Is it OK to serve images from Workers and KV?

Is there a reason for archiving your comments? I can indeed see the edited text but I want to specifically know what just changed.

You now have an official response, instead of an unofficial opinion.

5 Likes

@0xbkt @rico1 @pier @thomas4

Thanks for all your feedback and bringing this issue to our attention! We’ve now clarified the language in our Terms of Service and you can check it out.

Section 2.8: https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/
Section 1: https://www.cloudflare.com/supplemental-terms/#CFWorkers

8 Likes

That certainly clarifies media files…so no video.

But now with Workers Unbound, you charge for data. Now would that be ok for video? Admittedly, it would get extremely expensive…but the user would be paying for all costs.

1 Like

Doing video (as in full .mp4 files, for example) with KV is kinda hard and probably less expensive if you use Stream. It’s clarified, though.

1 Like

Thanks @ngao :+1:

Hi, my website was banned in August 2020 for violating clause 2.8. I had been using Cloudflare for a very long time and was unaware of these terms.

I requested to be reinstated and I was happy to go on a paid service. I was not given a reason for the ban for quite some time and after a few emails, I was directed to clause 2.8.

So I put my hands up, no secrets I was hosting a popular free image hosting website serving just under 3TB bandwidth.

I have read 2.8 and section 1 of CFWorkers, I understand hosting images as part of a content/blogging platform is acceptable where it is not just hosting images but content along with it.

I run a popular public image hosting website using a popular script, I have created a discussion over at the developer’s forums about my ban and have informed the community it goes against section 2.8.

Like myself, a lot of other users are using the same image hosting script and some are using CFWorkers to host images. Some users who are running an image hosting platform with CFWorkers claim to have contacted CF who have advised them that they are within the terms of CFWorkers to run an image hosting website despite serving a lot more TB’s and possibly PB’s.

My question is this.

  1. Can I run an image hosting website with CFWorkers (paid for) where 80% (or majority) of my websites function is to host non-HTML content and serve images?

If the answer is no,

  1. Can I run a ‘private’ image hosting website behind a login screen for registered users only with CFWorkers (paid service) where 80% of its function is to host non-HTML content and serve images?

If the answer is yes to any of those questions I would be grateful if my website can be reinstated and I will take up a package CFWorkers.

Thank you

Cloudflare Workers §1 of Supplemental Terms clearly states you can serve images using Workers.

Can you share a little bit more insight into your situation? What does your analytics pane on Cloudflare dashboard say about traffic consumption? Could you be occupying too much space in Cloudflare’s edge locations because you might be caching forever all the content you have?

1 Like

This won’t be the case as they would simply purge it more often if they need space.

I would also talk to sales, depending on your budget, on the enterprise plan the limitations are different.

@0xbkt Not caching forever.

@matteo I don’t understand why i would need an enterprise plan when there are others using a lot more bandwidth than myself using CFWorkers?

The reason i was given was clause 2.8

I would appreciate a response to my question from a CF representative @ngao

I have attached my usage below before my domain was taken off the dashboard.

If you need specific information regarding your account, you’ll need to take this up by contacting Cloudflare directly. Either by calling Sales, or by opening a ticket. I don’t think you’ll get an official response to your ban in the forums.

2 Likes

Yes as mentioned previously i have spoken to the team extensively and they keep repeating that I am banned and cannot host images. I am solely directed to the mentioned clause 2.8.

I was really hoping for a response from @ngao for my earlier two questions and some clarification and help to be honest.