So i've seen quite a few comments bashing emmawatsondaily.org/ and thought I'd give my input.
I myself use HQ/UHQ stock image sites. These are sites that the admin of that website likely uses as well. Photographers who work for certain companies are allowed to upload their images to the sites and sell them for a comission. That means they make a certain amount of money every time someone buys an image through the website. I think what emmawatsondaily.org does is use lower priced image sites - there are some that only cost $3 to $10 per photo instead of the usual $50 to $300. And I do not think they're hacking or illegally distributing images. I'm actually tired of seeing that issue debated around here. It's perfectly legal to watermark an image you don't want anyone else stealing as long as there are disclaimers on your site letting the public know that you are not the photographer and are not making profit off it.