I've got to say, I'm not really impressed. I bought the picture of myself for $4.75. It was advertised as a 1 megapixel image. When I downloaded it, I got a 545x817 pixel image. That's not even half of a megapixel. I really don't appreciate being lied to like that.
According to the meta data on the image, it was shot with a Canon EOS 20D. That's an 8.2 megapixel camera. For $5, it would have been nice to be able to get the original, full resolution shot. It said I was getting the "Low-Res" version, but there wasn't even an option to get a higher res image. I assume that a higher resolution is available a since they offer to sell 24"x36" prints, and a 545x817 image isn't going to make a decent 24"x36" print. Maybe a 4"x6" print, but not 24"x36".
I just looked again. I'm glad I bought last night before the price changed to $6.
Also, the only forms I signed was the standard BPS waiver and the NEPL combine registration form. Neither of those documents make any reference to photography. I'm not a lawyer or expert on copyright law, but I believe that without a signed "model release" or similiar, you are on rather shakey ground to be selling the images. I know that journalists can get away with taking photos in a "public place" without copyright fears, but when you charge $95 to get access to something, and it definately was very limited access, I don't think it qualifies as a public place.
I'm not really planning to pursue any sort of legal action about this, but I'm definately not a happy customer.
Oh, by the way, my father sells digital cameras and equipment at Microcenter in Cambridge. He says "nice camera".