• news
  • TUESDAY MAY 30 2006 3:00 PM

CNET Offers Free Image Hosting

A picture is worth a thousand words, the saying goes, and sometimes you need an image to express yourself in ways that are simply not possible with text alone. But hosting images at your own site is expensive, and just ganking someone else's image is seriously bad online etiquette (and a great way to find that picture you hotlinked has been mysteriously transformed from a cute little puppy into the Goatse guy.)

For years, people have turned to Imageshack for their image hosting needs, but Imageshack only accepts images less than 1024K, and popular images or highly-trafficked forums (like Fark, for example) quickly max out the limited free bandwidth Imageshack offers.

Enter All you can upload from CNET. With this newly-launched service, there are no limits on bandwidth or image size, and you don't ever need to login, create an account, or do much more than choose your image, click a button, copy some code, and impress the world with your crazy photoshop skills. As a bonus, you can even have your image automatically resized, from a small thumbnail, to several different sizes commonly used on blogs.

You are restricted to a few common formats (.jpg, .gif and .png) and you must own (or have permission to use) the image you upload, which will be as hard for CNET to enforce as their other restriction: no pornography.

However, if all of this sounds too good to be true, that's because it is . . . sort of. When you upload an image into their library, you grant CNET one of those awesome licenses to do whatever they want with your image, for the rest of eternity anywhere in the universe. Once you remove the image from the system (there's no clear way indicated to do this if you use the free service) you cancel the license. This is probably something the average MySpace or Xanga user won't care about, but before you upload images, make sure you're cool with them possibly ending up in advertising, on billboards, or tattooed across some attention whore, without getting anything in return for it.

 
Comments
DisposableHero

DisposableHero

Modesto, CA
November 2005

MAY 30, 2006 04:02 PM

cool that they're doing the hosting thing. bad that they can use those images for anything they want.

Calypso

Calypso

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAY 30, 2006 04:49 PM

Damn. I was all excited...then came the last paragraph.

Oh, well. Ain't nothin' for free, baby.

kiss kiss kiss

jason

jason

USA
August 2002

MAY 30, 2006 05:02 PM

edited because i cant read good.

[Edited on May 30, 2006 by jason]

gothi

gothi

United Kingdom
December 2004

MAY 30, 2006 05:04 PM

WilWheaton said:
you must own (or have permission to use) the image you upload,



I can see that being flaunted quite quickly by a lot of users and ultimately unenforcable as the service gets popular possibly resulting in the free accounts requiring a sign-up process if any large body decides to take CNet to task over copyright infringement.

PhLaXuS

PhLaXuS

Fort Lauderdale, FL
November 2005

MAY 30, 2006 05:58 PM

Most online media repositories have some kind of clause that specifies something like "non-exclusive, unlimited, worldwide, royalty-free distribution rights". I can see practically that they need to say this or else you could possibly sue them for some guy in Asia even LOOKING at your pic. You could come back with some rediculous lawsuit saying somehow you were damaged because they let someone elsewhere in the world see the image.

Of course, from that it's a fine line to move on to basically stealing your images. I guess that's the price you pay for free service. So it's not really free at all, but for most people, it's not a rip, either.

WishRyder

WishRyder

Waukee, IA
October 2003

MAY 30, 2006 07:16 PM


which will be as hard for CNET to enforce as their other restriction: no pornography.


photobucket actively police's their member's albums. I recently had a bunch of classy nude drawings removed for "violation of terms of service" less than 48 hours after I first uploaded the drawings.

they also banned a number of other pictures, includeing a crude "2-year-olds-could-draw-better" MS Paint, 2 frame animation of a horse raping a guy. also a number of nonnude pictures that I'm unsure of what they were...

however, they also failed to ban a nude Katie Holmes picture.