I only contribute (small time) to Istock and Shutterstock.  What I've found is I edit slightly differently for each (well I used to).  Istock didn't want the images sharpened or too much colour, they seemed to want a more neutral but high quality photo with no noise or CA where as Shutterstock liked a little more editing for pop, a little more contrast and some sharpening from raw.  Now Istock does seem to take anything once you are a contributor, they really relaxed their acceptance standard last year sometime but my understanding from posts in the critique forum is the initial acceptance is just as tough as it always was.  If you post your photos on the critique forum at Istock I have seen people get some support there to get accepted when reviewers seemed to be being really silly.

I read the blog spot wrong, just realized it's not someone that purchased the photos to repost but the selling site.  Wow yes, I think they should at very least use a program for photo displays that does not allow a right click download.  Unless these are the weekly free photos they center their blog post around then they should have downloading them disabled.  I understand wanting to make the blog post look good but they didn't actually pay for the use of the photos themselves from the photographer and they are on a site where everyone that lands on it by chance or because they meant to, is likely looking for photos for something.  That's different then someone posting them on their new site in articles where they could be taken from but it won't be attracting people that are looking for photos.

It is interesting that the retailer in this case can take the money from the supplier.  I know in Canada the laws are a bit different the the US for credit card sales (worked for a bank for 15 years).  When a chargeback comes the credit card company asks for a signed copy of the credit slip from the retailer, if you don't have one or the signature is found to not match that on file the retailer is responsible for not having authenticated the purchase through standard means.  With online, mail order, or any other non witnessed CC sale the retailer must apply for the right to take the non authenticated cc sales and then will often have to place a certain amount of funds in a secured account depending on their credit rating and sales history.  The retailer is held fully responsible for all CC sales without a witnessed signature if they are disputed and the retailer can't prove that the purchase was legit.  Basically if I go in and sign a legal document, have it notarized that says, I didn't make that purchase they give me my money back and the cc issuer gets it from the retailer.

Now Walmart, or Sears, or any other retailer I know of can't then go to the RCA and say, hey that TV you gave us, we're taking the money back cause someone commited a CC fraud and we never got the money for it?  Doesn't really make sense, but I guess until someone actually lost enough to make a court case this won't get solved and they can make their own rules.  Much like electronic bank, bank machines etc, the bank have many rules that the court won't uphold if it gets taken to court, such as if you claim the machine gave you less money and the bank disagrees, but they do it anyhow as there is no law saying they can't, just if someone takes it to court they get their money back.