Well, they're not editorial (since they require a release) and their not photojournalism (since they allow editing). Basically, it is just another category of royalty free images. Not much of a big deal if you ask me.
yeah, well put. dissapointing. I think it would have been great if they offered something like shutterstock. And perhaps had a higher selling price due to the probably short lifespane of the image.
Perhaps there was problems if it was REAL photojournalism because people COULD edit without anyone knowing or take pictures of fake things and say it was the news and so on.. it would be hard to police the 'journalism' aspect of that on a site like dreamstime (it seems hard enough for CNN to do)
