Today they rubbed salt in the wound. A sale from last week was refunded and repurchased for the same price, except they took 20% more of it and I got 20% less.  ouch.

Ohm, that's nasty. 

Sounds like you are owed $5+ million dollars! Congrats!

Just kidding Yeah, sounds like they made a mistake, surprised they disclosed that. Probably not just to you, but everyone with an iStock account.

Yeah, I have the same figures, and I don't see it on previous remittance advice notes.

Very revealing. Greedy b*stards.

It would be cool/funny to see what is your ugliest picture that sells a lot.

This is mine:

I hate it. It's terrible in any sense and idek why it sells

Have you done web reverse-image searches (IMO these are not as good at throwing up in-uses as they used to be, however) to see how they're being used?
Illustrating train travel, public transport. It's not always the prettiest photo that's the most useful.

Hey isn't Feb. reporting the Jan. sales? We don't get actual Feb. sales until March or am I screwed up again with what's in what month and what dates?

Yes, Jan sales have just finished loading.

Worst Jan since Jan 2007 (first full month), but $3 better than last Feb, so only my second worst month since Sept 2007.
However, down c18% on last Jan, and down c70% on my best Jan, 2010.

(Nevertheless, still better than Alamy)

Quote from: ShadySue on February 19, 2019, 11:59

Should I hold my breath? 
(Probably not, I get only a very few of the big sales, and a lot of the tiddlers).
Hold onto your hats, everyone and good luck.

I looked at the Account Management count, I won't be throwing confetti or popping a bottle of bubbly. 

But I will like to see what's really sold, not just a couple numbers for photos and illustrations. I also have Getty sound exclusive which brings in some spare change every month. Waiting for Thinkstock to finally go dark and see if that actually brings more people over to Getty for more money or just makes them move elsewhere?

Are you still getting a lot of TS sales? I'd have thought TS subs holders would all have been getting fast-tracked to PA.

I hope there will be an exclusive filter soon.

You can at least do your most recent 500 uploaded all at once by ticking the 'Newest 500 passed' in AIM. (Takes a while for the system to select them all. Make sure you don't untick anything else!)

Creepy, & freaky image produced. Not yet perfect, but not that hard to fix.

Oooh, that's a cross between Ray Davies at an earlier age and ... ?

Several people have reported that Support marke their entire port as editorial.
Maybe they stopped doing that since this was introduced?
https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/11096-those-with-many-non-exclusive-images-are-you-identifying-them-individually-or-is-it-too-much-work/?do=findComment&comment=202186
If that doesn't work for you, it might be worth checking that whole thread.

Quote from: john_woodcock on February 16, 2019, 02:48

Quote from: pkphotos on February 15, 2019, 15:37

Stock is already dead, everyone is doing it for peanuts on the side of their 9-5 emplyment in the real world

Speak for yourself.

I speak for everyone including those in denial

If there is even one person who is doing stock full-time, your statement is inaccurate, even if it's true, and always was, for most people.

If I may enter the discussion,
I had this frustration on an intellectual property violation
rejection on a close shot of a cherry blossomed branch.
 
The question is:
as long as clips are accepted in other agencies,
is it really worth spending time on rejections?
I have this newbie idea and no worries attitude
"ok, rejected there, let's move on to the next clip"
assuming that at least one out of three agencies
that submit the same work will accept the clip.

Is this wrong? Or at least at the wrong path?

If it was really only close cherry blossoms, the rejection was surely a mistake.
Still, with the time of uploading, you may well form the view that you could just move on.
In the old days, you could challenge a rejection; I don't think there's any channel for that nowadays.

Try a look at the video intro to see if it would work with your workflow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-piH7I7fyRM

Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2019, 11:57

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 31, 2019, 11:07

I have not read the details, but crypto-payments aside, are they planning to use the block-chain technology to keep track of the way images sold through them are being used, thus enforcing their copyright?
If yes, this can be a break-through worth paying attention to.

It won't necessarily make any difference. Thieves will steal, international law is prohibitively expensive, and block chain won't make one iota of difference to that. How is blockchain any better than having your copyright in meta (where it's still in the thief's use?).

Wemark aside, one distinct advantage I can see is that a blockchain ledger can quickly and easily provide dispute resolution in the case of a copyright infringement claim. For example, instead of going through hoops proving to a site like SS that you are actually the legitimate copyright holder of a stolen or suspect work - which can take a lot of time during which your account will likely be suspended - you can simply point to the original copyright registration and that is that.  Same goes for DMCA takedown notices or even threatening letters from your own lawyer.

I've got an Irish lawyer using one of my Alamy pics he presumably lifted from a legit sale. The copyright notice is in the metadata, so it's not disputable. He has ignored contacts from Alamy, a registered letter, two emails and three phone calls from me, and an IP lawyer pointed out the costs of pursuing it further, DMCA being irrelevant outwith the US. I can't imagine how blockchain would resolve this situation. He knows it's my copyright, there's no dispute about it, but he knows I'm not going to throw hundreds of pounds at getting it resolved (Under EU small claims, I'd have to physically go to the court for the hearing, so return flights and probably two nights accommodation needed, and no expenses are payable).
Essentially, you have unwitting infringers (those who genuinely don't know any better, and there are still many of these) and knowing infringers. The first will usually at least take down on the initial contact. The second just sit pretty smirking.