Have you used a different person as witness or yourself? Could be one of the reasons...

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Missing-or-Invalid-Model-Release?l=en_US#Model%20Release%20Requirements

SS would actually be losing money on that deal since they'd have to pay between 187.50$ (0.25$ per image) and 292.50$ (0.39$ per image) to contributors for each of these 750 images.

I have a couple of thousand photos on iStock. Tonight I logged in for the first time in perhaps two or three years to see how much money I have and perhaps request a payout.
Well, the website is not nearly the way it was last time I visited, and I simply can't manage to get to where I can see my earnings and get a payout. I saw they have an app now, so i downloaded the app on my phone. There I can see that I've had numerous sales, but I can't get the amount in my account. On the website I can't even find my portfolio. Can someone please give me instructions how to navigate my way on the website to request a payout, and perhaps how to get to the tax centre, because I suppose I will have to complete a new tax form before I can get a payout.

After logging in, go to My Performance> Royalties.

The second graph will show you the breakdown per month. And if you click on summary on the left hand side you'll see how much you have pending.

Good luck 

I don't think they need a release as there's no recognizable person in the shot. All their heads are covered.
Branding on backpacks and clothes would be more of an issue if they're really big, and you wouldn't be able to get a release for these.

It's always a bit of a gamble with this type of shot as some agencies will reject it and some will approve it depending on the reviewer's mood.

Get the shot anyway, you've got nothing to lose. Worst case scenario you can submit it as editorial if it's rejected.

Had the same type of sale last month when I was about to give up on them... then i got a full refund this month...

It would probably take 3 to 6 months to get new uploaded footage to decent search rankings and google SEO, so after that you'd need to wait a bit longer to see if sales are coming and if it's worth it.

Here's a reply from Alamy for the image below of the man holding a selfie stick licensed as PU:

Quote

�Hi Alex We�ve had a look and it seems the person who bought the image for personal use is the person depicted in the image so we wouldn�t see this as suspicious.

Personal use licenses cover things like a personal print, a gift, a personal report, artist reference etc.�

Now, that settles the issue, right? LOL. I�m proud of my keywording since a buyer was able to find himself among the 100+ million images!

Now, I�m looking to contact this buyer to see if he can track down my long-lost high school sweetheart, as well as investigate who murdered JFK and whether Tupac and Elvis are still alive!

I love you, Alamy but please don't treat me like I was born yesterday...

Lol they could have literally given any other, more believable, excuse.

Guess I'll start taking photos of every single person on the street from now on, just in case they'd like to buy their own portrait...

Any place considered a city really. It can be different in smaller towns and countryside, but that's the case everywhere.

No, I have never submitted the image to any agencies. It is only available on my own site as prints.

You can do a Google reverse image search to see where this specific image is offered.

It could be thieves stealing images from print on demand previews and offering them for free on one of these scam websites.

I'm not a native English speaker, but in microstock "Diversity in stock" means one and only thing:

here is a title of one of 10000000000 articles nowadays all around:

"Gaining A Competitive Edge: Seven Ways To Build Diversity And Inclusion In The Tech Workplace" (Forbes)

Since stock sites aim to serve all those big customers which have their own agenda mixed with political propoganda, we have what we have: constant reminder to shoot something that "has to be" popular by all means.

And this is why they don't get those topics "organically" - nobody is interested in shooting something that does not exist in real world.

4% of population who are LGBTYERKKDHJ or other people with psychiatric conditions, and socially accepted deviations aren't a "community" - they are just people living lives with their issues like everyone else, but we are forced to believe that at least 50% of people are like that and this is a norm and as a result there are mothers who change genger to their 3 y.o children (!!!) because a boy suddenly wants to wear a skirt.

Sorry, I'm not going to take part in these activities. If Adobe and others want to be responsible for the insanity it causes, good for them. Money making machine has no human feelings nor values anyway.

I'm out.

I think we, as creators, are responsible for what we say yes to and what we help "to promote" with our work.

Wow for someone who doesn't want to play politics, you surely know how to discriminate and push your own values.

The stock business is... a business, so companies will go where the money is, it's that simple. Maybe you should consider other options if it angers you.

Also, don't think that buyers will only use your photos as they are. There have been many cases of stock photos being photoshopped in an attempt to reflect diversity, so the models in your photos might end up on ads portraying all kinds of families, including mental health and disability, other races, LBGT, etc. So in the end, you have no idea what you actually promote. 

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/09/02/doctoring-diversity-race-and-photoshop/

Dreamstime has an option to sell all the rights. So you need to take it down everywhere if you sell it.

Ok ok ty