• Author
  • #534843


    Thanks for returning & sharing what Staff had to say on this. I comprehend your concern, although I have never used picApp. I have located 70 images (free sources) which are listed on my Resources page in case you are interested images (free sources)



    @merovee, it all depends on what the content of that widget is that they decided to require everyone to install before they could use their images and whether it introduces any issues for this multi-user platform. It could also be that there are TOS issues with what the widget does. Apparently from what @eyalg says, there aren’t enough here using it for them to bother with.

    It wasn’t wordpress that took picapp away from bloggers here, it was picapp.



    Thanks Timethief – I have bookmarked the page . Even if picapp does come back, I’m sure it will be useful .



    Sacredpath – I think you could say that with Windows Live Spaces but every one else will be able to use picapp . I don’t think wordpress.com is big enough yet to say that everybody should work round their system .
    It will be frustrating that others have a first class service and we don’t, let alone the work involved in redoing the posts, if the images disappear completely.


    It isn’t about working around the .COM system so much as what the widget contains and whether it will fit in with the restrictions here. Youtube and a host of other video sharing sites work here via shortcodes and they work with wordpress to make sure they work here. There is all the publicize stuff that works here and again those people have worked with wordpress to make sure their stuff works. Picapp has changed the way they do business. That was their choice of course.

    I can tell you that if there is something about the picapp requirements that will in anyway compromise the system here (security or otherwise) or that will require huge amounts of recoding in the backend to accommodate it, picapp will likely be history permanently.

    Picapp could, if they wished continue to support the shortcode here. They’ve chosen not to and the reason given was that there weren’t enough people using it.

    …due to insufficient interest , we can[‘]t continue to support the shortcode…


    If you use picapp and want to see it continue here, make sure and make staff aware of that via the contact form on the support page. If the number of requests is high enough, then it is far more likely they will figure out a way to make things work.



    I published a post so everyone using the shortcode is aware of the situation as it stands now. http://onecoolsitebloggingtips.com/2010/11/02/picapp-pulls-the-shortcode-plug/



    It is to be noted that Picapp only provides a Post-by-post disable ability; that the default is All images are affected by Picapp’s changes, whether they are picapp or not. This only applies to external sites, it’s true, but still it needs to be said.


    If that is true, that picapp will claim ownership, or rights over my own images in my own blog just because I use ONE of their images, they will find themselves very quickly in the middle of a lawsuit over copyright infringement. It won’t come from me since I never use their services, but it will come from someone, and I expect very quickly.

    I find it hard to believe they are that st00pid.



    I contacted my blog network administrator. His exact words:

    They’re full of shit. I’ve not installed any widgets. Something in their java script hijacked the images on our front pages. So, take it to them.

    Oh yea, who’s running their customer service desk? That person is an idiot.

    This after they flat-out called me a liar on one of my blogs:

    I have confirmed that although they claim it never did this unless you installed the widget, it did indeed do this last night. It doesn’t seem to do it now, which is great; I don’t have to throw out a hundred or so images. But to lie about it seems bizarre.


    I have confirmed that although they claim it never did this unless you installed the widget…

    You mean they are claiming that it DOES take credit for ALL images or link back to their site from ALL images on a blog if the widget is installed, whether the images are their’s or not???

    If true, can the even spell copyright violation?

    From the comment they left,

    …only once you install the widget , the new lightbox is activated on “non picapp” images. if you do install the widget and wish to remove the link from a certain image or site section you can easily do so by using your picapp publisher dashboard…

    This implies just what you said, that the put a link to THEIR site on non-picapp images. They are either seriously stupid, have a bug in their software, or this person is seriously confused. They absolutely, positively cannot put a link into your blog and into images that are not from their site.

    I’m going to hold off final judgment on this until I hear right from them that they are putting links to their site, implying ownership of images that are not theirs.



    This is incredibly weird!



    Forgive my garbled English. I’ve had two hours of sleep and lots of cold medicine.

    Yes, they put a link to THEIR site on non-Picapp images. ALL my non-Picapp images on the front page of the blog, and the network admin saw exactly the same thing on his blog over the weekend, and it occurred to me last night when I should have been sleeping that this probably interfered with our affiliate link code (which generally include a tiny, invisible image) thus interfering with a for-profit blog’s ability to generate profit.

    That, once discovered, would CERTAINLY be motivation enough for them to fix this, which they seem to have done. No for-profit blog could consider running anything that neutralized all its affiliate links.

    Their claim: they never touched my non-Picapp images. Those images NEVER linked to the Picapp lightbox except on blogs with the widget installed. This is untrue, as I saw and as the network administrator saw.

    The non-Picapp images NO LONGER link to their lightbox on blogs without the widget. This is confirmed. So the problem is solved, although I am not comfortable with their claim that the problem never existed.



    To super-clarify: This happened on two different blogs, neither of which had the widget installed at any time.


    Did you take screenshots by chance, or do a copy/paste on the source code?



    Unfortunately I’m still getting used to Chrome and couldn’t dig down to the sourcecode. In the Edit Post box, all was normal on all the posts. No funny links. But when I right-clicked, save URL on the image at the top of the blog yesterday, it linked to:


    Which is obviously their lightbox code. That picture didn’t come from Picapp, and we never had the widget installed on that blog. Now that picture links to Just Jared, like it was always supposed to, and I didn’t change anything.



    From PicApp’s support documents: http://picapp.zendesk.com/entries/261665-picapp-widget-is-taking-over-my-image-original-links

    At this point, I’m with merovee. It’d be great to hear from Staff on this topic and to get a feeling for what exactly is going on rather than continuing with speculations.



    I’m just hoping they may be able to integrate the widget in a similar way to Typekit . Zemanta’s wikipedia images don’t compare to Picapp .

    It would be great to hear from Staff . The sound of silence is deafening .


    staff bump

The topic ‘Picapp.com’ is closed to new replies.