MicrostockGroup

That's pathetic, its good I can keep my images out of that collection.   

Thinkstock seems able to credit some files:
http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/image/stock-photo-turtle-and-chipmunk-wearing-party-hats/83290871

I believe it's more of an IS thing. It's not 'commercially reasonable' to credit IS contributors.

Only a complete asssshooole,  would like his name/credit, from a place like TS.

@fujiko: Thank you for the link.

©cclapper - Yes. Anyway, isn't it illegal for distributing agency to place/require just "© agency name" for whatever images contributors hold copyrights to?  Or, when contributors do business with agency despite it, does it give some sort of implicit consent to hijack copyright notice?

(Full discloser: I've already deleted my small port from any agency that feeds to thinkstock.)

It would be more honest to put "Source: TS". To try to claim it is their copyright is simply false. I don't suppose there is a single image on their site to which TS is the copyright owner.

They're creating a whole new class of "orphan works" where, for all practical purposes, the enduring lineage for lots of stock images will just be an agency's name as the years go on.  
From vantage point of contributors' heirs - argument could be made that the agency is kidnapping images right in front of ©-holder's eyes.

And they bought a company that tracks images. Simply an ironic coincidence?

greedy companies get away with what they are allowed to get away with

If they have got a copyright attribution - even a wrong one - how can they be "orphan works"?

Bingo and very well to the point. That's why I didn't sign their agreement. Fair enough. Nobody was forced to sign the agreement. If it's a dealbreaker, then don't cut the deal. I still don't miss IS (and vice versa I suspect) 

My understanding is that copyright resides with the creator of the work or, if the actual creator was employed to create it, with whoever supplied the materials with which the work was created.
I'm not even sure that you can "sell copyright". In the music biz artists are now able to claw back copyright that they transferred to record labels decades ago, which rather suggests that while you may sell exclusive usage rights the underlying copyright remains forever with the creators.

Having a "wholly owned" collection probably doesn't transfer copyright, it just passes on exclusive usage rights from the previous agency to the one that bought it. Unless, of course, the agency hired the photographer and supplied the films.
The materials thing is quite important because it explains how a photographer hired for a wedding shoot retains copyright over the works while a newspaper staff photographer doesn't, the copyright belongs to his newspaper (and it is illegal for him to supply agencies with images from shoots using newspaper materials unless he has an agreement with his employer to do so).

So, no, none of the agencies should use "copyright: Agency/Shooter", at the very least it should be "copyright: Shooter/agency", making it clear that the agency's name is just being added to that of the copyright owner.

As I'm damned sure TS has never handed a camera to anyone and paid them to shoot a job, it can't legally hold the copyright to anything.  Even an image Getty paid to have created would technically still belong to Getty, not to TS, as the companies will be established as separate legal entities.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and it seems that if we want to do business with agencies we have to put up with their routine misrepresentation of our copyright as being their own when they know damned well that it isn't. If they believed their own lies, I am sure TS would be suing SS and DT for all the "Thinkstock copyright" files they are licensing.

"Transferring" a copyright is not quite the same as "selling" it, is it? If you sell something you can't have it back after a certain time.
As for your example, I suspect the copyright owner might still be "Images on White" rather than Getty, but I'm not a lawyer and it really doesn't matter with regard to what TS is doing.
The thing is that the copyright of an image belongs to one person, it can't simultaneously belong to me, TS, SS, iS and everyone else. So the TS claim is simply a lie and if copyright is being credited to anybody it ought to be to the person who owns it, not someone who doesn't.
I suspect that what they are doing is,illegal and isn't covered by their cop-out clause. There is a big difference between agreeing that they will only credit you if it is "commercially reasonable" according to their thinking and agreeing that they are allowed assert that they own the copyright of your work.  They may not be able to credit you, but it doesn't follow that that means they have a right to say it belongs to them. Not only do they fail to preserve your copyright info in the file, having stripped it out they proceed to assert that they own the copyright. Legal? Really?

Right, copyright symbol should be next to contributor's name, not agency!

And when it uses/requires:   © agency name     agency is openly claiming copyright on millions of photos it does not own copyright to, so a competent copyright lawyer could have a field day with this one.

Contributor (class action suit or not) could hire a copyright lawyer who sees the potential not only for fees but also priceless publicity.

"The Emperor Has No Clothes"    "The Agency Has No Right to Claim Copyright"

That's exactly what I did months ago with my tiny port, but an enterprising lawyer could decide the potential publicity, at least, made this worth her while.

-------------
I'm gong to use BIG brand names now so most will be familiar with them:


No store is going to advertise Coke or Pepsi as Amazon.com Cola or Walmart Cola  
not only because because Coke & Pepsi would rightfully sue them Big Time, but because the brand names Coke and Pepsi mean a lot to a lot of customers.

Coke & Pepsi would never be where they are now if, in the early days, they let whatever store sold them call their cola soda by the store's name!  Which, in effect, is not far different from contributors allowing  © agency name.  And they continue to have top lawyers actively protecting their brand name, because they know that the brand names are  Gold to their company.

Well, by promoting just the agency name, even at agency site, with  false     © agency name  -  the agency is helping prevent brand awareness, and therefor power, of the contributor/copyright holder  -  in favor of strengthening brand awareness, and therefore power, of the distributor.