Good advice, goldenangel! I agree.

Who's Ms. G?

 

Yep, same here. I hadn't even paid attention, but my last non-StockXpert sale was Dec 18.

I've been checking, and it took until now before it finally showed up.

Maybe it was just a temporary glitch ... or maybe the system just doesn't like me. 

Quote from: KB on December 02, 2008, 23:50

Well, 2 business days into December, and they still don't have November's royalty statement available.

I've never seen a site in which you have to wait until well into the next month to find out what your sales were the previous month. Ridiculous.

I don't know where you're looking, but my royalty statement is up-to-date. Always has been.

I knew there was a thread I forgot about! Sorry ....

Well, I think I've figured out the problem. Ha! It's not updated unless you sell something, and I guess I just didn't have any sales in November.     I was thrown off by the fact that it shows a balance under "Current month accrued royalty" when I looked at the end of November, but that must be my total account balance since last payment. It doesn't match my records, but who really cares? This site is dead.

Quote from: Stu99 on November 13, 2008, 08:07

Genghis has left the building and a friendly co-worker is approving most of the images I submitted over the last hour 

It seems so, I also had my latest two submissions approved.  After all people had been saying about FT, I feared they would be rejected. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Well, I'm still getting the same reviewer I always do. I think my account is marked: Do not approve more than 50% of his ugly images. This is after being on Fotolia for almost 2.5 years. I submitted a tiny batch of 3, to see if I could beat the odds. Instead, 2 of the 3 were rejected for "Quality of photo".

One of the two is new, so I don't know, maybe it is ugly. (Well, I think I do know, but it hasn't been verified yet elsewhere.) But the other one has been submitted to 6 other sites, including the top 4 besides Fotolia, and they all accepted it (and it's sold on 3 of them already).

So is Fotolia the only one who can find the poor quality in my images? Or might the alternative be a more reasonable explanation? (Those are rhetorical, of course, as I already know the answers.) 

I, too, received an email on Oct 20 advising of a refund for reason of "fraud". It's my most downloaded image, so I have to agree the reason for downloading is most likely to steal the image for sale elsewhere.

It would be nice if DT could reassure us that they are doing more to pursue and persecute such buyers in addition to taking back their commission.

Dirk,

First let me start out by saying, I posted incorrect information. I searched IS' FAQs for "print", and then stupidly copied the information given without really reading it. The information I gave was for a simple DL (which I should've recognized), not for a print. Prints are significantly more (and I assume contributors get their standard commission rate of the sale price -- but I'm not positive, since I've never had a print sale there).

So, the smallest size they sell is actually 8.5" x 11" (about 21cm x 28cm) -- 12 credits for canvas prints. The largest size is 20" x 30" (51cm x 76cm) -- 70 credits for canvas prints.

These prices are less than Bilderking charges, yet the contributor gets significantly more commission than with the Fotolia deal.

Which is really the best response I have to your post. If Bilderking is selling canvas prints at a reasonable, going rate (which they very well may be -- I don't know), then I also don't see any difference between this and your scenario of someone buying an image and then getting it printed by such a service. But if there is a large, middleman markup (as I assumed, but don't know), then I feel we are being shortchanged. Based on the comparison with IS, it definitely looks bad.

So I guess what we're all in agreement on is:

Subscription = sucks (in any language)

 

Don't worry about it. 

That post was written almost 2 years ago. I just tried it, and verified that you can NOT edit accepted images. Probably fintastique's method used to work (I don't recall), but now those fields are grayed out and cannot be edited. 

I just found out that photos.com shows mostly the oldest uploaded stuff from StockXpert.
Come on you programmer guys, I'm missing out on sales! 

I can't imagine why it's so difficult to bring over all the photos (that aren't opted out) from StockXpert over to photos.com.

I wrote to support on Saturday, saying that much of my port was missing from photos.com, and gave specific examples.

Despite the message that someone will return my email within 24 hours, it's now been 3 business days, and no reply.    Perhaps they're being swamped with too many people asking similar questions.

Of the 8mp images of mine I've found, luckily they are all available as PPD and EL.

But most of the images I've looked for do not appear in the search results! I tried the identical searches on StockXpert, and they show up fine (obviously, since they've been selling!). It seems much of my portfolio is missing.

Definitely not going to sell them if they can't be found.   

Same here. 

My AR has run over 90% at SS, around 90% at DT for the last year, and 70% at IS (though much higher the last 6 months).

At FT over the last year it's been around 50%. And my last batch (and I do mean last batch) last week -- 15 out of 18 rejected! 14 for "quality of photo", one for "type". Quality? DT, IS, and SS (not to mention the rest) don't have problems with them, what makes FT so special?

I wrote to support, asking that they be re-reviewed by a senior reviewer. You all know the response I got.  Sorry for the inconvenience, blah, blah, blah.

Only an idiot (hello!)  would continue to upload under these circumstances. The most difficult UL process combined with relatively poor sales (except for the occasional EL) and the least consistent, most frustrating rejections.

I'm not yet at the point where I'm going to delete my port (why bother?), but they won't be seeing new images from me until (unless) I read that things have changed. (As if they care -- ha!)