Author Topic: transaction that did not occur through the website? (Read 8275 times)

Zero Talent · « **on:** February 11, 2016, 17:11 »

I got an email from istock saying:

Dear Contributor,

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

xxxxxxxxx
yyyyyyyyy
zzzzzzzzz
....

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

Nice to see some extra $, but what does it mean, "not through the website"?

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2016, 17:14 »

I got one of those. Makes me wonder where the transaction did occur. Are they selling our images on street corners now

Julied83 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2016, 17:17 »

And also no information about what type of liscence the file was sold and where it's came from. Serious istock, you need to improve that with contributor. Transparency. A lot more !

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2016, 18:24 »

Yes, I got a long list of them too.

No notification about image pack sub royalty adjustment though, nor a response to the support ticket I put in about the missing email.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2016, 18:45 »

Wow, they got seven files and I got $8.19 (total).
This has happened before and I can't remember what the explanation was; and I don't see anything current on their forum.

KB · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2016, 19:06 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 11, 2016, 18:45

Wow, they got seven files and I got $8.19 (total).

And I "sold" six files and got $7.02. So $1.17 each? For ... what kind of usage? We'll never know.

Might as well be bundled with the sub sales.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2016, 19:20 »

The last time this happened to me I got in touch with support and the explanation was that an existing customer had come back for extended licenses. I had a bit of a go-around with them as the images had been deactivated between the time they were originally licensed and the EL was sold.

They never explained by this was processed off books but I did get an amount for each file versus just a file list and total amount. They have the details if you don't mind waiting for answers to support tickets.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2016, 19:33 »

I had 12 for $7.44, so about $0.62 per sale. They haven't shown up on any of the monthly tallies so who knows what that means. At least they are providing the corrections, just would be nice to know a bit more and how that can happen.

The Mighty Jungle · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2016, 19:52 »

I received same message today. They listed 12 of my images and I got a grand total of

$16.32.

That's a very weird amount for 12 images. I wish they gave us an explanation...

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2016, 20:36 »

OK, a bit of Googling threw up this thread on the old iStock forum, to which I trust we can still link, from October 2014. It's doubly confusing, because they first sent out the wrong email to people, then corrected it, but it looks like they gave no more information then than we're getting now, and the advice was to contact CR for more information.
http://www.istockphoto.com/gb/forum_messages.php?threadid=363577&page=1

polar · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2016, 22:43 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 11, 2016, 19:20

The last time this happened to me I got in touch with support and the explanation was that an existing customer had come back for extended licenses. I had a bit of a go-around with them as the images had been deactivated between the time they were originally licensed and the EL was sold.

They never explained by this was processed off books but I did get an amount for each file versus just a file list and total amount. They have the details if you don't mind waiting for answers to support tickets.

It's worrying that these mysterious deals can be done with deactivated files. One of the reasons people deactivate files is because of concern about potentially inappropriate uses. At the very least, contributors should be asked whether they'd like to allow the usage of a deactivated file.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #11 on:** February 12, 2016, 01:48 »

I'm so jealous of everyone. I just sold two for a whopping total of $2.96. Yippee!! Not.

eyewave · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2016, 06:08 »

55 for $38.50. That's exactly $0.7 per download. Nothing to be happy about.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2016, 08:42 »

Quote from: polar on February 11, 2016, 22:43

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 11, 2016, 19:20
The last time this happened to me I got in touch with support and the explanation was that an existing customer had come back for extended licenses. I had a bit of a go-around with them as the images had been deactivated between the time they were originally licensed and the EL was sold.

They never explained by this was processed off books but I did get an amount for each file versus just a file list and total amount. They have the details if you don't mind waiting for answers to support tickets.

It's worrying that these mysterious deals can be done with deactivated files. One of the reasons people deactivate files is because of concern about potentially inappropriate uses. At the very least, contributors should be asked whether they'd like to allow the usage of a deactivated file.

Isn't it hypothetically possible that in Jo Anne's particular case, the buyer might have been someone who was speculatively 'selling' photos, so didn't have to pay the EL until s/he actually sold one? From what I've read here on msg, that is allowed, by arrangement, via several agencies.
I have no idea whether this was actually the case for Jo Anne, just saying that it could be a possibility.

There is a very vague re-stating of an old 'explanation' now on the iS forum. It's just as well they more or less abandoned the RC system (but haven't removed them*), as this is another way our files can sell without generating RCs.
* They're probably dreaming up something worse as I type.

Lana · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2016, 09:29 »

Quote from: sharpshot on February 11, 2016, 17:14

I got one of those. Makes me wonder where the transaction did occur. Are they selling our images on street corners now

hahahaha

skyfish · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2016, 10:03 »

They do "royalty adjustment" when it comes close to payout. And now i have this accomodated by this e-mail. I think that in reality the files were downloaded and used. Their deal on our account.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2016, 10:17 »

Hell, they re-licensed my files after I was booted.

kelby · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2016, 11:10 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 12, 2016, 10:17

Hell, they re-licensed my files after I was booted.

are you jokin' ?

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #18 on:** February 12, 2016, 11:28 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 12, 2016, 10:17

Hell, they re-licensed my files after I was booted.

unbelievable..!

StanRohrer · « **Reply #19 on:** February 12, 2016, 12:33 »

Hmmm.... memories of the Google Drive fiasco. Is it time to pool all our file numbers and see if we can find the buyer?

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2016, 12:54 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on February 12, 2016, 12:33

Hmmm.... memories of the Google Drive fiasco. Is it time to pool all our file numbers and see if we can find the buyer?

I guess the easiest way would be to check if we could find files which had never othewise sold, or very seldom. Mine were mostly loosely 'travel' type, from various locations (Scotland/Kenya/Canada). Still, it's a bit more than I'd have got via subs from my particular group of files.

jodijacobson · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2016, 13:53 »

I knew if I came here there would be a thread about this. Wish there was more info in the email about the mysterious amount paid for the files.

eyewave · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2016, 03:38 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 12, 2016, 12:54

I guess the easiest way would be to check if we could find files which had never othewise sold, or very seldom. Mine were mostly loosely 'travel' type, from various locations (Scotland/Kenya/Canada).

Almost all of mine were travel pics from Northern Germany/Canary Islands/France/Caribbean. Client must be a travel guide publisher or travel agent.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: transaction that did not occur through the website? (Read 8275 times)

Zero Talent

sharpshot

Julied83

fotoVoyager

ShadySue

KB

Jo Ann Snover

sgoodwin4813

The Mighty Jungle

ShadySue

polar

PixelBytes

eyewave

ShadySue

Lana

skyfish

Sean Locke Photography

kelby

Monty-m-gue

StanRohrer

ShadySue

jodijacobson

eyewave

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors