When researched online:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Depositphotos-UA-Office/184453591685556 <- Address is indicated as Poliova Street and you can also see Lightfield Productions logo in photos of their interior but in reality they are in different buildings right next to each other inside of the same complex. They share one main entrance, but without visible logos of either company.

https://lightfield.ua/en/ -> contact -> Address: Polova 21B

Poliova and Polova are the same, both buildings are next to each other (check Google maps and just compare the street)

-

Lightfield Productions posts as the following accounts to other image banks too:

• https://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?cid=G24Y7UX7FREVVR4P26W3F8XRPSBUPP8CLUGKDXZSTHBWJJKS8ZCB4AMN4WYRQXSX&name=LightField+Studios+Inc.&st=12&mode=0&comp=1
• https://www.shutterstock.com/g/LightField+Studios
• https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/206713618/lightfield-studios?load_type=author&prev_url=detail
• https://depositphotos.com/portfolio-12985790.html <- In the actual Deposit Photos website, we notice that the name here is not Lightfield but appears as a very active contributor with 37k+ images, however not as big as the catalogue of 200k images of Lightfield Productions in other image banks.

The above links were discovered by Google reverse image search on Lightfield productions instagram posts.

This may raise concern to Deposit Photos indie contributors, that can see that part of the profits of their work, work as an internal competitor to them. It can also raise general concern in the market, as to how the image banks can practice their own production and share among each other, inflate the market by themselves and come to direct competition with the contributor's work.

 

Getty used to refer to the content they owned outright as wholly owned. The advantage of such content is that you can offer introductory freebies (for example) easily because you have no one to pay a royalty to.

Looking at the Shutterstock portfolio for Lightfield Productions (skimming it; it's huge) it's not filling gaps in the collection. It's a collection of every stock stereotype and cliche; people heavy; generic scenery (autumn, mountains, summer) but no specific cities, etc. All very professionally done, well lit, "diverse" models.

When you consider the terrible stunts DepositPhotos has tried in the past (Shotshop as but one example), this type of collection allows them to do that sort of deal without ticking off contributors.