The law states, "Re-creating a copyrighted photograph is a derivative use and therefore requires the permission of the copyright holder of the original image."  I doubt Yuri gave this person permission to replicate his image. 

But this isn't a recreation, I can see in  a second that these are two different photographs.

I downsize to the minimum accepted, so I put directly the number of pixels of the largest side. 2400*1600 is the minimum, so only if putting 2400 the other side has less than 1600 I put a higher value. You can induce if the total is 4Mb multiplying (approx, because the system is not decimal, but binaric, and 1MB is not 1000*1000 but 1024*1024).

The bits and bytes doesn't have anything to do with megpixels.

If I somehow manage to lose the IPTC keywords on a batch of images, how do I get them back without clicking the "IPTC" button individually on each image? (The images are not a series and have different keywords)

when we shot isolated item, does it has to be pure white? like 0,0,255?

0,0,255 is pure BLUE

Hmm... I had one sale in 2008. Suddenly I have three sales already this year (2011). Are things starting to pick up at Mostphotos or am I just lucky?

You also need a shoot date for your images. You cannot seem able to submit old film scans from "circa 1980" or even "2003", you need to type the exact date.

I got one. $24.50 removed my already sucky december sales. Grrrrrrrr!

I use my 100/2.8 L Macro for almost everything

Oh you mean the image with the REBELLION TOENAIL FEMALE SKIN with FINGERNAIL EXERCISING MASK POLISHES SPECIAL HERBAL GLITTER GLAMOUR?

I'm not sure about IS application criteria of today (I'm a member from 2004), but I don't think you will get in with these. Mainly too little commercial appeal. I'll criticize these quickly: (note that I cannot comment on the technical quality because the images are quite small)

Here's some tough love:

1 (The Woman) Flat lighting, no copy space, no story (-> lack of commercial appeal). The zipper has a tag that could be mistaken for a logo. Dirty snow. If this is spring, there should be sunlight.

2 (Houses) Looks unnatural ald over processed. Weird artefacts in the sky even at this file size. Composition lacks impact. Not much commercial appeal.

3 (Benches) Theres something I like about this. Clean up the thing hanging from the rail upper right. Would be better with a story, like a person sitting on a bench.

4 . Nice reflections. Otherwise a bad composition. And also a lack of commercial appeal (what would this image be used for?). The image looks like it's full of artefacts, I don't know if they show in the full size image (?)

5.  (Christmas decorations) Wrong white balance, the background has a yellow cast. The focus might be better on the ball in the front. The balls have uneven "speckles" on them. Over-exposed metallic parts(?).

6. I don't know if this is going to illustrate the great looking old houses or solar energy. Too confusing.

7. (Cards) There is no separation between the cards. You should light this image from the right to get some separation by shadows. White balance is wrong, the cards look yellow. Background is weir upper right.

I shoot comissioned work.

I'm more of a "good enough" guy, and that's because I'm a perfectionist. If I would want my (microstock) images to be perfect, I would never get anything ready.

I have found the best thing is to try to shoot as good quality as possible, to minimize the amount of post-processing. Extra five minutes spent when shooting can save 30 minutes of Photoshop tweaking and retouching.