because it is an American website - that would be around £7 or something? A free lunch indeed. I do use my webspace provider's space for storing images although I do have dozens of them on Photobucket and if I transferred them to my webspace provider, it would mean that the watermark would remain on there and cannot be removed.

I feel very strongly about this.

[Zincubus]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

I think that you have quoted the wrong post.

?!?!

You said that PhotoBucket were showing our photos again ..
I simply enquired if you ( or anyone) knew why photos were back !?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[George 1978]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

So what happened??

Have they changed their mind / stance ??

I think that you have quoted the wrong post.

[Zincubus]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

Yes, it's great that our Photobucket pictures are showing again - I actually thought that we would never get to see them again, especially the fact that I used them for pictures on one of my web pages where they went AWOL before - and I didn't have the original disc anymore.

Just seen them on another website.

So what happened??

Have they changed their mind / stance ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[George 1978]

Re: Photobucket third party hosting

Has anyone noticed that when pictures are displayed at the moment that there is now this annoying watermark which unnecessarily has "Proudly Hosted on Photobucket" and a camera logo towards the bottom of the picture?

Why have they done that? Those pictures are our property as we put them on there, so how dare they do that on pictures that could be of sentimental value? I wish that they would leave people's belongings alone and not tamper with them.

Can you imagine someone storing their wedding or birthday party pictures on there and having that written all over it? As far as I am concerned, it is criminal damage. Why can't they leave things alone as it was alright before all this happened, and I mean before the pictures had disappeared from our forums and websites. I don't get an imprint of a Boots or a Kodak logo when I take my 35mm film to be processed to the aforementioned store do I?

I won't contact them because it would be a complete waste of time.