|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Uncle Pete
3601
« on: April 05, 2019, 12:17 »
Interesting... I'm not quite what to say of that...
By creating a mural - it is now a 'public' work... Where naturally tourists, etc are going to be taking lots of pictures... So in one way I think it would be fine for a company to have it in the background - because it doesn't seem any different than say taking a picture in front of a house, skyscaper, etc...
But then I can see the artists being upset if they "knew" the company was making lots of money off of their artwork... and the sting, so wanting a slice of that cash... but I am not sure if this is just more or less greed (like "HEY! wait a sec, you mean I can make TONS of cash?!?!?!") Unless they commissioned the work saying "no photos allowed unless you pay me"
I'm not sure what the difference would be between someone say using unique works of architecture in their ads (i.e., eiffel tower, statue of liberty, etc, etc) and a mural... granted, I am not too familiar with this area - so as far as I know - you don't need "permission" (or to pay a fee) to use the statue of liberty/eiffel tower/etc in your ads, so not sure whether the murals have a leg to stand on either...
Yup, this will be interesting. No I don't think that public work allows free use. Art and designs are protected. Buildings, plans and structures since 1991. ALso I'm sure the artists will claim commercial use. There is something called right of panorama which could be the MBZ argument, that they were just shooting photos of the cars and the building with art, is incidental. They had permits to shoot in that area. While I'm absolutely in favor of artists rights, they made the work. And I see this as commercial use. There's also an argument that the photos were made in a public setting, not featuring the art itself. I'm not buying the MBZ argument that the car transformed the art into something else. Their attorney might be claiming transformative appropriation, which has gone back and forth. I'm also against that, saying that stealing someone work and splattering new colors on it, makes it a new work. I don't know, but I wish I had better access to legal channels, I'd love to track this one.
3602
« on: April 05, 2019, 11:51 »
I'm confused... did you earn $9,650 or $3663?
Your post says $9650, yet - you only list $3663???
My attempt at an April Fools report was perhaps too subtle. It was, of course, $3663. I thought the rest of the post made that clear. Sorry.
Steve
Ah,kk. For me - $9650/month in royalty sales would be a good wage. Still $3,663 is quite good. I believe after about $3,000/month in sales (at least for north america) - then it starts to become 'livable' if you are living in a small to mid-sized city. Anything above that starts to become fun money 
Or like myself, have four other sources of income, so I can continue to "make money" on Microstock? 
Cool, what else do you do/what types of income sources? (Me too for that matter - but I think it would be fantastic to make a living from doing this, because it is quite fun!)
I'm 100% behind your "quite fun" assessment. I have been self employed since about 1970, always had second job, played in bands, managed a bowling alley, bartender, to make ends meet, so there for being your own boss. Not as great as it sounds. No benefits at all except no BS office politics and when I golfed I could come in at 9AM and no one asked me why I was late. That business is pretty much dead, but a few good customers left. Since I am the business, my photo expenses, some of them, I track and they are a deduction. I depreciate the camera equipment, track miles for some events, and have a large buffer unclaimed, in case I ever get audited again. I'll just say, Keep Good Records! eBay, I buy at auctions, sell on eBay. I don't do that intense find sales kind of buy and sell that some do, but for someone who wished to do that, there are ways to buy locally and sell on Amazon and eBay for a good profit. I just do research and try to cherry pick things that I can flip easy. I also have bought at resale shops or garage sales (trunk sales) and taken to the auctions. It's hit and miss. For eBay I stay away from trendy items, too much variability, breakables and antiques. Anything small that's easy to ship is the top of my list. Rich Uncle (made that up, I always wanted one though?) No inheritance, no IRA, sold almost all my stock that I accumulated since the early 70s. That paid off all my debts so I could start over. That was a source of income until last year, last was buying a better used car. Also used last savings to buy an abandoned home, which is cheaper than paying rent. That's not income, it's more about cutting expenses. Office is in the back bedroom now, more expense cutting. Social Security. It's nice to get some "free money" every month. Not nearly a living income, and keep in mind, unlike being employed, I paid in 100% not 50%. Another reason why self employed only sounds good.  Safety team, flagging and communications, independent contractor for assorted race groups and race tracks. Day work, Summer only, April to Mid-October. Nice people and great fun! If life at this point is about fun at doing what I enjoy, I've hit the sweet spot at 72. Photography led to those connections, while working at the tracks led to more access for photography, magazine, website and media connections. Nice two way relationship. Lots of time and work for a "retired" guy?
3603
« on: April 05, 2019, 11:17 »
I think if you happen to have DeepMeta2 you'll have old stats. I wish I'd saved mine (or found a was of saving the old data out) before having my computer upgraded last year.
Nope, I had that and mine stopped connecting. Unless you mean old stats were stored? Once I downloaded everything that Getty offered, I stopped watching DM2 fail to connect to anything.  Just removed it from another old desktop last month, or I'd look to make sure.
But I'm fairly certain that once we got disconnected the data also became unavailable.
After esp, the old stats were still in DM2, at least until Feb/March last year (can't remember exactly when I got the computer upgrade). DM2 didn't update to give new esp sales, but DM3 covers that.
Yes I remember mixed results on my part. Might be a laptop somewhere with DM2 still on it. That's more of a thorn in my side after Getty removed 3,657 of my images. When I look I have to keep seeing what sold with no thumbnail, no information and earnings for a file number which is their number, so means nothing to me. Yeah I know, stop your crying Pete  and get back to work!
3604
« on: April 05, 2019, 11:09 »
I don't know about good practices or market values, and mine are not very good or different. Just scenery and POV for now. I just deleted the last video anywhere and I'm 100% Pond5 exclusive. Mine are 1080p and I left the suggested Pond5 prices. If I do something better or find a demand for something, I will raise prices. My perspective is from lazy. I only have one agency to worry about, one place to upload video and they are willing to pay me 60%. I'll give that a try and see how the plan works out. I don't have high expectations, but I like the promise of a better rate, if I should sell anything.
3605
« on: April 05, 2019, 10:44 »
... almost double my numbers in the past months ... have you seen the same phenomenon for your portfolio?
Speak for yourself, mine have fallen even deeper into the cavern of despair.  But I am happy for others who find success, please don't take my comments as negative towards positive rewards.
3606
« on: April 05, 2019, 10:42 »
Yeah, unfortunately - they are allowed to do that...
When amazon first started becoming *really* popular (about 10/15 years ago) - a bunch of "internet marketers" popped up "reselling" books claiming to be a "new publisher"...
So they went to the gutenberg press (holding of public domain works) - downloaded tens of thousands of books, slapped their name on it as a "publisher", made 1-2 "edits" (i.e., commentary/intro etc on the book so they could claim it as a "new" book) - and essentially profited off of thousands and thousands of other people's hard work...
With this kinda logic, I can buy a movie, add some of my own shots and resell it as my own work?
If it is in the public domain, or I believe it is 20 years for expired copyrighted works, then yes.
Part of the reasons you have 'oldie' radio stations, because I believe it is after 20 years, then don't have to pay royalties to the artists.
It's not 20 years, but what's the difference if the facts don't count? The shows never renewed the copyrights, or never bothered to secure a copyright, so they expired, and now back to the important parts that relate to us. Let me start with this is about the USA not someplace else. Yes, anything public domain can be republished, on the web or in print, the right to copy a work (get it?) was originally intended to protect authors and publishers, or they would come out with something new and someone with a printing press, could set the type and print their own. Copyright came about because of technology, and granted an author or artist, a limited monopoly to publish their work. The lawsuit in the first link: Here's the thing, though: ...you can still sell public domain images. You can do whatever you want with them. Of course, you can't sue over infringement of them, but you can most certainly still sell them. I do and others do. People use parts of NASA images in their works. The NASA images are unprotected, but our new creation might be. (not going there...) Otherwise there are lawyers, groups and other who are pushing that selling a Public Domain (from here on PD) image, since we are talking Getty and our own, is fraud. The opposition wants to say, that claiming a Copyright to a PD images is fraud, because we are stating to a potential buyer that we own, or in the OP case, Getty is making a false claim. I should add that once something goes out of copyright, it can't be protected again. Only the original time and renewal are allowed. Of course unless Disney lobbies and gets the laws changed to protect Mickey Mouse. Which caused a freeze on images going into public domain. Let me also add, USA if it was published before 1924 and copyrighted, it's now PD. But now to the meat. If I copy a PD image, edit it and upload and license to buyers, with a copyright, and I committing fraud by claiming I own the copyright? OR am I simply licensing an image that anyone can get free? Also lets say I scanned and edited that image and "made substantial alterations", then I do have a new work and I can license that work. I think this is why Shutterstock doesn't take found images, PD or anything that's not our own, original work. Yes we can upload old family photos Etc. with a release, but that's going off the point again. There are exceptions. Here's one of the proposals, and I'll say in advance, I don't agree and I don't like the direction it takes. But life and times change. These are summary excerpts, the full PDF I'll link at the end. University of Georgia School of Law 1) ...breach of warranty and failure of consideration and examines precedent authorizing a licensee to recover royalties paid for the use of expression later found to be in the public domain. 2) ...restitutionary arguments based on unjust enrichment and mistaken payment principles. 3) argues that common-law fraud causes of action should be applicable to false copyright claims made deliberately or recklessly. 4) demonstrates that various consumer protection statutes expressly incorporating FTC false advertising principles provide very promising protection for the public domain. This is where the latest Getty suit is making claims on similar grounds. The whole RICO claim was funny. (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.)I find the legal views of the lawsuit and the school of law, very threatening to free use or any compilations or creative manipulations of PD works. The suit also has some ridiculous claims that because every page of the Getty website says Copyright, there's some false claim there as well. This will be very interesting, but I suspect claiming fraud or FTC impropriety or RICO conspiracy will fall flat. Note: it's a class action lawsuit where only the lawyers make money or recover anything of substance, most of the time. Well that was fun. Happy reading if you so choose: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1341&context=fac_artchop
3607
« on: April 05, 2019, 09:55 »
STARTED IN OCTOBER WTH JUST 200 300 FILEs, and had 25 dollar the first month, thinking it could become a second agency after ss near stock and adobe, then noveber more than 35 and till half december a lot of sale for 3,5 dollar....then after 15 december sudden death. january february and march not more than 10 dollar combined and in stock a lot of sales from partner for 0,18 coming mostly from asia. now i have 400 images compared to 10 k in other images and stopped uploading total waste of time. really everything getty become crap.
And to think that a year ago I was thinking I should really be working at Canva. Now I'm happy I didn't punish myself by joining. 
3608
« on: April 05, 2019, 09:51 »
Copy paste from another topic:
OK, after I slept this over, after long conversation with IRS yesterday I would like to share my experience and knowledge to everyone concerned about AdobeStock, 1042s forms and taxes, and there are people who asked me about that so I would like to say it public for everyone who wants to know. I am talking only about withheld tax when adobe was US-based company for non us contributors, nothing else.
I need to be fair to AdobeStock, as I already wrote on this topic before, they are becoming friendly stock company and getting better earner at least for me. After I wrote my concern about getting paid from Adobe Canada, and not getting 1042s form from them, just signed letters, even that's contrary from what is stated on irs.gov official site, we can use that letter along with other sites 1042s form for tax return, and as long as we are getting adobestock withheld tax returned there is nothing to worry about.
That's it from me about this theme.
Good news, and being in the US I was totally baffled by the whole situation. So as long as the IRS accept "the letter" everyone is fine.
3609
« on: April 05, 2019, 09:48 »
https://www.etsy.com/shop/RutaFoziSVG
See if your work is in this shop. This lady is a big time infringer.
Lucky me I don't make Vectors for her to steal. But please help someone who doesn't understand the art side. How does she copy others vectors to easily? Is this a matter of download a sample, make a SVG and upload or how is it so easy for people to do this?
3610
« on: April 05, 2019, 09:45 »
I'm confused... did you earn $9,650 or $3663?
Your post says $9650, yet - you only list $3663???
My attempt at an April Fools report was perhaps too subtle. It was, of course, $3663. I thought the rest of the post made that clear. Sorry.
Steve
Ah,kk. For me - $9650/month in royalty sales would be a good wage. Still $3,663 is quite good. I believe after about $3,000/month in sales (at least for north america) - then it starts to become 'livable' if you are living in a small to mid-sized city. Anything above that starts to become fun money
Or like myself, have four other sources of income, so I can continue to "make money" on Microstock?
3611
« on: April 05, 2019, 09:43 »
I think if you happen to have DeepMeta2 you'll have old stats. I wish I'd saved mine (or found a was of saving the old data out) before having my computer upgraded last year.
Nope, I had that and mine stopped connecting. Unless you mean old stats were stored? Once I downloaded everything that Getty offered, I stopped watching DM2 fail to connect to anything. Just removed it from another old desktop last month, or I'd look to make sure. But I'm fairly certain that once we got disconnected the data also became unavailable. $9.50 from six or seven years ago? Are you really that interested? None of the data would equate to what would sell today.
Dive in and see what your new stats are!
Cheers!
Yes, now that you mention it. Like me just now, looking at the App and seeing all the photo has been removed, not my doing, and 2 download material, which probably made me minimal money, like under a dollar for 2 downloads, I think looking forward is a better idea. I'm sure not going to make more of the stuff that was a fail, and a proven loser.
3612
« on: April 05, 2019, 09:37 »
Phew - what a month! $9650 earned from my activities.
OK - it is the first of April, but it was a very good month - best ever, with $3663 earned. Full details, as usual, are here: https://www.backyardsilver.com/2019/04/april-1-report-on-earnings-from-stock-photos/
If you want an email each time I post something on the blog, you can sign up in the top right. I'm going to work on a what sold where post in the next day or two.
Steve
Still good in any case, nice to see that people who work hard are making decent returns for their efforts.
3613
« on: April 05, 2019, 09:30 »
A serious buyer with serious money, isn't going to come to even the top agencies as a regular source for images.
Who is a serious buyer for you?
For years I find my images used by global brands and publishers, like Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Nivea, ELLE, Danone, found images in Hollywood tv shows, etc.
They don't use stock for their commercials obviously, but for other purposes they are the main clients in the industry (in my experience). This is for whom "Premium Access" and other special deals were invented, agencies fight for them offering the best deals, because they have a huge continuous daily volume of demand.
"Why is the passive capture of digital image files important? Because the commercial class of pro photographers categorically refuses to contribute their valuable assets to the stock photo pipeline, let alone to do so proactively."
They were paid for their work already and they rarely have rights to upload it to stock, since it was exclusive for the client. And even if they can, there is no garantee that their "valuable assets" would sell. Making work for a specific client isn't the same as making stock for a broad range of different customers.
I create images just for stock and wouldn't exchange it for client's work. I want to shoot and sell what I want, not what some brief told me to do.
These are two different styles of work and philosophies behind it and absolutely different markets.
And that's why they don't intersect. (And I hope never will.) Which is a great thing
I find my work used in all kinds of places, some major publications. Yes a Shutterstock image, at least once, has been a magazine cover, such as on Time. But that's not what he's writing about. Not the one off or the uncommon sales, because Microstock is full of trash and realistically disorganized, under priced and unattractive to established pros. His point that the new agencies didn't disrupt, but they just bought the competition, is pretty much true. Yes, there's the other side, where the majors couldn't compete with the Micro prices. That's for general consumers and the broader market, especially the web. Enterprise-level photo publishing, is a much higher value, more demanding and pays better. That's the point. Microstock has ignored that market. The top professionals have ignored Microstock. And there we are? Anyone with a camera can make any photos they want and put them up for sale. Sometimes we make a sale. I'm part of the we, as I'm not an elite media or art photographer. We are missing out on the higher value contracts, and being underpaid to do that. Somewhere, in the future, there will be other sites that vet the images, have higher standards and demands and pay us more. Microstock will survive just fine in the low pay area. But don't expect the enterprise-level photo publishing business to come to Microstock for their images. They will keep sourcing from known professionals. Yeah, the briefs are bogus. Who's going to go out, invest and shoot, so a client can pick the winner. Or as many saw with Image Brief, pick through the submissions for ideas, then pay a pro to shoot. I'd have to watch those magazines you list or TV shows to know if my images have been used. I don't. I have had friends tell me I was in a magazine. This is microstock, I agree with you. I'm not fine art or exceptional and I don't have much that's not reproducible in some form, by someone else. But... if we are all missing a major part of the market, there's opportunity and income that's being missed. That only applies to people who want to get paid. Otherwise we can post on Instagram and FB for exposure and admiration. Show Me The Money 
3614
« on: April 05, 2019, 09:02 »
You can see how many sales you've had per file if you use the contributor phone app. Go to 'stats' and select 'show all' as date range, it will show you the number of views and number of sales per file.
Thanks, and it shows stats sorted by sales, but I don't see income. Nice quick view. Then I went to https://www.todayis20.com/ and there's all kinds of choices, like by income, best selling Etc. However because of the changes and data being removed from IS to ESP and Getty, I see that's still going to be a NO for going back that far.
3615
« on: April 04, 2019, 17:49 »
Well, heres a new one...Mercedes has sued four mural artists after photographing their cars with the murals in the background. Theyre asking the court to decide that the artists have no copyright claims. In other words, theyre suing the artists to keep the artists from suing them. Which means the artists have to pay an attorney to represent them after their work was used without compensation. https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-mercedes-benz-sued-four-artists-murals-appeared-instagram-posts
Wow that's a good one and interesting.
3616
« on: April 04, 2019, 17:47 »
A long but interesting take on the state of photography
https://medium.com/@Zimberoff/disrupting-stock-photography-fffe1c7d5b99
Thanks for the reminder, read this article a while ago and it was very insightful.
But as I understand, the author suggestion is to build one mega agency which will include all photography content that exists...
"There cant be three Facebooks or six Googles. Those companies became institutions because, ultimately, there remained only one of each in its class. Right now, there is no go-to platform, no home for the worldwide community of commercial photographers and publishers to congregate."
Having one entity to control it all, sounds like Getty's dream come true  It can lead to a total lose of control.
Not the same as one Google and by the way there are many other search engines. Google has grown from nothing in 1998 and diversified, they are smart. There are other social media platforms. There will never be one single go to photo platform. eBay is the top, but there are specialized auction sites. So lets look at the other reality. There are many soft drink makers, a few larger, but many others that are a success. There are some big fast food corporations and small chains and local restaurants. There are many companies that make candy or soup or pasta. Yes some have a larger market share, but there's room for a number of successful businesses. There could be and eventual sorting out of Microstock agencies which would be good for us, because the major agencies would get the majority of the business and they would be hosting our images. Getty isn't one of them, because they are a different market and product. My view is, the specialty shops, RM agents and then the open market, Shutterstock, Adobe, Alamy and Pond5. Someone could break in like Pond5 did with Music or audio or a selected kind of content, there's room for a large dedicated Vector and Illustration site? I look forward to the parasite agencies and the places that pay low and sell low going out of business. They don't help us or the industry at all, they just drag us down into the lowest level and have created stock photograph as a cheap commodity market. The rest is a wonderful, informative read. "Why is the passive capture of digital image files important? Because the commercial class of pro photographers categorically refuses to contribute their valuable assets to the stock photo pipeline, let alone to do so proactively." And many more well thought out observations. What he's saying is, very little of the highest quality work is actually making it into the market via online stock agencies. I think he's right, except for a few highly respected and skilled people who make a living at Microstock. But the stock agencies are filled with numbers, not quality. A serious buyer with serious money, isn't going to come to even the top agencies as a regular source for images.
3617
« on: April 04, 2019, 17:24 »
Deleted because I don't want to participate in the discussion anyway
Actually after finding the early messages interesting, I thought, why am I reading this?
3618
« on: April 04, 2019, 11:40 »
Dead, Defunct, Ex photo selling site.
Kicked the bucket, pushing up daisies....
All Quests and no Sales.
No thanks!
Sigh.....
No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable agency they are...
3619
« on: April 03, 2019, 11:15 »
I went to change my Sig. line logo of the month and they don't work anymore. Instead the forum substitutes a 1x0 pixel standard, which effectivly blocks any image. If you have one, don't change it, because the image won't show.
On the other hand I created a nice text smile, so I'm happy.
3620
« on: April 03, 2019, 11:02 »
I think I have cracked the code to determine what really is "good news"... (this post is a bit tongue in cheek).
If a site says they have "Good News!", its good news for them, but not for you.
If a site has "Great News!", then it really is good news for you.
Just received a payment notifcation from shutterstock, telling me they had "Great News!". And it really was great, I am going to get paid. So that really is good news!
Great news!
Your latest payment has been calculated and will be paid out later this month.
Total Payment: ----- (To be paid by 2019-05-15)
Having no information means that bad developments are unlikely, as in I haven't heard from them in a month, but no news is good news . This proverbial phrase may have originated with King James I of England, who allegedly said No news is better than evil news (1616).Of course agencies have a way of making evil news into Good News. I'll buy the great news theory until something happens to change it. 
3621
« on: April 03, 2019, 10:58 »
I can almost guarantee this is a reaction to Pond5. This is actually a positive step if they are noticing Pond5! Now everyone needs to pay 60%!
Sorry Jeff, but definitely not a reaction to Pond5 as you're thinking. Adobe Stock is very focused on delivering value to customer and contributor, we have a game plan and will continue to execute against it. Pond5 is a part of that as they are a partner. I'll try to see if I can get the background and report back if possible.
Dennis
Yes I noticed that when I was reading my Pond5 terms, that my video would be distributed on AdobeStock. Works for me or maybe I should say, less work for me.
Will this apply to editorial videos available on P5? Or only commercial ones?
Hey, super question, I don't know. I just got the notice that P5 had partners and AS was one of them. Wow, what if... I hate to be optimistic based on my lack of knowledge or information, and I'd guess that since AS doesn't take Editorial the answer is no. But I don't know, so back to "good question". Does anyone know?
3622
« on: April 03, 2019, 10:54 »
What has happened to them? They have gone from quite reliable to very pathetic. I've sent them emails about how useless they've become and they always reply with the same stock standard BS.
They now have ample clips in their wholly owned collection to fill most of their needs. That was the plan all along, to ultimately phase out the paid collection so they get more subscribers that do not have to pay more doe for clips once they lay out the cash for the subscriber model. I think many here pointed that out early on and questioned VBs long term intent. Those hypothesis came true and sure enough VB cut commissions and could now care less about the contributors who helped make them successful.
And when the next one comes along like DP did before VB and pulls the same game, people will run to join. Then we can watch as they get the materials and content and pull the rug out from under their promises. I'm happy for the people who made money off VB early on, I'm also happy I never joined, because I'd be leaving now.
3623
« on: April 03, 2019, 10:49 »
But if someone is outside the US, they are dealing with a Canadian company? Wow, some kind of shell game.
we are not. Otherwise I'd be receiving a T5 form which I don't. And I wouldn't need to fill out the stupid W8BEN form which I do. Obviously, regardless of what is written in a matchbox-sized online "agreement", their accounting isn't aware that they are in Canada now. As it usually happens, whatever is written somewhere on internet doesn't matter, we just have to go by a de facto status.
Not sure I understand, you are not what? You mean, you aren't dealing with the Canadian company, you are dealing with the US version, even thought the terms say you are dealing with the Canadian extension. Even more confusing. I'm wondering what the special agreement with the IRS actually is. Tangled tale, which I can understand why you are looking for answers. Where do your Paypal payments come from? USA or Canada?
3624
« on: April 03, 2019, 10:44 »
I believe it should be a place that offers inspections. You have to protect the customer from our mistakes and make sure there is a minimum level of quality. Also if the place offers legal guarantuees with an extended license that would be useful for the customer as well. Also somebody with professional international accounting, especially for eu sales tax and also data protection regulation
So I do believe it would need to be some kind of existing stock agency that would welcome exclusive content from people who are ready to self market via social media.
These things dont come for free.
True, then we shouldn't expect them to only take a nibble instead of a full bite out of our commissions. I still think you are making a good point and if we could upload and set out own prices, that would bring back much of the control to the artists own choices and decisions. I didn't catch the exclusive the first time around. I suppose that makes sense since they wouldn't want the same things sold for $2 that we have priced at $200. Logical business decision. Reminds me kind of like what P5 is doing now, at 60%, we can set prices, part of an established agency, yes I know that's video. But some people don't like that?
3625
« on: April 03, 2019, 10:39 »
I had a sale reported on 28th of December, Washington Post, 40$net, it hasn't been cleared yet. Should I contact Alamy about it or should I wait some more? After what time you contact Alamy, if sale hasn't been cleared?
Most news outlets and TV stations appear to operate on a quarterly payment basis with Alamy so if you don't see it clear by the end of this week I'd give them a knock and keep reminding them.
Good to know. Seems like the larger accounts take longer, as their standard, and make one large payment, instead of lots of tiny ones.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
