This is why I avoided Flickr for a long time. There's no mistaking he stole it because security is set to give the spaceball.gif so it's a screenshot or something.

Just checking: You do have set the image licence "All rights reserved" on Flickr, right?

Send a cease and desist letter and ask him to remove under 10 days or else you'll sue him for 10,000$. If he doesn't comply, sue him for 10,000$ or more. Copyrights are important and should be enforce.

The problem here is that in the most likely case the image is removed and you get nothing.
It would be better to bill for the image and if not paid (or the image is removed) then sue.

Both Getty and Alamy have been reporting plummeting sales for some time whilst the micros are booming with no sign of a slowdown yet. IS have just reported that they have 125K new members joining every month.

Those are both bad things.

When you talk about 'lifetime RPI' are you talking gross or net figures? I note that macro shooters always seem to talk in gross terms whereas micro shooters always use net.

I have a feeling it's the other way around. Many (non-full-time) micro shooters tend to "forget" about their investments in gear, gasoline and hours of work.

Many of these are also typos. Khiwi, lighteffects, mediavel, humanparts, sanserif etc.
There are also a couple that seems to be just someone trying to find pics of hot girls: gstring, short skirts

Go to the "Account" tab. Under "Account Information", click on "Personal Information". 

Hey, thanks, I found it! I had set it at $500 propably in the beginning and then forgot about it

I decided to get my first ever payment from 123rf.com. But I can't find anywhere how to request a payment. FAQ says: "No request is necessary. if you are eligible, we will pay you according to the payment method you have selected in your profile."

I have nothing payment related on my "profile" page. Or "account" page. Or "earnings" page. Or any other place either...

The size limit is from good ol' scanning days. It has nothing to do with current digital cameras, NOTHING.
About 50MB is a good size, about enough to fill a magazine spread, it's the fault of digital cameras not being able to produce such large files without interpolation. Alamy doesn't want to change this because they don't want their clients to find an image and then see that it isn't large enough (yes, this could be solved with some checkboxes or such, but that could get complicated if they are able to do some cropping etc.)

My 5D mk II (~60MB 8bit) makes much sense Alamy-wise and makes life easier

PS. Don't you kids forget that all colors are interpolated in a bayer-sensor, there is no "real" resolution. The images are always interpolated some way. The color resolution of a sensor is only half of what they claim to be. A 20MB sensor is really a 5MB sensor (color-wise).
Didn't Nikon buy Foveon technology from Sigma? A 12mpix Foveon would be very, very top-notch...

Overall a pretty decent month. Not BME but not very far away either. I have been quite lazy uploader last month so this was a very acceptable result.

These are my big5, from best earner to the worst:

IS a good solid month. Best earner by a marigin, the next one (SS) earns me only half of what IS earns.
SS a strong month, very close to being BME (missed only by a few dollars)
FT a good month. A Long way from BME, but I didn't have any ELs this month
DT better than october, still pretty weak and about -25% from may BME despite my new uploads.
SX weak. But seems to be quite stable.

lets see your portfolio at shutterstock!

That's why I wouldn't tell about this in any forum. Do you remember what happened to a contributor who did similar test on IS and posted the result on the forum? His account was terminated on IS.

That's why I use a different alias here and on microstock sites

I am not surprised at all that your images were accepted second time. Maybe they were good enough, but that particular reviewer was very tired, or he/she simply didn't like your images for some reason. You had more luck second time

The problem is that there should be no "luck" involved. It's very frustrating to shoot, process, photoshop, keyword, upload and then get rejected just because some stupid individual clicked the wrong button or had a bad lunch.

I think sites should make a page with rejected images where you could click a button if you have a problem with a rejection. The reviewers/inspectors/whatever that have most clicks should be straightened out by the agency. Or you could get images re-reviewed if you want to (the amount of images could be limited, let's say you could have 10% of the rejected images re-reviewed)

I'm not sure that's the correct way to do it, but they certainly would need some kind of a review quality feedback-system.

I also think that I would LOVE a site that doesn't require categories or keywords BEFORE an image is accepted (we all know that for example Alamy and Photocase does this)

Luckily the site with the most painstaking uploading system (iStock) has also the best reviewers (of the best selling sites. We all know the low-earners accept junk)

I would rather submit and forget, then gamble that they don't catch me. If memory serves, someone got banned for flagrant re-submitting

I would rather see that they would reject only when there is clearly a technical reason instead rejecting images based on reviewers' (bad) taste...

I don't plan to mass-submit my rejected images, but a few now and then (the ones I feel I will miss most sales if I don't re-submit)

I tried to upload 20 images that were earlier rejected by SS. I did this because these images have sold elsewhere and the rejection reasons were a matter of taste: "composition", "lighting" etc.

What happened? Every image got accepted. Every single of them. This is how consistent their reviewing process is...

I just got 20 new images at SS without any shooting/processing.

I'll keep you updated if I sell any of these images

Oh, hey, where's the site what accepts flat light? That's my biggest rejection reason as that's what our light is like, most of the time.

Most sites. I have had my images rejected for both uneven light and harsh shadows. A moderately dull "large softbox" light seems to be the microstock industry standard, no need to get any gobos or snoots.