Pixiq

will definitely give the alternative a bash, but which part of the t&cs allows twitpic to actually sell your pictures?

It's this bit, where it says that you grant them a licence: 'you hereby grant Twitpic a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and Twitpic's (and its successors' and affiliates') business...'

thanks good to know. I thought those were standard terms for sites which automatically publish reproduce etc when users publish their content? there is nothing express about selling. (maybe there doesn't need to be?) mobypicture has an express term - is your concern more about was twitpic doesn't say rather than what it does?

I think it would be a useful resource for photographers if you could write an article about the danger terms to look out for - social media these days blurs the waters of publishing and reproduction.

You're absolutely right Alex, whenever you sign up to a photo-sharing site or anything similar, you do commit to a licence. The devil, of course, is in the detail. The good guys with halos and being serenaded by cherubs will have an agreement that dictates you licence them to reproduce your content for the purposes of displaying it on that site. (They'd need that, otherwise Halo&Cherub Images wouldn't be able to host your images on their site.) The guys with tails and pitchforks, on the other hand, will have a licence that basically says Devil Incarnate Images can do what the heck it likes with your content, oh, and you're damned, too.

As for an article about this - I'll see what I can do!

You've been caught up in the hype. Twitter's T&Cs are the same, as are Flickr's. In fact, Flickr's terms are far more significant than TwitPic's simply because of the nature of the service. TwitPic is for dumping photos in a hurry, Flickr is for better quality stuff that, probably, has much greater commercial value.

From Twitter (https://twitter.com/tos):

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

From Flickr s.8c (http://info.yahoo.com/legal/uk/yahoo/utos-173.html)

(c) With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Yahoo! the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.

The Twitter terms I need to look at again, but in the case of Flickr, I double-checked this yesterday. It's actually the paragraph that precedes the one that you quoted, Intermanaut, that's relevant:

(b) With respect to Content you elect to post for inclusion in publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups or that consists of photos or other graphics you elect to post to any other publicly accessible area of the Services, you grant Yahoo! a world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish such Content on the Services solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted, or, in the case of photos or graphics, solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Services. This licence exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Services and shall be terminated at the time you delete such Content from the Services.

Here, photos are specifically mentioned, and it is quite clear that the licence is purely for the purposes of Flickr (that is the 'Services') being able to display it on the web. As far I am able to interpret it, photos that you submit to Flickr can't be monetised by Yahoo! (which owns Flickr).