Today, I received a payment that puzzled me until I read your comment and discovered that it was from a PP sale in June. I've stopped paying attention to what's going on at IS so I'm not sure why I'm in the PP program. I opted out of it long ago when that was allowed. Have they now forced everyone into it? I thought some of the exclusive collections were still exempt.

It doesn't matter much because I have only a small portfolio remaining there. I deleted most of it a few years back after the Google Drive fiasco so there are no images that I worry about going to random partner sites.

Is there any way to find out which photo was sold via the PP? It's not listed with the regular credit sales. I agree with you that IS's royalty reporting system is frustratingly opaque.

Quote from: polar on July 23, 2015, 11:41

Is there any way to find out which photo was sold via the PP? It's not listed with the regular credit sales. I agree with you that IS's royalty reporting system is frustratingly opaque.

There is a 3rd party script that runs on Google chrome. The old forum (which will go away end of this month), has the details. You can follow this link to read more about it: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352385&page=1

Since the old forum is going away, I am also going ahead and pasting the link to access the 3rd party script: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/istock-myuploads-fixes/ckloododgagaeepfamopjnjgbhbanlcg

Correct, there is also that Android app.
However, both apps have a limitation in terms of sales reported. If you have "too many" sales in a month, you will only see the latest ones. In my case, the Android app list sales only down to June 10th. I can't see sales made between June1st and June 9th, let alone May.
Similarly, with these 3rd party Chrome scripts, a lot of popular photos only show June sales. There is now way I can figure-out what was sold in May.

Quote from: polar on July 23, 2015, 11:41

Today, I received a payment that puzzled me until I read your comment and discovered that it was from a PP sale in June. I've stopped paying attention to what's going on at IS so I'm not sure why I'm in the PP program. I opted out of it long ago when that was allowed. Have they now forced everyone into it? I thought some of the exclusive collections were still exempt.

These would be Getty Plus (formerly Getty 360) sales. They are reported under the Partner Program, but are not Thinkstock sales if you are opted out of the PP.
All iStock files are in Getty Plus, but not all Getty buyers have access to them.
http://istockfaq.gettyimages.com/what-is-getty-360

Ah, thanks for that. I noticed that there is a category called "GI sales" and I've occasionally had royalties reported there. I wouldn't have guessed that PP sales would actually be GI sales. Why would they do that? (I know, I know, why would they do anything they do?)

And why can't they just list the * images sold?

Quote from: ShadySue on July 23, 2015, 13:26

Quote from: polar on July 23, 2015, 11:41

Today, I received a payment that puzzled me until I read your comment and discovered that it was from a PP sale in June. I've stopped paying attention to what's going on at IS so I'm not sure why I'm in the PP program. I opted out of it long ago when that was allowed. Have they now forced everyone into it? I thought some of the exclusive collections were still exempt.

These would be Getty Plus (formerly Getty 360) sales. They are reported under the Partner Program, but are not Thinkstock sales if you are opted out of the PP.
All iStock files are in Getty Plus, but not all Getty buyers have access to them.
http://istockfaq.gettyimages.com/what-is-getty-360

Ah, thanks for that. I noticed that there is a category called "GI sales" and I've occasionally had royalties reported there. I wouldn't have guessed that PP sales would actually be GI sales. Why would they do that? (I know, I know, why would they do anything they do?)

And why can't they just list the * images sold?

GI sales are purple on the charts.
G+ sales are green like PP, and I haven't a clue why they do that.
Before G360 launched, they told us they were going to be purple like other GI sales.
Right hand, left hand. 

BTW, correction to above, I keep forgetting that Editorial is not sold under G+:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445

I am just happy to have seen my numbers jump up. 

So, it happened again: it is almost the end of October and I got payments for August, some for July and even a $0.11 Getty joke for June!

Will IS ever catch up with the competition and start reporting our sales in time?

Same here. Got about $40 more for aug yesterday.

After this situation, I just receive another email:

We regret to inform you that a refund of $xxx has been issued for the purchase of your file #xxxx. This transaction has now been voided from your GI or Partner Program sales. The client has complied with all policies surrounding the refund and destruction of this file.

The refund is from June.... How can this possible Refund from June and now is almost November !!!!!!

 

some big customers like MSN/Microsoft/Yahoo/Google etc etc don't pay immediately the pictures. It's like the big companies pays in 90 to 120 days from the end of the work.
In August i've found one of my images on MSN and still the counter on that image is 0...i'm quite sure they didn't stole the image just they have contract with Getty in which is allowed delay in payment

No, it is not about payments from big companies.

Getty is not the only agency selling to big companies, but is the only agency unable to report a sale as soon as it happens.
If asking for real time PP sales seems too much, then why do we have to wait more than a month to see the IS subscriptions sales?

It is about their outdated website, reporting system and disregard for contributors. IS and Getty intentionally sit on our money.  Their sales reporting system is the joke of the industry. It is difficult to figure out sales made in August and nearly impossible for July or June (neither the Chrome add-ons nor the Android Livestock can go so far back in time)

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 27, 2015, 09:02

No, it is not about payments from big companies.
Getty is not the only agency selling to big companies, but is the only agency unable to report a sale as soon as it happens.
If asking for real time PP sales seems too much, then why do we have to wait more than a month to see the IS subscriptions sales?

Not true; it can take many months on Alamy where a portion of their clients are on e.g. quarterly billing.
Whatever, it makes checking usages very difficult.

What is not true?

- the fact that IS reports their own subscriptions sales more than 1 month later, like no other agency, or
- the fact that Alamy reports a sale as soon as it happens?

It might take several months for Alamy to clear payments, indeed, but their are very clear about the moment a sale is made.

Why is this difficult for IS and why do we accept it?

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 27, 2015, 09:26

...What is not true?

- the fact that IS reports their own subscriptions sales more than 1 month later, like no other agency, or
- the fact that Alamy reports a sale as soon as it happens?

It might take several months for Alamy to clear payments, indeed, but their are very clear about the moment a sale is made.

Alamy does not report image downloads or uses as soon as they happen. Earlier this year I inquired about an image I found in use, credited to me/Alamy, with no sale showing up. Member services replied that some customers take up to 3 months to report usages. After the usage is reported, then there's up to 45 days for any payments to clear. It's a pretty broken system given the current setup (might have been OK a decade ago), but it's not a software snafu, it's business policy on Alamy's part

This is interesting.
But aren't you talking about an exception to the rule?
The Alamy sales report header looks like this:
Alamy ref   Your ref   Pseudonym   Date purchased/refunded    Licence   Details   Amount
.........
         26-Oct-15         

Do you say that the sale I had yesterday was not made yesterday, despite the header specifying yesterday as the "Date Purchased"?

I personally doubt it.

It will be a huge step forward if IS could make something like this work!
Defending their ancient IT system is not helping.

Ok, I believe you. But this will only add Alamy next to iStock/Getty to the agencies we should all push for more transparency.

Let IS start by reporting their subs the same way they report their credit sales.

About a couple of months ago, I saw my total under 'Account Balance' (in the 'Financials' tab) go up by 18 cents. I could not find the details of what sold in the 'Stats' tab, under any of the months (all the way through March-2013 when I started with iStock).

I hoped that once the PP run completed I would be able to spot the sale that gave me the 18 cents. I could not see it and one more month and PP sales also has passed.

Yesterday, I totalled all my 'gross royalties' in the 'Stats' tab for all the months from March-2013 to October-2015 and when I compare it with the 'Total Earnings:' in the 'Financials' tab, there is that difference of 18 cents (Total Earnings is more than the total of monthly gross royalties by 18 cents).

Has anyone experienced this in the past ? If so, can you tell me what I may be missing or overlooking ? I can raise a support ticket with iStock, but just in case, I may be missing something, I thought I will check in this forum.

Thanks !