I have had quite a few of these.

My guess is due to currency conversion readjustments.

What makes me unhappy is once there is a refund and repurchase with a few cents in difference, Alamy treats it as a new purchase. Even though the original amount was paid and cleared, we will still have to wait until the new purchase is "cleared" at least a couple of months later. Why can't Alamy just refund the difference and pay us on time?

Quote from: Orchidpoet on July 30, 2018, 13:37

I did not contact the user. ... I did ask Google if it purchased the image.

That's what we're not supposed to do.
Contract 11c: "You agree that iStock shall have the right to determine whether and to what extent to proceed against a licensee or other third party (an �Infringer�) for any violation of a license agreement or alleged infringement of any other of your rights. "
(That same sentence is 10c in the non-exclusive contract.)

They've been quite stroppy about this from time to time in the forums (more the old forums), but to be honest, they're not much help about chasing things up, and often don't get back to you (but you discover the file has been taken down, whether by their intervention or not is guesswork).

Thanks but I read the language differently. First, I have not determined anything. Secondly, I have not proceeded against anyone. I merely made an inquiry to Google. Google may merely be a media through which an user posted my image. Google may or not may not be responsible for it. When it comes to it, I will let Getty determine who is responsible and so on.

Quote from: trek on July 30, 2018, 12:46

Giant previews and tiny corner watermarks are a downside to uploading there.

I agree, but if you look at big name artists or art photographers, their sites usually don't feature watermarked images, and their pics are normally pretty big.

Google should reply, though and I hope the OP will feed back.
Aren't Google and Getty supposed to be in cahoots about copyright?

Yes, I have received an auto-reply from Google. It will take a while.

When I was browsing a location through Google Maps, I saw my photo without watermark nor credit line.

This image is only available through iStock as RF, and on FA as art print (no sales history).

I wonder who puts my image there? Did Google purchase the image or an user steal the image and upload to Google?

I have sent an inquiry email to Google. Should I contact iStock as well?

I hope this decision is appealed.

I haven't uploaded images with model release for a few years.

Today, when I tried to upload an old image from 2014, the model release got stuck with a red triangle error sign. But I don't know what went wrong. I cannot close the app either.

At the bottom, there is another red triangle sign, showing "New Version Available". But when I tried to download, I got a message that that version had already been downloaded.

Eventually I forced to close the app by using Windows Task Manager.

How can I upload a model release for this image?

Thanks!

Hey, thanks all for the responses and suggestions.

All the points are well taken.

On the subject of painting from people's photos I wouldn't like it much but I'm not really sure if you could easily prove a landscape was copied from your work unless your photo was something really famous or the painting was a close copy. I suspect he simply wants to know where it is as a buyer wants to know. Or maybe he was so impressed he wants to visit. Did you actually ask him why?

I agree. Painters can change the elements and compositions even if they use our photos as reference.

Well, I tried to be diplomatic, I guess.

...

Unfortunately, I had one last month.

Hope not.

I did reasonably well in the first few years. In some lucky days, I could even make over $1000 in a single day. Usually I had sales every month.

However, since it became pixel.com and started to carry products, my sales have gone downhill. Last year, I only made 3 sales. This year, none so far.

I hope it could focus on the fine art side of the business because it was its strength, and not get distracted by products which have not likely been sold in big volume as its owner had hoped, I suspect.

Increasing, what you are saying is interesting.

For me, SS has surpassed P5 by selling many times more in the past few months. Even though my P5 port has a few hundred more clips because I have contributed longer.

Also SS has a tendency to reject night clips by claiming excessive noise. These clips are often accepted by a reviewer. Sometimes I resubmit but more often I just forget and move on.