I'm going to be honest I don't know on what basis photo "aggregator" accounts claim to operate when what they're doing is so clearly building a business on copyright violations

Kind of one of the reasons I'm not a fan of attributions except where it's in an explicit license or mandated in statute is somehow the argument around a lot of these has centred around the proximity and visibility of attribution where I don't think that legally matters at all

My understanding in Canada at least is attribution is required for fair dealing in cases of reporting or criticism, but otherwise it does not affect your right to publish copyrighted material at all

Whether you put attribution on the original tweet, in a reply tweet or start a separate attribution account, grabbing and re-uploading people's photos on your own Twitter account unmodified is still a clear copyright violation

My problem with the attributions laser focus, generally, is that it makes copyright about who gets credit whereas legally the only real concern is commercially out-competing artists by making them bear the costs of the work and publishing it for free yourself

The law doesn't care if people think you're cool; it does care if you spend a fortune on training, equipment, practice, travel, shooting, editing and server space while someone else with more twitter eyeballs just slaps it on a tweet to spam the replies with affiliate links

That's why fair dealing exceptions mostly centre around ways people use commercial work that doesn't turn around and compete with its creators: you can copy material for study, research, reporting, criticism and satire, just not to do literally the one thing aggregators do