pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Retroactive raise in Royalty?  (Read 10766 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2014, 22:58 »
0

Did I miss something? I thought independent vector folks were at a fixed 20% for a while now. How can I go up a level?
Yes, you missed replies #3, #6 and #9 above.

Sorry but I still don't see anything here that answers my question. I don't understand how any sort of adjustment can be made for vector folks when we've been on a fixed royalty rate for well over a year now. There's nothing to adjust, no levels to go up or down, no royalties to change.

The answer is that the letters were wrong according to Lobo.  The money was not for moving up a level or changing royalties.  Some other mistake was being corrected and we won't know what until we get the new letters. 


« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2014, 15:51 »
+1
"LOBO ETA: The retroactive royalties are legitimate. However, the email sent is clearly incorrect. We will get the correct email out to you all early next week. We're sorry for the confusion."

Well it's already too late to be early next week.

« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2014, 16:27 »
0

This just in:

Quote
On October 10, 2014 we made the following royalty adjustments to your account but we mistakenly attributed the royalty payments to Redeemed Credit level rates. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

The following file(s) were recently licensed to an iStock customer in a transaction that did not occur through the website:

FileID XXXXXXXXX

We have made an adjustment to your account and added your royalty from the license(s), which totals:

FileID XXXXXXXXX = $X

« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2014, 16:37 »
0
Yes, I got the same. I wonder what the details were, and since it was IS - how much we got screwed. At least they fessed up eventually.

« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2014, 16:40 »
0
Another Google or Microsoft deal? Naaa. Can't be. I got too much money for one of those deals.

dbvirago

« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2014, 17:04 »
0
Here you go. This should make it completely clear to everyone:

"On October 10, 2014 we made the following royalty adjustments to your account but we mistakenly attributed the royalty payments to Redeemed Credit level rates. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

The following file(s) were recently licensed to an iStock customer in a transaction that did not occur through the website:


We have made an adjustment to your account and added your royalty from the license(s), which totals:"

« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2014, 17:13 »
+4
Well, I'd sure be interested to hear how my work was recently licensed by iStock, since I got an email.

Eta: but I received no correction email.

Etaa: I'd be very worried this is another shady deal.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 17:57 by Sean Locke Photography »

KB

« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2014, 17:42 »
0
Etaa: I'd be very worried this is another shady deal.
There can be NO doubt about that.

I had 3 files that sold for 65c, 6 files that sold for $3. One of the 65c sellers was an S+, several of the $3 ones were S+. So there was no difference in commission based on collection. Does that mean these sales happened after the changes mid-Sep? Or did they simply price ALL files the same even before then?

I assume the 65c sales were for either smaller sizes or more restricted uses. But we were given NO clarity whatsoever, so can only make worthless guesses.

Typical Getty shenanigans.

« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2014, 17:46 »
+5
I just contacted iStock support because three of the four files "recently" licensed to an iStock customer were ones I deactivated in February 2013 (over the refusing contributor opt outs for the Getty-Google deal and similar).

They had no right to license these images to anyone, through the website or any other way.

I'll post whatever reply I get.

Tossers!

« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2014, 18:00 »
+1
I just talked to IS, and it is money from previous licenses ( not recent ), where the buyer wanted an extended license or further permissions on an EL, like more items for resale.  That's how I understood it.

« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2014, 18:04 »
0
If what they told you is accurate, I don't know why the e-mail said "The following file(s) were recently licensed to an iStock customer in a transaction that did not occur through the website"

I also don't know if they're in a position to grant more permissions or anything else when a file has been deactivated just because the buyer licensed it originally while it was active.

I'm not going to hire a lawyer over 60-something dollars, but I find their high-handed approach pretty outrageous, particularly because it was over their high-handed approach that I had to deactivate the files in the first place.

KB

« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2014, 18:06 »
+1
I just talked to IS, and it is money from previous licenses ( not recent ), where the buyer wanted an extended license or further permissions on an EL, like more items for resale.  That's how I understood it.
Unless that answer was specific to your files, they are just making things up.

NONE of the files that they listed in my email have ever had ELs (and I find it difficult to believe that even Getty would give away an EL for an amount that would lead to a 65c or even $3 commission).

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2014, 18:07 »
0
Wonder why a proportion of these extra-website transactions came to $0.

« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2014, 18:14 »
0
Wonder why a proportion of these extra-website transactions came to $0.

I received three 3-mails on Friday. One for $62.52 which is 3 x 20.84 from the list of four licenses I received today. One e-mail was for 39 cents (the 4th license from today's e-mail) and one of Friday's was for $0 - no file number or other information in today's e-mail accounts for that. Weren't there some of the scammy deals that had licenses that rounded from fractional cents to 0?

« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2014, 18:15 »
+1
If what they told you is accurate, I don't know why the e-mail said "The following file(s) were recently licensed to an iStock customer in a transaction that did not occur through the website"

I also don't know if they're in a position to grant more permissions or anything else when a file has been deactivated just because the buyer licensed it originally while it was active.

I'm not going to hire a lawyer over 60-something dollars, but I find their high-handed approach pretty outrageous, particularly because it was over their high-handed approach that I had to deactivate the files in the first place.

Yes, I specifically asked "So, these are not _recent_ licenses..." .  So, if they were previous license EL additions or EL modifications, at least it isn't a new shady deal.

You're right.  They aren't in a position to change the agreement.  I'm just not sure it's egregious or worthy enough to get all legal about it.

eta: I just got my email with the IDs, and the images were across the board, from 2012, back to 2005 - weird mix.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 18:27 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2014, 18:31 »
0
The one file that isn't deactivated is one that only ever sold an extended license (in April 2010) - a multi-seat license (unlimited) where I netted $30.60. Friday's adjustment added $20.84 to that. If it's an unlimited number of seats, what's to add?

The other three files all sold unlimited multi-seat licenses - Jan 12, 2011, Jun 13, 2011 and Sep 21, 2011.

It's unclear why one of the four was 39 cents versus the other three $20.84...

« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2014, 18:34 »
0
I think it could be where there was a standard license, and an EL was added, possibly.

« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2014, 18:46 »
0
I'll post whatever contributor support supplies as an explanation, whenever that happens :)

« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2014, 19:24 »
+1
So maybe they found some people using a files outside the license terms and billed for an EL. That would make it outside the website and would account for what Sean was told and also to why Jo Ann was paid on an inactive file.

KB

« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2014, 19:39 »
0
So maybe they found some people using a files outside the license terms and billed for an EL. That would make it outside the website and would account for what Sean was told and also to why Jo Ann was paid on an inactive file.
But that wouldn't explain my 65c or $3 sales. So it seems like there were multiple issues here, suddenly discovered. Or the EL issue discovered, PLUS an off-site special deal made. Some of my sales were related and so clearly the same buyer (two subject groups, so probably two buyers, plus unrelated sales). From my POV, it feels like a special, off-site (below market) deal.

« Reply #45 on: October 15, 2014, 19:40 »
0
Same problem as Jo Ann Snover for me, I have deactivated all my files since march 2014 and I have 3 sales (from deactivated files of course) each for 0.35$...

« Reply #46 on: October 15, 2014, 22:45 »
+1
Am I the only one not unhappy about this?  I am very happy to have an extra $250 or so in my account. 

I complain when they DON'T pay me money owed, but I won't complain when they DO. 
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 22:50 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #47 on: October 16, 2014, 00:21 »
+4
I think for most people the lack of communication is the problem.

« Reply #48 on: October 16, 2014, 02:08 »
0
Same problem as Jo Ann Snover for me, I have deactivated all my files since march 2014 and I have 3 sales (from deactivated files of course) each for 0.35$...
Unfortunately "deactivating" is not working correctly. Numerous files are not removed after being deactivated, from partner sites like Thinkstock or Fotomore. The problem is very serious and old. Nothing has been done.
You have to contact CR and they remove "manually files. But sometimes files can "reborn" later.

« Reply #49 on: October 16, 2014, 03:36 »
0
"licensed to an iStock customer in a transaction that did not occur through the website"

How nice of iStock to word their lie so carefully. There is no such thing as a transaction not occurring through the website, the files are downloaded from the website. Ah, but the money that was paid didn't go through the website? Meaning the money wasn't accounted for and they "forgot" to pay out our share. Could someone remind me of the exact definition of corporate theft?

I wonder what prompted them to issue the correction at all. Did they get caught and were afraid of legal action?

And there was I, thinking this was actually our 100% royalty day payment. What happened to that?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4473 Views
Last post March 31, 2006, 02:38
by CJPhoto
26 Replies
11397 Views
Last post July 11, 2010, 07:27
by microstockphoto.co.uk
5 Replies
4324 Views
Last post March 04, 2008, 17:26
by andresr
2 Replies
2540 Views
Last post April 01, 2008, 13:40
by lisafx
3 Replies
4079 Views
Last post October 30, 2015, 13:47
by Microstock Posts

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle