I can't speak about Zoonar, about which I know nothing, so my comments apply only to your iStock images.
Brace yourself - the answer belongs to that branch of Illogic peculiar to iStock/Getty, so totally unbelievable to anyone else.

You are indie, so all your iStock images are available on Getty Plus (fka Getty 360), but only to a certain subset of Getty buyers. They are not licensable by any other Getty buyers.

So although your images are searchable via e.g. Google, they cannot be bought other than by the G+ buyers.

Months ago, a friend alerted me to the same screen you saw on one of my images he'd happened to come upon. I saw a message something like not available in your location due to IP or other legal restrictions, which was a mystery, and the image was still on iStock.
I questioned it on one of the facebook groups and was given the above explanation. I asked what was the point of having an image findable via Google, but not purchasable. I got a snide reply (the snidemeister trains his minions well) to the effect that didn't I like good SEO?
The logic escapes me because:
1. The G+ buyers are already in the Getty system, so would surely be searching within Getty.  (It might even be arguable that encouraging them to search via Google might lead them to find content elsewhere.)
2. What's the point of having good SEO to lead organic buyers to Getty, where they can't license the file?
3. Why isn't there AT LEAST a link on the Getty page to the iStock page from which the file can be licensed?
I asked about points 2 and 3, and did not get a reply.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. "Here is the exact file you want but we are not going to let you buy it." seems like an excellent marketing strategy.

^^ is the contract secret? Surely not.
I see that there is quite a lot of easily-available info about unfair contracts in British Columbia; not so much for Alberta, but those directly affected might like to check this out more closely.

Well I never signed it, so uploading is of no consequence to me. Here you go. It's too big to attach here, so here is a link to Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5XjPpZC_ujSfm5NSXZUWGJNakE4TzlUbWFKUXd0UVZNbEVacmszdU4zSVlaMzNPMWFZU1k&usp=sharing

Thanks. I was wondering because I found some videos on P5 that were shot on DSLRs and being sold as 1080 full HD which seemed weird. But I also think native resolution is best for buyer.

And it would also be helpful if Yay dropped their payment threshold to 75 Cents.

Do you have the images up on any of your own sites as proof that they are yours? If you do, you can include those URLs and send DMCA takedown notices to the sites. It won't get your money, but I've found the best way to get companies to take notice of you is to cause trouble with their clients.

I live in East Asia, and while the cost of living is definitely cheaper than my home country of South Africa, the demand for East Asian scenes and models seems to be proportionally less.

Some of the biggest sellers in stock photo and video reside in Cape Town, so perhaps there is a lot to be said about being in the right location.

I was considering dropping all the low earners that seems as though they would never reach payout, and then suddenly one of them surprised me and became my third best earner two months in a row. So, it might be worthwhile to hang on to some potential earners.

Here it what I have seen- now most of the sales are from the 25 a day download section thus cannot predict the monthly $$ amount. Also mileage may very per artist 

Portfolio Size -    Monthly Sales
350            100
700            200
1,050         300
1,400         400
1,750         500
2,100         600
2,450         700
2,800         800
3,150         900
3,500         1,000                         

That looks perfectly linear. My sales went up exponentially with my portfolio size.

I've had mine since I upgraded to FF a few months ago. I think that my old Canon 17-55 was a better lens. Overall I find the 24-105 to have some limitations, but overall it's a great lens.

There doesn't seem to be any problems with sharpness. My gripes with it is mainly the barrel distortion.

FWIW, a few days ago I was looking through DT's camera/lens browser and the 24-105 was the most commonly used lens (By thousands).

Also read what some of the buyers have to say about pricing on the P5 forum. Many say they exclude videos under a certain price from their searches because:
1. They assume anything under that price is rubbish
2. When they give their clients a cost breakdown for a project, their clients are not happy when they have used cheap stock.

I agree with Hobostocker. I live in Taiwan and copyright laws are generally ignored. But that is a university site which should be holding itself to higher standards. Have you tried e-mailing the university?

I've recently being trying to add to my video portfolio of taking video of almost everything I am taking photos of. This works fine for sights and places. But I also tried it for studio shoots with models.

The first time I just set up video lights and shot both with them, but I wasn't too happy with the photos; the video lights require that I shoot at 1/60 ISO800 which wasn't ideal for moving subjects (Granted that my video lights are bare minimum).

The second time I set up both video and strobe lighting as the model would do themes in sets and I would change between photo and video lighting as needed. In my smallish studio space this was quite a nightmare to set up properly without having lights get in each others way.

I'm wondering what workflow others use to shoot photo and video of models on location or studio.

I think the bad sales have something to do with SS only accepting keywords in English and (Probably machine) translating it themselves. So, if your photo's description doesn't translate directly into the Asian language, nobody is going to find it.