what?
how do you reach that conclusion? no ToS have been agreed to by a party merely downloading an image without an account (or even authentication). or even presented to said party.
the ToS applies to the uploader. specifically:
THE FREE ACCOUNT DOES NOT ALLOW IMAGE HOSTING. TO THE EXTENT THAT IN OUR SOLE AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION, WE ALLOW A FREE ACCOUNT TO HOST AN IMAGE, THE IMAGE WILL INCLUDE A PHOTOBUCKET WATERMARK THAT REFLECTS THAT THE IMAGE IS HOSTED BY US. IF WE PERMIT ANY FREE IMAGE HOSTING, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE IMAGE OR BLUR AND WATRMARK THE IMAGE IN OUR SOLE AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION. FREE ACCOUNT HOLDERS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO UPGRADE TO A PAID ACCOUNT THAT PERMITS THIRD PARTY HOSTING.
further, this is a statement merely advising account capability (“THE FREE ACCOUNT DOES NOT ALLOW IMAGE HOSTING…IF WE PERMIT ANY FREE IMAGE HOSTING…”), and by agreeing, the account holder has merely been made aware of it. if i had a free photobucket account and had uploaded that image, i would not even be in violation by hotlinking it in this topic as the language does not imply that i must agree not to take such an action. the purpose of this statement is so that a free account holder cannot, for example, sue Photobucket for denial of service.
contrast that to the following statement that i made up and does not appear in their actual ToS:
THE FREE ACCOUNT HOLDER AGREES TO NOT USE THE ACCOUNT FOR IMAGE HOSTING AND WILL NOT HOTLINK IMAGES ELSEWHERE.