TheEulerID: I wish people would not use 3-D and stereoscopic almost interchangeably. I note Brian May's website does not do that, as I'd expect from a trained physicist. (I was fortunate enough to attend the same establishment as he did, and narrowly missed Queen performing on the college circuit as Seven Seas of Rhye became their first UK hit in my first year).
3-D provides perspective change as the observer moves his/her head. Stereoscopic images can't do that. What they provide is an illusion of depth, but the observer can't see around the image. When TV manufacturers, film producers and the like come up with a holographic system, then they can call it 3-D. In the meantime it's stereoscopic and I'm going to be forced to rant at those abusing the term like a crazy person.
On a similar vein, spiral staircases are not spiral. They are helical, but nobody will listen to me on that either.
nb. some would call me a pedant, but I prefer Lynne Truss's term "stickler".
True, and 3D and virtual reality are two different things also; 3D is needed for virtual reality, but you are supported to interact with virtual reality in some way.
EmmanuelStarchild: This looks like a pretty sweet deal. So, I can make money if Getty Images wants to license photos that I post to Flickr? How exactly can I make sure Getty actually sees these images for consideration?
Well, this is a free world; if you/we think 80/20 is not fair, let's build a Getty competitor that is more fair ... after all, even Apple, when sell your work, get only a 30% markup !