Quote from: HughStoneIan on December 20, 2019, 17:33
They're having technical problems today.

I saw that when I just logged in, but this started a couple of weeks ago when I noticed my account was blank. I ignored it them assuming it was a glitch.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 20, 2019, 18:03
Unless it was you who wrote it, I've seen exactly that written on one of the Fb groups.
One explanation might be that you need to complete, or complete again, the tax form (I had to re-do mine last year, and some are having to do them this week). Other than that, good luck with getting it resolved quickly.

It wasn't me. Thanks for the tip, I just re-completed my tax information so I guess I'll just wait and see if it comes back, or wait for iStock to reply to my email. :/
Would suck if I had to upload my entire portfolio again, iStock isn't the easiest when it comes to automated uploading / submitting.

Hey Everyone, I have been an iStock contributor for around 8 months now, and have been receiving a small monthly royalty payout.

I logged in to my ESP portal a couple of weeks ago to find all my sets of content had disappeared, and my performance data was not available. I ignored it and thought the site may be having a glitch.

Today comes around and I don't see my usual iStock royalties come in, so I log in to ESP again, and it looks the same as it did a couple of weeks ago... no previous uploads, no performance data, and when I click the royalties tab, i get a message saying 'Royalties data will not be available until after your first transaction'. I also don't have an option to upload content.

When I click account management, it looks like my profile has been reset, there are no address details except my email address, my payment method has not been selected, and my tax interview isn't complete. When I click Community, i get a message saying I have to log in if I'm a contributor, and when I click Log In I get taken back to the ESP portal with no information.

Obviously I've contacted iStock about this, just wondering if anyone has had or heard of a similar experience.

been using this for a year or so, it's a great app, but like others have said, too expensive to pay $6 a month when this is just a hobby to me. I understand that a lot of hard work has, and continues to go into keeping the app working, but a price similar to the mobile app would be more appropriate

Hey everyone, looking to get some advice on something.

A friend of mine recently discovered an image of his was used by a crown corporation on their website, he emailed them and they have responded by removing the image offering to pay his regular fee to license the image, however he doesn't usually sell his images online anywhere.

What do you think would be a reasonable settlement for image use?

Woke up to it this morning, and it's listed as single / other. This means that the buyer paid around $200 for it. Is this a mistake?

Diffraction from f16 maybe?

I don't use the site anymore but I had similar emails when I did, they picked a random image of mine (not one of my best) and asked me to write about how I took it and processed it as they possibly wanted to feature it. I never heard back from them

I've had my mind set on the mk4 for over a year but now it's been released I just can't justify the $6k CAD with kit lens, especially as I hardly make any money from my photography. Think I'm gonna go for the 7d2 instead

I have had nothing but good experiences with Uber, and have used the service in many cities around the world. Now I am looking at becoming an Uber driver to help finance my college studies, unfortunately the local authorities in Vancouver, BC are stalling on allowing Uber to commence operations.. I guess their brown envelopes from the taxi companies are to valuable

$1.40 for me so far in August :/

Quote from: HappyBunny on August 03, 2016, 14:03
There are photos of the same benchess on their website without property release. I checked before submitting the photo.

this is why is not really worth bothering to chase, reviewers do what they want and the subject is already covered. your time is probably better used taking more images

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on July 31, 2016, 13:03

Quote from: Chichikov on July 31, 2016, 12:57

"15.2:
...Thus, to minimize exposure for contributory copyright infringement, websites should (a) try to reduce actual knowledge of user-generated content by not monitoring their services..."

This is their attitude, they wont check the content. They literally don't want to know because knowing would open them up to being sued. They will only respond to the actual copyright holder.

They may not want to know but if you have notified them and they have responded to you does that not mean they are now aware and by refusing to do anything about it are substantially participatiing as per the corporate law quote by chichikov:

Quoteonce a website receives notice that a user is committing infringement, the website will be deemed to be substantially participating in the infringement if it does not remove the infringement within a reasonable period of time.

Quote from: HappyBunny on August 03, 2016, 07:04
Image is sharp and noise removed. Maybe it is my fault for not writing Public Benches. They are the many, many benches in Sultanahmet Square in Istanbul. I wrote Benches in Sultanahmet Square, Istanbul as title. Now I don't know about the bathroom photos.

I wasn't commenting on your image when mentioning sharp / noise etc... just giving the seemingly random examples that SS reject for. Just take the shots and submit, the worst that can happen is they get rejected

Quote from: HappyBunny on August 02, 2016, 15:33
What about hotel bathrooms? It's not a bathroom from a hotel chain like Hilton.....Can I take images of hotel bedrooms and bathrooms and upload it to microstock or only Alamy? I have seen images of hotel rooms and bathrooms without a property release on microstock and I have seen images with property release. SS rejected an image of public benches in a public square because they wanted a property release.

Honestly I'm not sure, I'm far from an expert... The general consensus seems to be that it depends on who reviews your image as to whether it gets accepted or not. going by what you said above about the benches being rejected then there would be no non-released commercial images out there, because everything belongs to someone at some point down the line.
I have only just started uploading to multiple agencies and have already had some questionable rejections, some of the images that were rejected for sharpness I resubmitted and passed (some of course were rejected again), and some I just can't be bothered to argue about

Quote from: HappyBunny on August 02, 2016, 11:04
I have an image of the Obelisk in Istanbul. In the background you can see paintings of artists. Is it correct that I can't give that image to microstock because of the paintings? Can I give it to Alamy as RM ?

As far as I understand from completing my submissions this morning you can give it to them so long as you are honest when completing the dropdowns in the Alamy image manager:

does this image have property that requires a release - Yes
Do you have the release - No

Once you do this the licensing will become RM automatically ie. the dropdown box is no longer selectable

There is a post in their forum about it

https://www.dreamstime.com/thread_45258

Quote from: 4seasons on May 17, 2016, 02:30

Quote from: Microstockphoto on May 11, 2016, 12:27
if there is non, call paypal and if they agree they will release your account, they have no reason to limit your account for fun, nor to steal your money, nor to get interest, nor to buy weapons of mass destruction. 184 million users tells me they are quite legit and trusted

I'm preparing a very detailed explanation one more time. I have a little hope they will change something. Will see.
And maybe, if they'll not reply, I'll call them.
Thank you.

I haven't read the whole thread so this may have been said by someone else, but if PP was so critical to your everyday business why wasn't calling them the FIRST thing you did to get an explanation and to see if this issue could be resolved ASAP. Getting on the phone to them would be top of my list... speak to a human being, find out the issue, and then get clear and concise details on what you need to do to resolve the issues. Once you have resolved them get on the phone again and advise the human being that you have done what was requested. It's much easier to fire off an email and wait, and in the meantime research other similar horror stories on the website to back up your belief that Paypal is evil, but I'd take a guess this could have been resolved quicker if you had picked up the phone.

Thanks both

Does anyone know how long it usually takes for images uploaded to Alamy through StockSubmitter to show in your unfinished files on the site?

Uploaded some around 4 hours ago and they havent showed up yet, first time I have tried using stock submitter

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 17:42

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 16:43

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 16:29

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 16:19

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 15:18
Watch my lips: at the moment, you can't 'submit as editorial' on Alamy. He submitted it indicating no releases, the buyer bought it knowing that, therefore cloned out all the potentially contentious material.

If that is the case how is this file only available with editorial licensing options.... not trying to catch you out, just trying to explain the source of my confusion. Admittedly its the only one I can find, and I clicked on it purely by chance yesterday while trying to resolve said confusion. But how has it been made available with those licensing options?

It could be that Ferrari have demanded that all the restrictions are set.

I had a note from Alamy telling me that some Olympic-themed files (I had shot athletes at a public 'welcome back' event) had to have the restrictions set.

Previously, when I started at Alamy, I used to set the restrictions on all my editorial images (though it was unbelievably easy to set them so that they weren't buyable at all!), but they emailled me and asked me not to do that, because it was up to the buyer to decide how to use the image, and I could be losing sales.

Could be, although it seems strange that Ferrari would pick that image in particular among the thousands of images of Ferrari vehicles / logos etc., I have clicked on quite a few others and none have the same licensing options

Strange :/

I clicked on the port of the Ferrari contributor. A lot of stills from old movies - I clilcked on some and they all have the restrictions set. So it must be their choice. Anyone can set all restrictions if they so choose.

Why not wait until the new system is up and running. It will be so much simpler then.

Once an iStock buyer contacted me to ask if I could get releases for a particular photo. As if: it was a street scene with many shops and businesses, a wall with flyers stuck on, and a lot of pedestrians and people sitting at pavement cafes. I have no idea how he thought I was going to get that many releases, and he wasn't offering any money to try! He said he'd bought it without realising it was editorial only. He also showed me the advert he wanted to use it in, and I couldn't see any relevance at all.  As the file wasn't refunded, I suspect he might have used it anyway.

That's quite amusing about the buyer contacting you, I guess it went completely over their head that the image was taken on a public street.

I don't really want to wait until the new Alamy system is released, would rather upload sooner and have my files online, just want to make sure I'm covering my back and not doing anything wrong when choosing / omitting license options

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 16:29

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 16:19

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 15:18
Watch my lips: at the moment, you can't 'submit as editorial' on Alamy. He submitted it indicating no releases, the buyer bought it knowing that, therefore cloned out all the potentially contentious material.

If that is the case how is this file only available with editorial licensing options.... not trying to catch you out, just trying to explain the source of my confusion. Admittedly its the only one I can find, and I clicked on it purely by chance yesterday while trying to resolve said confusion. But how has it been made available with those licensing options?

It could be that Ferrari have demanded that all the restrictions are set.

I had a note from Alamy telling me that some Olympic-themed files (I had shot athletes at a public 'welcome back' event) had to have the restrictions set.

Previously, when I started at Alamy, I used to set the restrictions on all my editorial images (though it was unbelievably easy to set them so that they weren't buyable at all!), but they emailled me and asked me not to do that, because it was up to the buyer to decide how to use the image, and I could be losing sales.

Could be, although it seems strange that Ferrari would pick that image in particular among the thousands of images of Ferrari vehicles / logos etc., I have clicked on quite a few others and none have the same licensing options

Strange :/

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 15:18
Watch my lips: at the moment, you can't 'submit as editorial' on Alamy. He submitted it indicating no releases, the buyer bought it knowing that, therefore cloned out all the potentially contentious material.

If that is the case how is this file only available with editorial licensing options.... not trying to catch you out, just trying to explain the source of my confusion. Admittedly its the only one I can find, and I clicked on it purely by chance yesterday while trying to resolve said confusion. But how has it been made available with those licensing options?

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 13:29

Quote from: Rick D on July 29, 2016, 09:50

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 00:18
They tend to leave it up to the buyer and have produced this page for buyers:
http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx. If there are no releases, the buyer should not use them commercially.

Don't go by what other people do. I've seen photos of large events, involving large numbers of performers marked 'model released', e.g. check "Edinburgh Tattoo" RF.
I don't believe for a moment that they have releases for these photos.

Definitely won't be going by what other people do, I just haven't really dealt with RM licenses before, and while I think I have a pretty good grasp of the differences between RF, RM, Editorial and commercial, the sheer number of images with trademarks and logos on Alamy that have what appear to be commercial license options made me second guess myself

There are certain advertising uses for editorial files which may be regarded as almost certainly safe. For example, one of my iS files of a sign on a street was once used by a concession of that company, which I guess is pretty safe. Also I'm sure there are a lot of pretty safe uses of travel photos. E.g. a photo of the Grand Canal might have a lot of business signs and logos, but if used in a poster/brochure/website for tourism in Venice, they're hardly likely to complain. Then it would depend how any visible people felt about being featured, but they could be cloned out by the end user.

Someone posted on their forum a few weeks back that a file he had posted with no releases got a good value sale with a commercial use, but the buyer had carefully cleaned all contentious material off the image.

But something must be wrong here, either he submitted the image with a commercial license knowing that it included logos etc. and took the risk that no one would chase him up, or he submitted as editorial and the buyer licensed it in that way, then cleaned up the logos and used it for commercial purposes

With your example above, did you submit as editorial or commercial... same with the travel images you mentioned... should they be submitted as editorial or commercial, I'm thinking editorial for license and then its down to the end user if they want to take the risk of breaking the terms of that license... The downside of that is the price difference between use for editorial and commercial for consumer goods is quite large IIRC

Quote from: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 00:18
They tend to leave it up to the buyer and have produced this page for buyers:
http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx. If there are no releases, the buyer should not use them commercially.

Don't go by what other people do. I've seen photos of large events, involving large numbers of performers marked 'model released', e.g. check "Edinburgh Tattoo" RF.
I don't believe for a moment that they have releases for these photos.

Definitely won't be going by what other people do, I just haven't really dealt with RM licenses before, and while I think I have a pretty good grasp of the differences between RF, RM, Editorial and commercial, the sheer number of images with trademarks and logos on Alamy that have what appear to be commercial license options made me second guess myself

Thanks for the reply Shadysue, I'm still confused though... It seems there are a lot of files on there that should be editorial by my understanding as they contain logos, but when you look at the licensing options you can select options for business packages / calendars etc... So is this just down to contributors not understanding licensing terms, or down to Alamy washing their hands of the legal side of the matter as they are passing off copyright infringement potential to the contributor should it arise

I'm just trying to understand as I am about to upload around 200 of my portfolio there and I want to make sure I'm giving it the best sales potential