Great.  That gives me a payout next month.  I have some sales that have been waiting since last August to be cleared.  I was wondering the same thing about just how long it took to clear a purchase.

Just posted on SS forum by Anthony:

Hello:

The W-9 email many of you received recently is legitimate.

As part of our record keeping, Shutterstock requests that you update your W-9 in the following instances:

1) Should your backup withholding status change or
2) If you change your name

We realize you may have received the W-9 email even if your W-9 form is up to date. So, if your W-9 is on file and you have no changes to file with us, there is no need to send in another form.

Sincerely,
Anthony Correia
Director, Content Operations
Shutterstock & Bigstock

Just had two batches approved today that were loaded on June 4 and June 9.  Since nothing showed as approved yesterday and both batches showed as approved today, I assume they were reviewed together.

What is the current review time for Veer?  I've had several images up for the past couple of weeks (plus one added yesterday).  Same question for 123RF.

Anyone notice the usual iStock apologist's have been conspicuously absent from this discussion?

In the U.S., the key to avoiding all this hassle is to have a Revocable Living Trust.  In this document you set up a trust where all your assets are recorded in the name of the trust and the trustees assigned (usually yourself and spouse).  You can then assign heirs to the trust and someone to act as executor.  This not only defines who will get what, but avoids both probate and taxes on the estate entirely.  The assistance of a good trust and estate lawyer are critical in setting up this document, but it can be well worth the cost.  Mine cost just a tad over $2,000; but, to avoid probate and taxes and to clearly define who get what from the estate, it's well worth the money.  The cost will vary from state to state, but should be in this ballpark.  And the trusts are portable.  That is, a trust written in one state will be recognized in any other.

I recently had occasion to go through this process, first when my father died which simply entailed a change from joint trustees to the surviving trustee (my mother in this instance), and shortly thereafter when my mother died and I became the sole trustee and executor of the estate.  Simply followed the instructions if the Trust and her Will and everything was done.  No probate.  No state or federal taxes.  Clean, simple and one less headache at a time when we didn't need any more problems than we already were facing.  I can't recommend strongly enough the need to get one of these as soon as possible.

I see there's another thread about this 123RF/Inmagine problem.  Apparently it's been going on, on and off, since last week.  Something definitely screwy.  I sent an e-mail to submittal support earlier today.  I'll wait and see what they say before deciding whether or not to bail on them.  Too many other companies out there to waste time with this foolishness.

Thanks.  That did the trick.  First time I had occasion to delete an image from IS.  Everyone else seemed self-explanatory, so this was the last site.

Here's hoping.  Today was the first time downloads and dollars were back to where they were last month.  Apart from a $0.19 extra small download a couple of days ago, these are the first downloads since October 29.  We'll just have to wait and see over the next few days.  IS was my number one producer and went from hero to zero in one day.

This may be a dumb question, but did we need to agree to subscription sales or opt out.  I seem to remember the option was subscription sales would be automatic unless we opted out.  I didn't do anything so assumed I would be in for subscription sales.  However as I have had none, even though regular sales are moving right along, I don't know if that was the right thing to do or not.

Just to be clear:  if becoming exclusive at iStock is made more difficult and the quality requirement raised, that would make it MORE APPEALING for me to be exclusive there, and IMO would also cause many more customers to buy exclusive only.

Are you saying the quality requirements would be higher for exclusives than for non-exclusives?  If not and if the quality requirements were raised across the board, for both exclusive and non-exclusive alike, why would the customers want to buy exclusive only when they could get the same quality level from a non-exclusive?

I agree with yingyang0 that a simple resubmittal, whether in B&W or color, will be rejected again.  A better course of action would be to send a request to Scout, along with a link to the Federal regulation, requesting a review of their policy and acceptance of the original images.  If after seeing the rules for themselves they still decide to take a safe approach and reject the images, then there's nothing further you can do and you should just move on. They're good images.  Submit them elsewhere and see what happens.

If you go the the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing web site where the excerpt came from, they show examples of the size rule.  I see nothing in the excerpt or the actual rule that says you cannot show the entire face of the bill or any portion thereof, so long as the size rule is maintained.  If correct, you needn't worry about blocking off any particular part or percentage of the bill's face.  What you cannot do is to show both front and back ... only one side.  And the image cannot be between 3/4 and 1-1/2 times the original size of the bill.  The size rule says the image must be less than 3/4 size or larger than 1-1/2 size.  Your original image of the bill itself (not the total image size), at 100%, must meet those limitations.  Then the end user, who purchases your images, must also abide by the rules.  They can change the size to suit their needs, but they must also maintain the greater than/lesser than restriction.

Here's a link to the Federal Regulation noted.  http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=9c14677d75ec94136e79302e029e0d9d&rgn=div5&view=text&node=31:2.1.2.3.9&idno=31#31:2.1.2.3.9.0.24.1