Bottom line is why should Istock care how much you've spent?

My point was that the dough we all get - not just me - is a joke given the outlay we all make to get those shots on the sites.

I agree that what I spent is irrelevent to iStock - but costs vs. profit is pretty basic to all of us and it would seem to be somewhat loaded against the photographer in terms of fairness and returns.

It's just an observation - not a critiscism or whinge - from a newbie who is simply surprised at the levels being so low.

You're right; after  buying the camera, lenses, tripod etc. the computer software, hour of processing, keywording, caption and description writing, re-sizing and uploading and the travelling, putting myself in danger to get that shot; they pay me 28 cents and helpfully told me after 8 ticket queries what I'd "made" on the sale.

Yep - it's win / win tickstock - I'm so grateful to them ... very happy with it - who wouldn't be?

To be fair Micky when a photo is credited in a national newspaper with "Getty Images" you kind of think it might have been "Getty Images" don't you?

Or is that an unreasonable assumption? 

Even iStock didn't know (or weren't telling me) since April!

Hi - wonder if you could give me some advice as a newbie to iStock and Getty et al.

I had a photo published in The Statesman, an Indian newspaper with a circulation of 180,000. It is credited with "Getty Images". www.thestatesman.com/news/world/egypt-saudi-arabia-agree-on-joint-military-drill/57812.html

iStock are saying that my payment for this is 28 cents.

This would mean that as a newbie they would (in theory) have sold this to the newspaper for $1.86.

I find this rather suspect - I know photos go cheap these days - but $1.86?

When I queried this (after 8 tickets and much obfuscation) I was informed "Please note that your images are not on gettyimages.com and are therefore not subject to the prices on gettyimages.com. As a non-exclusive contributor, your files would be available for license on iStock.com and thinkstock.com. The files in quetsion were purchased for $0.28 via image subscription on istock.com. It sounds like the copyright credit used on the image is what is causing confusion. The proper credit for an editorial image is: ��iStock.com/Sans-Film� but since we are a division of Getty, clients have used the credit "Getty Images" instead. Additionally, a select group of premium Getty clients have a premium access login where they login to one Getty property (what we call GettyPlus) and can access all content on istock.com, thinkstock.com and gettyimages.com in one place, which may also be another reason they used credit "Getty Images".

Just wondered whether, in your experience, this information is correct and that the princely sum of 28 cents is all I am due for this shot for this usage?

I'd appreciate your thoughts - thanks

Hi - when doing a search, at the top where it says "Most popular - this month, this year, all time" - is the result shown for sales or views?

Thanks