There has been an ongoing $0 sale issue.
It looks like Getty Images is the most likely answer for the OP. The images were only put up on Getty at the very end of January, and February sales aren't due to be notified until the end of March.

Really? It's never sold at all (apparently) in 15 months on IS but as soon as it gets to Getty it sells almost immediately. Possible but hardly likely.

Considering that Istock can't even build a secure site or a working search engine and simply gave up attempting to produce real-time statistics 3 years ago ... why would anyone assume that their sales reporting system was particularly robust? Istock have got plenty of form when it comes to accounting 'errors' that just happen to be in their favour ... but not so much the other way.

I'm surprised the OP hasn't yet contacted the magazine to find out where and when they bought the license.

Oh, I'm not defending iStock. Just the possibilities.
I believe from hearsay that if CE are looking into it, they ask you not to contact them yourself.
Of course, it could just as easily be that it is a genuine sale which hasn't been reported to the tog.

Of course if the OP does not contact the magazine, and lets 'CE' handle themselves, then if it turns out to be an IS mistake ... a sale could subsequently be 'generated' at Getty to make the issue conveniently disappear. He needs to find out the truth for himself.

Quote from: ShadySue on March 23, 2011, 17:48

There has been an ongoing $0 sale issue.
It looks like Getty Images is the most likely answer for the OP. The images were only put up on Getty at the very end of January, and February sales aren't due to be notified until

I don't know, the OP, later in the thread said he doesn't think it's a Getty sale. I hope he let's everyone know the outcome, provided he's not required to sign an NDA.  

Actually, I suspect, based on my interpretation of what I have/haven't been told about a couple of previous 'irregularities' (i.e. when it turned out an image had been misused) but don't know, that they have to sign one.

The zero dollar sale is that for some stupid reason they round down sales reports on their GI Sales page, and it was an under a dollar royalty - probably a $5 sale for web or whatever.

One would hopefully assume the correct payment is in the account.

The OP in that thread's image was found in a print magazine, though.

Is this one of the images that was stolen in the recent credit card scam?  It may be that those images are now being sold somewhere else and the magazine bought it innocently thinking that it was a legitimate sale.

The OP has posted:
"I just called the magazine and they told me it was bought over getty. Since it was printed in febuary as far as I know it should show up in the GI sales from yesterday, but I can't find it there. Maybe getty pushed it into march. Weird...."

The OP has posted:
"I just called the magazine and they told me it was bought over getty. Since it was printed in febuary as far as I know it should show up in the GI sales from yesterday, but I can't find it there. Maybe getty pushed it into march. Weird...."

The OP better check who is listed as the copyright holder to the image over on Getty. It's my understanding that many of the images over on Getty have someone different than the photographer listed, so who even knows who is getting paid! I know someone who has "Ocean Photography" listed as the copyright holder to their images. Who (or what) the heck is Ocean Photography and why would Getty replace the real copyright holder with that name?

The OP has posted:
"I just called the magazine and they told me it was bought over getty. Since it was printed in febuary as far as I know it should show up in the GI sales from yesterday, but I can't find it there. Maybe getty pushed it into march. Weird...."

Ah.  Thanks for the update Liz.    I'm relieved to know that.  Guess I will continue to assume all sales are being recorded until/unless I hear otherwise. 

Quote from: sjlocke on March 23, 2011, 20:34

The zero dollar sale is that for some stupid reason they round down sales reports on their GI Sales page, and it was an under a dollar royalty - probably a $5 sale for web or whatever.

One would hopefully assume the correct payment is in the account.

Thanks for explaining.  I admit, I haven't been following the issue on the IS forums, so I didn't know this. 

Am I correct in assuming that this is a sale of a Vetta or Agency file, through Getty?  And it netted you less than $1?

Yeah, score!  It's a 200x100 pix or something.

Quote from: ShadySue on March 24, 2011, 07:20

The OP has posted:
"I just called the magazine and they told me it was bought over getty. Since it was printed in febuary as far as I know it should show up in the GI sales from yesterday, but I can't find it there. Maybe getty pushed it into march. Weird...."

The OP better check who is listed as the copyright holder to the image over on Getty. It's my understanding that many of the images over on Getty have someone different than the photographer listed, so who even knows who is getting paid! I know someone who has "Ocean Photography" listed as the copyright holder to their images. Who (or what) the heck is Ocean Photography and why would Getty replace the real copyright holder with that name?

yep, some of mine are there.  this, in spite of the fact that I canceled my Getty contract a few months ago.  all my getty files are still at getty and 4 or 5 of them are at Veer under the "ocean photography" label.  however, I found them using my name in the search, so I'm given credit somewhere apparently.

More iStock logo program failin'. Still no hint of a lauch date. I like how the logo admin says "the logo program can't exist" without the contributors. Is it too obvious to point out, that the logo program actually doesn't really exist? I feel bad for all the people who submitted. Making logos takes a lot of time, and from what I've seen of the submission process, iStock doesn't make it any easier.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&page=1#post6174672

this is the one I just don't get.  Why has it been delayed so long?  I'm glad I never got around to submitting again after my initial upload.  what a waste.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=308462&messageid=6019582

"While its true that we indeed plan, very thoroughly, future developments and improvements for the year ahead, it's also necessary that we are able to shift our development focus if the need arises. The past year has seen significant changes in iStock (F5 being one of many) in our effort to fortify our position in the marketplace and make things better for everyone, our contributors and customers alike."

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like the development resources planned to be used to implement the logo program got sucked into F5 and other stuff, and rather than hire more staff, they delayed the logo program.

Then the logo program will never be launched. The site is such a mess I find it hard to believe it would ever get fixed. I wonder how many people are still submitting logos to that dead horse (aside from the few that are still submitting to the challenges).

The other thing about the logos that I've seen that I wonder about is how they are even going to have a market. Some of them are *so* specific that I can't see them fitting too many businesses. I thought the whole point was to create something general.

Funny thing is that almost all designers, who represent most of Istock's customers and a great many of their contributors too, were venomously against the idea when it was first announced.

No other microstock agency has bothered to dip their toe in the logo market either. Presumeably because it is considered too small to bother with.