Someone posted the terms of usage that seems to me, utterly inappropriate for pro's.
FWIW, I don't think it's an issue of "professionals" vs. not; even "non-professional" services don't make such rights grabs. For two examples, the Flickr terms of service
"Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable ... With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services."
And the Kodak Gallery terms of service
"Kodak Imaging Network does not claim ownership rights in any image contained in your account. In order to enable us to display your images through the Service (for example, in slideshows and on sample merchandise) and fulfill any orders for you or others who have access to your images, you grant to Kodak Imaging Network a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, distribute and display those images."