Somehow, I stumbled upon this old thread:

May 26th 2011 (sic)
"These two files are obviously flopped
14246401
14246400
Bug? Inspector not very good at geography?"

...  ...

Lobo, May 27th 2011:
It was one of the accounts created in order to migrate content from Getty back in September. As for how the file passed through flipped on it's arse is another question all together. I will get someone to resolve that in a timely fashion.

[1] Charming for a representative of the company to reply in that wise. Similar to that email urging us to send that facebook app thing to show others that we give a d*mn. (Yes, I swear, but not when acting in a professional capacity.)
[2] It is not 'flipped on it's (sic) arse', it is flipped from side to side.
[3] Seven months later, it is still not 'resolved'.

I'd laugh, if it weren't so scarily tragic. Of course, it's an agency file.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14246401-map-of-china-and-northeastern-asia.php
Although titled 'Map of China and northeastern Asia', China isn't in its keywords, but it is 15 by best match on 'map of Korea': above fold, very embarrassing.

The other is a flipped map of France:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14246400-map-of-france.php, but at least it's down at 62 on 'map of France'.

So, if 'six months' is a 'timely manner' for getting something as simple as this sorted, (whoops, it's not sorted yet) no wonder we can't get any answer to the postings about why the missing downloads, promised for Monday 13th, are still missing without any explanations or updates.

iStock seem to have introduced some sort of Facebook app whereby facebook users can choose from a selection of iStock images to send ecards to friends. There is no charge to facebook users, no direct benefit to iStockers whose images are used and no opt out. (With the last artists' agreement change, they forced us into all marketing initiatives.)

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338419&page=1

Disclaimer: I don't 'get' Facebook. I had to join to get information about an event I was participating in (why couldn't the organisers have put the info on their website?) and now just sit there, nothing happening, waste of time. Like Twitter - joined at the time of that silly iStock twitter shenanigans last April, posted that day a couple of times, nada since; yet even today, I got some sort of perv as a 'follower'.

Is this sort of free thing really likely to attract actual cashpaying buyers?

[Or is it 'we won't know until we've tried?]

It's now well over a year since I've been banned from iStock forums for telling uncomfortable truths.

However, as they're so buggy, from time to time, I'm able to post.

So about a month ago, I posted about two bugs. These posts were deleted, and in each case, a day or two later, the bugs were reported again. In the last couple of days, I posted a request for a keyword (there would be no point in me uploading a photo without that keyword, as it already has four unrelated DAs in other languages) and a note of a necessary - and constantly repeating - batch wiki.

I'm just uploading an image, and noticed a mistake (mis-spelling) in a DA of an important keyword. I was just about to post a note in the keywording forum about it when I noticed that my two most recent posts have also been deleted.

What on earth is the point of that?
Why do I even bother?

Totally off topic.
I need to email someone urgently. She wrote her email address but I didn't look at it when she wrote it.
Her email addy, in very clear writing, is name.name*[email protected], where *= a O with a diagonal line through it, which I can't even see how to insert here.
I can't see any way to put that symbol into the To line of an email in any of my three webmail programs. More confusing still, the way she's written it, clearly, it's not the usual non-ASCII O-slash, as her diagonal line goes top left to bottom right.
She seems not to be in the phone book and I have no other way of contacting her. Teach me to look at someone's email in future.
HELP please!

Amazing footage shows mountain biker ambushed by African antelope

I'e just found one of my (very) few Vettas on Photobucket, under someone else's name, though not directly claiming to be photographed by her. It seems anyone is invited to download the pic or share it on a gazillion of social meda, many of which I haven't heard of. AFAICS, the image is available at c600x400.
There's no watermark on it, so it may be that she has bought the original, or it may be she's copied it from a legitmate buyer.
Even assuming she is a genuine buyer, is that allowed?
(I checked and each of her images I clicked on seems to be 'all over the web'. I also found it a bit disconcerting that clicking on my pic on her page didn't turn up iStockphoto in the first few pages, unlike TinEye, and in fact nor did clicking on the pic in my iStock port.)

Hmm a short locked note from Joyze about changes to iStock's privacy policy, but the changes don't seem to be highlighted.
http://www.istockphoto.com/privacy.php

I've read here some people saying that they don't read iStock's forums any more, only here.
These people might like to check their privacy settings on iStock if they have hidden their real name or location from public view.
If you opted to keep them hidden, they were now showing again.
You need to go into Preferences > Profile > Edit Profile to change them back.
Appalling.
Mentioned on the Help thread or I might not have noticed for several days.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333908&page=1
In fact, it was sheer luck that I rechecked that thread, as the privacy issue wasn't there last time I looked, just the best match.
That should definitely have its own thread, or a group email sent out, though I and many others don't get the group emails.
ETA: also, but not as crucially for contributors, what details you see with the thums.
I see there's now a locked thread in the discussion group. Kelvin's response was a bit disingenous, as at the time of writing at least there was nothing in the title of that Help thread that indicated the serious privacy breach.

Could someone who is going take part in the live chat tomorrow please ask Mr Pinney what he means by, "imagery that has a different kind of integrity".
Does he just mean 'a different kind of imagery', i.e. editorial-lite for blogs, which is where he seems to have located iStock editorial offerings.
Or does he mean 'a different kind of integrity' in like wise to JJRD's "different kind of trust"?

New Alamy scheme discovered by contributor, not notified to contributors first.
I can't seem to provide links to the Alamy forums which work, but it's the Discussion Forum thread headed 'Premium Account'.
First post was about this article:
http://www.abouttheimage.com/4332/hello_alamy_what_exactly_is_a_premium_account
Followed in the thread by a lot of disbelief etc.
Alamy Sales Pitch
"Regarding photo rates we�re working on a new package called the Alamy Premium Account, the benefits are:
$49 (US) per image
Unlimited repeat below the line use over 10 years, worldwide*
Un-watermarked �try before you buy� downloads.
No print run/impression limitations.
Unrestricted file size (typically 50MB).
22 million images available on http://www.alamy.com/bespoke and growing.
No credits, subscriptions or volume commitments.
Unlimited shared access to your library of purchases.
No differentiation between Royalty-free and Rights Managed images. "

A lot of contributor wrath, then on page 4, James West steps in:
"On the subject of Rights Management I must stress that we are not 'giving away rights for everything'. We are experimenting with giving *some* customers a broad set of rights with a time limit and a restriction on high value usages like advertising. I want to see RM images bought back into markets where they are being locked out by the combined forces of microstock pricing and customers requiring simplicity, and I want to see your images pick up those high value advertising sales when they come along.
On the subject of opt-in/opt-outs - (a.) we are always trying out new stuff and (b.) providing opt-in/opt-out for every idea we try is impossible.
My job is to make Alamy viable for producers and consumers of photography, but my company's fortunes are completely tied to those of our contributors. If our business practices were unsustainable for our contributors then the same would apply to Alamy. If Alamy revenues half, contributor revenues half. If Alamy revenues double, contributor revenues double.
If our sole motivation was profit we would raise the commission we charge contributors and raise the prices we charge customers. This would pass the cost of a reduced market share (because some customers would stop using us) onto our contributors (who will make less sales), whilst keeping Alamy's profit levels secure.
This industry has been in a tremendous state of flux over the past decade and the pace of change is accelerating. If we don't stay nimble and open-minded to new ideas, this business will wither on the vine."

Whatever you think or don't think of the scheme, it looks like people like me who sell RF exclusively on iStock and RM on Alamy will have to think again. (Remember, for a while iStock didn't sell editorial, so this was a logical choice,and still is IMO for less usual locations/images).

There is strong suggestion that if you set a restriction, the one suggested being a geographical restriction on selling to a small country with probably few buyers like Togo, that will get your images out of that scheme, but haven't seen that confirmed yet. BUT if you have a restriction on your images, you're automatically opted out of all the international distributors. http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/11/13/3765.aspx I'd say about 40% of my Alamy sales are distributor sales.

Not happy.   :'( Although I make much more on iStock overall, I'm pretty sure I make more at Alamy on the images that sell there than I would at iStock with these images, so don't want to have to leave and move everything over to iStock. Don't actually want all my eggs in one basket either, but don't want the hassle of having to upload to all micros. At the moment, iStock RF/Alamy RM was a good balance for me.

I wrote to Alamy yesterday because I had a use last week in a UK newspaper website (at least).
Then I found the image being used in some sort of site that linked to the article in the newspaper's website.
So I wrote to ask if this was a legitimage usage - the linking site isn't linked to the newspaper.
The reply I got was:

" ...Please note that Alamy do not follow up usages in the following
situations:

1.         If an article has been linked to from another web site/ blog
article or forum/chat site.

2.         If an entire article including the image has been copied in a
web site/ blog article or forum/chat site.

This is because Alamy sold an image to a client, and another source copies this usage from the client without their permission. You are free to follow this up at your end contacting the website in question

No better than iStock, then. 

Does anyone know what these big slatted adverts which look like venetian blinds, where the slats individually rotate to change the adverts, is actually called? Often seen in railway stations. (Not the Jumbotrons like in Times Square). TIA.