If you look at past months, they do report with repeated sales lumped together.  Just not usually this many of them.  Holy cow.  If this is real, I'm fairly pleased, too!

I'm finally IN!

I posted a translation of iStock's reply. LOL  (Those of you who know me know what's coming.  For the rest of you, this ought to be a bit fun.)

http://bit.ly/istockchanges

Can you please point me to the verbage in the, say, IS terms of use where it is acceptable to take a watermarked image and use it on your website? I have gone over the terms and conditions of the sites I upload to and do not EVER remember seeing anything about anybody using images for free on their website. If this is something new, I have missed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

The section of US law that deals with fair use is Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.

Here's the exact text of the law:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Parody is recognized as a form of criticism and commentary. Here's how a parody might be considered, in light of the four factors above used to determine fair use:

   1. Purpose and character; commercial or educational -- noncommercial, educational, or newsworthy parodies are generally given more protection as fair use under this first factor. However, many commercial parodies have also been deemed to be fair use, as the Supreme Court has held that "a work's commercial nature is only one element of the first factor enquiry into its purpose and character".[2]

   2. Nature of the work copyrighted -- this factor has been said to carry little weight in parody situations, "since parodies almost invariably copy publicly known, expressive works".[2]

   3. Amount and substantiality -- with parodies, a fairly extensive use of the copyrighted work is permitted. Copying is considered in relation to parodic purpose -- a parodist can copy as much as is needed to "conjure up" the original. Even the "heart" of a work may be copied for parody, if it's the heart at which the parody is aimed.[2]

   4. Potential effect on the market -- it is understood that an effective parody "may be so good that the public can never take the original work seriously again".[3] Thus, with parodies, the possibility of destroying the market for the original work isn't measured. Instead, what's analyzed is the potential of the parody to fulfill the market demand of the original work. Since most parodies don't compete with the original works they are parodying, this factor is usually not an issue.

Long holiday in US - it happens.

Quote from: anc on July 02, 2010, 10:25

For instance - say you had 30 totally relevant keywords for an Xmas image - would it show up as lower in the search rankings for Xmas than if the same image was listed with only 5 keywords?

No.

This is all the info I need. Thanks Sean!

I would guess no, fewer.

Sure it is but on the 7D i can use my old Lenses too

That answers the Q.  Plus, I love my 7d.  I am using it for stock starting next month!  I'm excited!!

I've seen amazing players shut down in WC before but I think this Messi will NOT be denied.

ARGENTINA!

I can't picture it, how big is it compared to the size of Wales?

About 1/2 as wide and infinitely deeper.

Does that mean that the top photographers get all 50,000+ of their images approved first and are on the market for months before we even get a shot?

I hate being a peon.  

Yeah, that's what I said on Lee's blog and twitter as well - that I don't want them to have 15,000 images with sales before I can even get approved.

I did JUST get this on Twitter:

 stockfresh @mattantonino Don't worry, we'll make sure new contributors don't get behind.

In response to the same line of questioning.

The top picture in your post is a sinkhole from 2007.  The bottom one is from a few days ago.