For what it's worth, I have never needed a release for the Golden Gate Bridge or any other bridge I've submitted.  Buildings are more likely to be an issue, especially famous landmarks like the Empire State.  And there are some odd cases.  I believe the San Francisco Bay Bridge at night requires a release because of a copyright on the light show.  It's the same situation as the Eiffel Tower: fine during the day but not at night when the lights are on.

re: "News agency claims painting of prosecutor copies an AP photo"

this sounds like fair use because the new work is a different form, it has been upheld in court many times.

I doubt a court would agree with you.  It certainly didn't agree with Shepard Fairey over his famous Hope painting of Barack Obama.  The Associated Press sued over his use of one of their photographs as the basis of his work.  Not only did Fairey lose; he was convicted of falsifying evidence to hide the link between the original and his derived work.  Fair use will only take you so far.

Shepard Fairey Is Fined and Sentenced to Probation in �Hope� Poster Case

Oh, and old thread alert.

I submitted 20 photos on the 31st.  Checked just now and 19 are ready to submit.  That 20th photo is still being processed.

Where's the page now that shows what image sold?

From http://www.123rf.com/contributor/earnings.php you can click on the Download Stats tab and select a date to see sales on that day, or click on Daily and select a date.  Looks like we can't see current day's sales, which is kind of annoying.

I use a Getty release that's dated December, 2008 with Shutterstock and my other agencies.  Started using it in mid-2010 and continue to use it without any issues.  All the problems I've encountered were about incomplete or incorrectly entered information, not the content on the form itself.

My portfolio is back, both on the contributor and the client side.  Just as well it happened during off-peak hours.

You misunderstand.  I'd bet the customer didn't claim to have purchased/licensed the image from Creative Commons.  They more likely said that got it from somewhere that claimed it was subject to the Creative Commons license.  For example, images on Wikipedia have to be made available under a CC license, and one of the least restrictive licenses at that. 

What license to use is a decision a content creator or their agent can make.  None of the stock agencies use CC license terms, since that would take a lot of control away regarding resale and usage terms.  It's possible a customer thought they had licensed your work under CC terms.  They're incorrect about that and need to be straightened out.

As others have said, we've been through all this many times before.  It's relatively easy to get a new agency going; the technology is there and so is the pool of content.  What isn't there is a customer base, something that will attract customers to pay money in large and growing amounts.  What's missing is what marketing people (and I've been one of them) call a unique value proposition: something your new agency offers that clients can't get as easily from an existing player. 

And even that isn't enough, unless you and your suppliers are incredibly patient.  The other missing piece is advertising/marketing, so all those potential clients know you're out there and have a better solution.  Word of mouth is slow and unreliable, so you're looking at spending some serious money to get attention.  Most new agencies and a bunch that have never managed to take flight either don't have it, can't get it or don't want to risk it.

The last agency I saw with a unique value proposition that is seeing success is Canva.  They aren't just a supplier of content; they offer tools for creating documents, and they offer imagery as part of that creation.  From my own sales there, it looks like they're taking off.  Few agencies I encounter show those signs of life, and without some indication that my time will be rewarded at some point, why would I bother?

In the end it's about sales and income.  Show me how you can deliver those and I'll be interested.

Comparing full years ending in May (June 2011 - May 2012 vs. June 2015 - May 2016), I'm up 29%.  My portfolio is also quite a bit larger and, I hope, better.

Yes, mine arrived late evening Pacific time on May 15th.

I got the email from Corbis as well, but PayPal doesn't show any payment yet.  Amusingly, I've made two more sales at Veer ($2.65!) since they emptied my account.

Quote from: Chichikov on February 07, 2016, 10:31

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 05, 2016, 17:54

I no longer upload there but I've left the 1300 or so files I uploaded alone. I do get occasional sales but it totals about $50 a year so I can't see how uploading even a large number of viable images would pay you enough to make the effort worthwhile.

I never understood this.
Assuming that they have an ftp server and that you have all the files already ready for other site, you have just to open your ftp software, select your images, drag all of them on the window and wait that the technology makes all the work for you. (In the while you can drink a cup of coffee or go in the park for a walk with your camera).

Where is the effort?
5 minutes of your time and three clicks of your mouse is an effort??

(Just to understand what is an effort according to you ).

It's much more time consuming if they are model released images.

And it's a daily commitment for weeks or months depending on the size of your portfolio.  SF has a relatively low daily submit limit, so you'll have to go in once a day at roughly the same time (upload slots open up exactly 24 hours after they were last filled) to submit your next batch.