It's interesting, and a bit confusing at the same time. In some ways it seems like they're just offering a unique service, but they bill it as something alternative to stock image licensing via agencies, hence the name. But in reality it's not a suitable alternative for most people. It's very limited, and the photos aren't good for commercial use without model and property releases. For commercial use, it's a sort of "use at your own risk" scenario. Which obviously isn't going to work for most folks.
It's an interesting service for bloggers maybe, just looking for some simple background images or filler content. But beyond the casual web use, I'm not seeing how this does anything to offer a true alternative to stock licensing for 99% of image buyers out there.
Edited to add: There was a
Wired article about this recently. Some of the comments are interesting. People getting upset that anyone would criticize this new idea. I think some of the criticism is fair, though, especially if this is being described in the name as a shot at existing stock photos. I'm all for a new idea and a new way of doing things if it offers something truly useful or does something better than it was previously done. This new offering doesn't do anything to replace stock image needs for the vast majority of buyers out there.