It seems like iStock hasn't yet gotten round to telling us what we've earned in Mar. Or its a super low number and it'll hardly make a difference so why bother

Sent from my SM-G996B using Tapatalk

Well it's either 18. of month or it's problems and it's late, they rarely nail it on 20.

Quote from: qunamax on April 20, 2021, 10:04

Well it's either 18. of month or it's problems and it's late, they rarely nail it on 20.

16th shows as my earliest, 19th or 20th is usual I see one last year on the 24th.

I'm kind of excited (kidding!) to see if I actually had two sales for the period, because I checked the numbers by memory and it looks like one photo and one illustration. I'm happy because that makes it much easier to close up and leave them.

Quote from: Bad Robot on April 21, 2021, 02:51

So much excitement over receiving pennies 

I care little for pennies, but I am rather excited about the few hundred bucks I usually make on Istock. 


This constant looking down on contributors who decide to submit to an agency where they make decent money, but you aren't is getting a bit tiresome. iStock isn't working out for you? Well, sucks. But to some people it's one of their top earners and to some, like myself, it is actually not just pocket change, but money that makes a big contribution to, for example, paying their rent.
I am not going around making fun of contributors for submitting to Pond5 or Alamy or being excited about their earnings there, just because these agencies aren't eaning me any noteworthy amount of money. I understand that, what works for them, might not work for me and the other way around.
If you make fun of people for being excited about "earning pennies" just because that's all you earn  there and automatically assume it must be the same for everyone else, the joke is really on you.

Why were they deactivated Pete?

Quote from: qunamax on April 21, 2021, 10:56

Why were they deactivated Pete?

Because the evil agency... 

Just kidding. When Getty took over, around the time of ESP and when all of our images were changed to the Getty servers, they had a policy change. In simple terms, sports and editorial, news, entertainment,  those kinds of things, that isn't from Getty, would no longer be sold by iStock. I can understand their reasoning, I just don't like it. Tough luck? Business is business.

Getty pays people to go to these events and take photos. They are sold and branded as Getty Images, I'm sure we've all seen those on news, current entertainment events and sports stories. Standing next to their hired guns, at the same events, is little me, who uploaded my work to iStock. Getty owned iStock and iStock was competition. Easy answer, eliminate the completion. Eliminate Pete.

Audio they signed an exclusive contract with a different provider, no more in house uploads from us contributors. Phased out.

So just take this as whining and complaining about something that's expected and standard business. I don't make much or sell much on IS now because first off, I didn't have that much that wasn't editorial. I also got tired of the system, where I could upload things and get accepted and a week later, the release wasn't right. I'd finally get one that was approved, or hit and miss, and then the new one was not suitable. The processing, the CV and the torture, I gave up. So lets say much of the problem with low sales is created by myself.

Good images will sell, and the people here who still earn on IS are proof. But in fact, I've been stabbed, then shot and finally hung, of course I'm a little bitter, because I barely make $5 a month now. 

So they didn't remove my images because I was a PITA or did something wrong. Just policy changes.

Hard to believe all other agencies can tell me instantly what I have sold but iStock/Getty - with decades of experience - is not able to issue a monthly statement.