MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Artemis on March 13, 2011, 08:51
-
Its been mentioned in the other istock thread, but i thought this deserved a thread of it's own:
From mr. Thompson:
"OK, here’s what we’re going to do.
We’re going to take a few people (maximum 5?) and ask them to sign NDAs. Then we'll have a conference call this week about what's going on. They can be the ears of the entire community and see if we're doing anything out of the ordinary.
I'm going to lock this thread. Someone can start a new one where they nominate people they'd like to speak with us. They will need to be exclusive members. Nominate away.
KKT"
(end of now-locked clawback thread)
Nominations of exclusives can be made here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=1)
I'm not sure what to expect from this. Are they going to open the books to these select few and actually prove everything is ok? Are they going to reveal their future plans?
I dont see much use in it if the rest of us don't get any details at all...
And i think this one is a very genuine concern:
Posted By lostinbids:
There is part of me that thinks if 5 prominant members of the community sign a NDA get told what is going on and then can't share it with the rest of us we loose those 5 prominant members voices' in the forums.
-
Strange, they dont call at least one experienced, high-ranked independant. Reps from all quarters is the normal precidure in this action.
That aside, I dont doubt for a second that IS can show everything is above board, never doubted their honesty in this mess. Just, it could have been handled much better and in a much more diplomatic way, thats all.
-
Strange, they dont call at least one experienced, high-ranked independant.
The one we all thought of has not chipped in on this issue, either on iStock or here (unless I blinked and missed him), which is interesting in itself, IMO.
-
Strange, they dont call at least one experienced, high-ranked independant.
The one we all thought of has not chipped in on this issue, either on iStock or here (unless I blinked and missed him), which is interesting in itself, IMO.
Exactely! Been wondering about that too...
maybe his legal team is on it and he can't comment? or his sweetheart deal is so sweet it soothes everything for him? or or..?
-
what use is that if the people have to sign an NDA? Sounds like a nice way to muzzle even more people who are critical of iStock. This is the crappiest suggestion yet.
And why are people nominating Sean? What a foolish move. Sorry. But it would be the worst thing to have him muzzled. I can't believe people are falling for this. iStock treats the contributors like chumps and they fall right in line like good little Kool-Aid drinkers.
And why only exclusive members???
-
This shouldn't be a conference call with exclusive members. This needs to be a town hall meeting with lots of participants and a question queue. I know this is easy to facilitate because I used to work for a Fortune 500 company and we'd have global conference calls with our CEO quarterly.
-
I really hope that whoever is nominated refuses to participate. Who says iStock is not being transparent? Many of their latest moves are really transparent, just not in the way *iStock* would like them to be.
I mean, if they are signing an NDA, can they even say, "I'm not satisfied with how things are being handled"? Can they even talk about it at all? Frankly, I'd be really reluctant to sign anything with iStock, seeing how sneaky they have been with their ASA.
Someone on iStock said:
I have to list Sean first. I think we'll get the no nonsense distilled info.
Clearly they don't understand what an NDA is. They won't get no-nonsense distilled info. They won't get ANY info!
-
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:
I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully. Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.
Those are my thoughts exactly.
-
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:
I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully. Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.
Those are my thoughts exactly.
Again, why the NDA at all? This should be a public discussion that's open to all. Period.
-
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:
I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully. Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.
Those are my thoughts exactly.
Again, why the NDA at all? This should be a public discussion that's open to all. Period.
I totally agree. But it looks like people are falling for it. Boggles my mind.
-
I really hope that whoever is nominated refuses to participate. Who says iStock is not being transparent? Many of their latest moves are really transparent, just not in the way *iStock* would like them to be.
I mean, if they are signing an NDA, can they even say, "I'm not satisfied with how things are being handled"? Can they even talk about it at all? Frankly, I'd be really reluctant to sign anything with iStock, seeing how sneaky they have been with their ASA.
Someone on iStock said:
I have to list Sean first. I think we'll get the no nonsense distilled info.
Clearly they don't understand what an NDA is. They won't get no-nonsense distilled info. They won't get ANY info!
Exactly. You've nailed it.
-
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:
I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully. Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.
Those are my thoughts exactly.
Again, why the NDA at all? This should be a public discussion that's open to all. Period.
It seems that the discussion with the five peer-selected contributors is only about the fraud, not about the gazillion other things which are wrong with iStock at the moment. Therefore:
It MAY be that iStock is going to explain to the group what the nature of the fraud was, what they did about the first wave, in December, why they apparently can't get insurance (RM says they can't, at any rate!), why the second wave happened, why it went on for so long, apparently undetected - or did they have to leave it for so long to gather enough evidence for the police or other relevant authorities.
It MAY be that that information is sub judice or similar, so can't at the moment be made public. I think that's what Kelly has been saying.
HOPEFULLY the NDA would only be that the group couldn't discuss the details of the fraud cases until it's all made public in the fullness of time.
There would be no need to muzzle the chosen sample from frank, free and full exchange of opinions on other matters on the forums, here or elsewhere, and I wouldn't expect them to agree to anything else.
Sean and JoAnn from here, I hope you're both up for it.
-
It MAY be that iStock is going to explain to the group what the nature of the fraud was, what they did about the first wave, in December, why they apparently can't get insurance (RM says they can't, at any rate!), why the second wave happened, why it went on for so long, apparently undetected - or did they have to leave it for so long to gather enough evidence for the police or other relevant authorities.
It MAY be that that information is sub judice or similar, so can't at the moment be made public. I think that's what Kelly has been saying.
HOPEFULLY the NDA would only be that the group couldn't discuss the details of the fraud cases until it's all made public in the fullness of time.
There would be no need to muzzle the chosen sample from frank, free and full exchange of opinions on other matters on the forums, here or elsewhere, and I wouldn't expect them to agree to anything else.
Sean and JoAnn from here, I hope you're both up for it.
[/quote]
While I don't disagree with you, there's a lot more that needs to be discussed than just the fraud that took place. Broken functionality, reduced commissions, recurring bugs, etc. All of these additional issues are barely commented on by Admins and when they are, it's "We're looking into it" or some other b.s. with no timelines or reassurances of when things will be made right.
-
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:
I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully. Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.
Those are my thoughts exactly.
Again, why the NDA at all? This should be a public discussion that's open to all. Period.
It seems that the discussion with the five peer-selected contributors is only about the fraud, not about the gazillion other things which are wrong with iStock at the moment. Therefore:
It MAY be that iStock is going to explain to the group what the nature of the fraud was, what they did about the first wave, in December, why they apparently can't get insurance (RM says they can't, at any rate!), why the second wave happened, why it went on for so long, apparently undetected - or did they have to leave it for so long to gather enough evidence for the police or other relevant authorities.
It MAY be that that information is sub judice or similar, so can't at the moment be made public. I think that's what Kelly has been saying.
HOPEFULLY the NDA would only be that the group couldn't discuss the details of the fraud cases until it's all made public in the fullness of time.
There would be no need to muzzle the chosen sample from frank, free and full exchange of opinions on other matters on the forums, here or elsewhere, and I wouldn't expect them to agree to anything else.
Sean and JoAnn from here, I hope you're both up for it.
That was my take on it -- an NDA rouses suspicion for sure, but IF there was truly something that the authorities are involved in and IF it is still on-going (and it sounds like it is, if the last "fraudulent downloads" took place as recently as February 28) and they're still trying to catch them, I can see why perhaps there are parts they can't divulge publicly, and why they would need to have new people in the loop agree not to compromise it by divulging certain things. However it also gives them a weasel-out if it was in fact due to their negligence or carelessness, or a gaping security hole in their F5 revamped site, or something else.
People signing it don't have to say anything in order to make their opinions known. I'm sure anyone working there has to sign an NDA agreement, including inspectors, and yet you see them give up their badges and/or leave because in their own words they don't like what is going on or the direction it's going in, and they vote with their feet without breaking agreement. Likewise, I think if Sean agrees to do this and sees something dodgy, he's not going to sacrifice himself - he might not be able to tell all, but if he leaves or tosses the crown or takes other action like that, he'll have said something by his actions. Sean doesn't back down from what he thinks is right, as evidenced by three tries to re-open the February stats thread even though TPTB kept locking his thread. If he sees something on the NDA that doesn't look right, if isn't there for a legitimate reason, I expect that he'll call them on it -- and we'll hear about it.
I do wish it was open to more than five -- but I think a totally open-for-all call would turn into a major shitstorm, and we'd end up with less answers than we are likely to with a carefully chosen fewer number. Bottom line -- to me, it's better than KK just locking the thread and ignoring everything until the next issue comes up, which has become the norm lately.
Just my two cents.
-
Just trying to give TPTB the benefit of the doubt on this one issue, the NDA could be only about discussing the actual details. They could still feed back to the baying mob whether they think iStock did everything they could given the circumstances or whether they feel more could have been done. It's difficult for people to say for certain, to be sure, as most of us aren't trained in international law.
-
I dont know how this will work other than to quiet 5 people in the forums.plus it will cause more speculation as the rest of us will remain in the dark.
-
Instead of posting wooyay to KK's posting what about "Where the fuck have you been for the last 3 months"
-
Instead of posting wooyay to KK's posting what about "Where the have you been for the last 3 months"
It surely hasn't been at a communications or people-skills workshop. :( They seriously need someone else to be their spokesperson.
-
Instead of posting wooyay to KK's posting what about "Where the have you been for the last 3 months"
It surely hasn't been at a communications or people-skills workshop. :( They seriously need someone else to be their spokesperson.
The hapless Official Spin Doctor is RogerMexico.
-
Instead of posting wooyay to KK's posting what about "Where the have you been for the last 3 months"
It surely hasn't been at a communications or people-skills workshop. :( They seriously need someone else to be their spokesperson.
I couldn't agree more.
-
I can't imagine signing the NDA. It doesn't really seem like you have much to gain from it. It seems better to just not know.
-
I can't imagine signing the NDA. It doesn't really seem like you have much to gain from it. It seems better to just not know.
I'm sure that Sean for one would be happier knowing that this was a genuine, unpreventable, major fraud assault (assuming for the moment that it is) and not just his agent's negligence or worse.
-
I'm sure that Sean for one would be happier knowing that this was a genuine, unpreventable, major fraud assault (assuming for the moment that it is) and not just his agent's negligence or worse.
That information would be nice, but it wouldn't really affect you financially. The fraud already happened, and we are paying for it. I guess my point is that I've never signed an NDA where money wasn't going to be exchanged. I suppose if the news was bad like more fraud was unpreventable, then you could try to leave before it happened. But, what would that involve? Pulling your portfolio? Going non-exclusive?
-
I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.
Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue. If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA. Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.
-
I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.
Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue. If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA. Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.
And an accountant.
-
I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.
I can't see how it's the remit of the five to answer any questions.
I think they should have a list of questions that TPTB have to answer, but not reveal them in advance. Too much chance for spin that way.
-
I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.
Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue. If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA. Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.
And an accountant.
Maybe we're better off having the conference call be with a team comprised of a lawyer, an accountant and a programmer that are not contributing to ISP as artists - a group of our choosing. Time to follow through with the union concept in that we form a group to hire the three that will sign the NDA but not be hindered in the forums.
-
This really is making me a bit uneasy, like we're playing chess with TPTB overthere at iS...
There can be so much behind this move (whether it is to silence 'our' outspoken 5, or do they feel threatened by all the court and audit talk, or do they genuinely think they are doing the right thing behind the screens and want to clear out the sky a little, is it only about the fraud, or the long term plans as well, etc etc...)
At least we know (hope) that the ones selected do their homework and read very, very, carefully before signing this DNA and preferably have it checked by a legal person as well.
... really dont know what to think about this all; somehow i hope Sean or jsnover refuses; just in case the agenda behind this is a dirty one.
-
I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.
Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue. If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA. Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.
And an accountant.
Maybe we're better off having the conference call be with a team comprised of a lawyer, an accountant and a programmer that are not contributing to ISP as artists - a group of our choosing. Time to follow through with the union concept in that we form a group to hire the three that will sign the NDA but not be hindered in the forums.
That sounds like a very decent plan imho!
-
I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.
Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue. If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA. Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.
And an accountant.
Maybe we're better off having the conference call be with a team comprised of a lawyer, an accountant and a programmer that are not contributing to ISP as artists - a group of our choosing. Time to follow through with the union concept in that we form a group to hire the three that will sign the NDA but not be hindered in the forums.
That sounds like a very decent plan imho!
+1 That sounds like an excellent idea. That way, the contributors are not on the hot seat, whether they decide to participate or not.
-
Another thought is how are the chosen 5 even to know what is revealed in the conference call is even the truth? Which seems in awful short supply at iStock at the moment. It's certainly possible that they'll just get fed a bunch of spin anyway.
-
Ah, someone even more cynical than me (if that's possible, LOL):
As a non-exclusive my opinion counts for nothing here - but if asked (which I won't be) I would not trust any of the 'so-called' Community voices elected here. They, to a man, will be so honoured to be in the 'Getty family' all you will see is a sycophantic 'tow-the-line' message to the exclusive members but they'll be rewarded with a special bonus (or shres options) to stuff the rest of you and not rock the boat. And you can bet they will be more than eager to sign an NDA as well. The very fact that this 'list' is only open to exclusive iSP contributors should be warning to you all - a captive (completely finacially reliant) and sycophantic group. Smart move iSP, really, a smart move.
Note: I do not agree with their speculations.
-
I nominate:
Mr Bojangles the cat
An autographed picture of Pat Sajak
An oak log with a wig on
A Tickle Me Elmo
A Spiderman costume
I like that a whole thread is devoted to nominating 5 people to keep secrets. ;D
-
Ah, someone even more cynical than me (if that's possible, LOL):
As a non-exclusive my opinion counts for nothing here - but if asked (which I won't be) I would not trust any of the 'so-called' Community voices elected here. They, to a man, will be so honoured to be in the 'Getty family' all you will see is a sycophantic 'tow-the-line' message to the exclusive members but they'll be rewarded with a special bonus (or shres options) to stuff the rest of you and not rock the boat. And you can bet they will be more than eager to sign an NDA as well. The very fact that this 'list' is only open to exclusive iSP contributors should be warning to you all - a captive (completely finacially reliant) and sycophantic group. Smart move iSP, really, a smart move.
Note: I do not agree with their speculations.
That person may indeed be even more cynical than you, but lost credibitily with me when they revealed their choice of an 'independent'. They clearly know nothing of them; nor have they read the forum posts of the most-nominated exclusives.
-
The Supreme Court and chief Lord Justice, the NSA, CTU, CIA and FBI, should also be present. Banned from further forum use is the Al Quaida, Red-Brigade BUT not the liberation army of this forum. Basta!
-
I nominate:
Mr Bojangles the cat
An autographed picture of Pat Sajak
An oak log with a wig on
A Tickle Me Elmo
A Spiderman costume
I like that a whole thread is devoted to nominating 5 people to keep secrets. ;D
:D
I just reread that and am literally LOL. "An oak log with a wig on" ROFL
-
Another thought is how are the chosen 5 even to know what is revealed in the conference call is even the truth? Which seems in awful short supply at iStock at the moment. It's certainly possible that they'll just get fed a bunch of spin anyway.
My concern as well. If istock were about telling the truth, why have they told so many lies in the past months? Why does the site continue to be unsecure? Why do other sites seem to have it all under control? You will never convince me that what gets said to Sean, JoAnn or anyone else will be the truth. It will be spin.
I totally trust Sean, JoAnn and some others mentioned that I know, but I just don't believe that this is going to change anything at all.
Take the fraud issues off the table for a minute...what about the whole wreck the site is in? How many times have admins said fixes were coming, and then it ends up worse?
I think it's too little, too late. I think cthoman's nominations make about as much sense.
edit: their cash cow is now under attack from some of the big guns...of course they are going to try to appear to be reaching out. No one will convince me that this effort is sincere...we're again talking greediness and money. No improvements for contributors.
-
I'm sure that Sean for one would be happier knowing that this was a genuine, unpreventable, major fraud assault (assuming for the moment that it is) and not just his agent's negligence or worse.
If I were in Sean's position, I would be letting my lawyer do my talking with Istock at this point.
-
edit: their cash cow is now under attack from some of the big guns...of course they are going to try to appear to be reaching out. No one will convince me that this effort is sincere...we're again talking greediness and money. No improvements for contributors.
Agreed.
-
Ah, someone even more cynical than me (if that's possible, LOL):
As a non-exclusive my opinion counts for nothing here - but if asked (which I won't be) I would not trust any of the 'so-called' Community voices elected here. They, to a man, will be so honoured to be in the 'Getty family' all you will see is a sycophantic 'tow-the-line' message to the exclusive members but they'll be rewarded with a special bonus (or shres options) to stuff the rest of you and not rock the boat. And you can bet they will be more than eager to sign an NDA as well. The very fact that this 'list' is only open to exclusive iSP contributors should be warning to you all - a captive (completely finacially reliant) and sycophantic group. Smart move iSP, really, a smart move.
Note: I do not agree with their speculations.
What a bunch of bull.....
JoAnn already posted in the istock forums she's not willing to sign a DNA, ( i'm relieved about that.)
Again, if this goes through IMHO this really is the way to go:
Maybe we're better off having the conference call be with a team comprised of a lawyer, an accountant and a programmer that are not contributing to ISP as artists - a group of our choosing. Time to follow through with the union concept in that we form a group to hire the three that will sign the NDA but not be hindered in the forums.
-
I'm sure that Sean for one would be happier knowing that this was a genuine, unpreventable, major fraud assault (assuming for the moment that it is) and not just his agent's negligence or worse.
If I were in Sean's position, I would be letting my lawyer do my talking with Istock at this point.
Well you've certainly got a point, but sometimes you need to know if it's worth throwing good money after bad.
-
My prediction on the favored five:
Stacey Newman
Camrocker
double_p
feverstockphoto
Willowpix
Pesky Monkey, jsnover, TerryJ and jtyler look like they have already declined. I just can't see Sean signing an NDA. So all that will be left are the 'syncopaths'. :D
-
I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.
Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue. If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA. Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.
And an accountant.
and maybe a lie-detector operator!
-
I nominate:
Mr Bojangles the cat
An autographed picture of Pat Sajak
An oak log with a wig on
A Tickle Me Elmo
A Spiderman costume
I like that a whole thread is devoted to nominating 5 people to keep secrets. ;D
:D
I just reread that and am literally LOL. "An oak log with a wig on" ROFL
What? You don't have all these things just laying around your office set up at a child's tea party table? Well, everything, but the Spiderman costume because you've gotta wear that (of course).
In all seriousness, I have my doubts anytime someone is nominated to represent my interests. It makes me wonder about the viability of a joint or coop agencies that others have talked about. It must be trust issues or just that other contributors are actually strangers (for me). Maybe, we need one of those team building weekend retreats. ;)
-
I nominate:
Mr Bojangles the cat
An autographed picture of Pat Sajak
An oak log with a wig on
A Tickle Me Elmo
A Spiderman costume
I like that a whole thread is devoted to nominating 5 people to keep secrets. ;D
:D
I just reread that and am literally LOL. "An oak log with a wig on" ROFL
What? You don't have all these things just laying around your office set up at a child's tea party table? Well, everything, but the Spiderman costume because you've gotta wear that (of course).
Every time I read that list new waves of laughter roll out. It's the funniest thing I've read in a while. "An autographed picture of Pat Sajak" LOLOLOL
Thank you for that.
-
This prob will not affect me much, i just started at IS, very few pics. Although i have had a large batch of $ taken away from me at another micro co, for the same reason, "fraud".
This is what is in my mind:
lets say we make and sell a crap load of wiggets to walmart (for resale) and walmart in turn sells them to the public, via there stores.
along comes a groop of scammers/criminals who bought a butt load of our wiggets with stolen credit cards.
walmart would not be charging us for the stolen items?! They would just absorbe it as the cost of doing biz! And possibly follow up with the authorities to try and recup the loss.
Why is it not like this with the micros?
-
This prob will not affect me much, i just started at IS, very few pics. Although i have had a large batch of $ taken away from me at another micro co, for the same reason, "fraud".
This is what is in my mind:
lets say we make and sell a crap load of wiggets to walmart (for resale) and walmart in turn sells them to the public, via there stores.
along comes a groop of scammers/criminals who bought a butt load of our wiggets with stolen credit cards.
walmart would not be charging us for the stolen items?! They would just absorbe it as the cost of doing biz! And possibly follow up with the authorities to try and recup the loss.
Why is it not like this with the micros?
Actually the proper analogy is a bit different -- the stolen credit cards were used to buy CREDITS from iStock, which were then exchanged for images, but they didn't buy the images directly from the contributors with the credit cards. I was checking to see if credits could be used to buy anything else, like perhaps merchandise from the store (because then would they go back to the manufacturer of the merchandise and ask for their money back?) -- but I guess they can only use the credits on image downloads, and not on anything else.
-
My prediction on the favored five:
Stacey Newman
Camrocker
double_p
feverstockphoto
Willowpix
Pesky Monkey, jsnover, TerryJ and jtyler look like they have already declined. I just can't see Sean signing an NDA. So all that will be left are the 'syncopaths'. :D
Well, no insult intended to the above-named, but some of those folks seem like Istock's most vocal defenders. They don't seem like the most objective group to go in and ask the tough questions.
ETA: Oh, duh. Just reread your post and I see that was your point :)
-
This is a brilliant move on istocks part, and fits right in with the strategy of shutting down dissension in the forums. Once you get anointed into the "inner circle" you are pretty much locked up from talking about istocks business. A great way to put the vocal, thoughtful contributors into a box and throw away the key! There might be a lot of people complaining about the management at istock, but to me they are firing on all 8 cylinders. Dressing up the numbers, lowering the costs of images they sell, raising the costs to buyers and keeping the extra profits, shutting down the complaints, and making istock look like a great bet in the ipo market. Well done! I, for one, will buy the stock when it comes out. ( And sell it before the next quarterly earnings report).
-
Best comment so far IMO was the question asking how ISP was going to manage to tally the votes if they couldn't even manage to tally the last clawback.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but did anyone else notice that KKT's post was written at what looked to me to be about 4:30 AM in Calgary. Could't help but wonder if he's deservedly losing some sleep over what's been going on, though it could just be that he's not in Calgary, traveling, or had an auto-post programmed.
-
what use is that if the people have to sign an NDA? Sounds like a nice way to muzzle even more people who are critical of iStock. This is the crappiest suggestion yet.
And why are people nominating Sean? What a foolish move. Sorry. But it would be the worst thing to have him muzzled. I can't believe people are falling for this. iStock treats the contributors like chumps and they fall right in line like good little Kool-Aid drinkers.
And why only exclusive members???
whats this about?! what brought it on? what are they going to discuss?
whatever it is I agree, we'll tell 5 people what we what them to hear and they wont be be able to tell anyone else? what's the point?
-
whats this about?! what brought it on? what are they going to discuss?
whatever it is I agree, we'll tell 5 people what we what them to hear and they wont be be able to tell anyone else? what's the point?
I agree, what's the point? Even a very frank and open talk with everyone would be met with uncertainty and skepticism. A closed doors NDA, we'll tell you what to say meeting is a joke and further erodes iStocks reputation.
-
Clever. They are making the switch from all of us who are pissed off about the clawback of funds being on tge offemsive to making us go on the defensive.
Three words: class action lawsuit. I am in if anyone can get it rolling.
-
I'd be happy to participate in a conference call - no NDA - to discuss major contributor problems. Discuss is an operative word - i.e. not just listen. Problems plural is key as well - the clawback of funds and loss of control of our images is very important, but is only one of the major failings on the site at the moment. If they dont' fix search soon, the future doesn't look bright at all.
I think iStock is trying to deflect trouble rather than solve problems. I think they want to try and ratchet down the contributor discontent and aren't thinking about solving the problems as the way to do that.
I hope they're willing to revisit the sort of conference call they're willing to have. Going from "trust us" to "trust them" isn't much of a step forward IMO.
-
Anyone else find it interesting that Locke has not been heard from here there or anywhere since this conference call was announced? Hmmmm....
-
Anyone else find it interesting that Locke has not been heard from here there or anywhere since this conference call was announced? Hmmmm....
It's a Sunday. He might be out with the family or on a shoot. Actually I think he has a very wise head on those shoulders and I think he's keeping his counsel until he understands more about exactly what is being offered & demanded.
-
Anyone else find it interesting that Locke has not been heard from here there or anywhere since this conference call was announced? Hmmmm....
I would not be to chatty either if I had lost $5K this month; I would be spending my time speaking with an attorney, not some stuffed suit at IS
-
I'd be happy to participate in a conference call - no NDA - to discuss major contributor problems. Discuss is an operative word - i.e. not just listen. Problems plural is key as well - the clawback of funds and loss of control of our images is very important, but is only one of the major failings on the site at the moment. If they dont' fix search soon, the future doesn't look bright at all.
I think iStock is trying to deflect trouble rather than solve problems. I think they want to try and ratchet down the contributor discontent and aren't thinking about solving the problems as the way to do that.
I hope they're willing to revisit the sort of conference call they're willing to have. Going from "trust us" to "trust them" isn't much of a step forward IMO.
This illustrates why you were the second person (behind Sean) in my nomination list. I hope you will reconsider signing an NDA. I don't see requiring an NDA, or signing one, to be that big of a deal (as long as you get to read the NDA before signing it, of course). It likely will just say that you aren't to reveal any confidential information or trade secrets, something which I think you wouldn't want to do anyway.
However, I understand your desire not to be held potentially legally responsible for divulging something accidentally (or even being accused of it when you haven't done so), so I completely respect your decision if you stand by it. (Not that that should matter to you!)
-
My prediction on the favored five:
Stacey NewmanCamrocker
double_p
feverstockphoto
Willowpix
Pesky Monkey, jsnover, TerryJ and jtyler look like they have already declined. I just can't see Sean signing an NDA. So all that will be left are the 'syncopaths'. :D
You gotta be kidding me, right?
-
My prediction on the favored five:
Stacey NewmanCamrocker
double_p
feverstockphoto
Willowpix
Pesky Monkey, jsnover, TerryJ and jtyler look like they have already declined. I just can't see Sean signing an NDA. So all that will be left are the 'syncopaths'. :D
You gotta be kidding me, right?
Believe it or not, she has been nominated!
-
I'd be happy to participate in a conference call - no NDA - to discuss major contributor problems. Discuss is an operative word - i.e. not just listen. Problems plural is key as well - the clawback of funds and loss of control of our images is very important, but is only one of the major failings on the site at the moment. If they dont' fix search soon, the future doesn't look bright at all.
I think iStock is trying to deflect trouble rather than solve problems. I think they want to try and ratchet down the contributor discontent and aren't thinking about solving the problems as the way to do that.
I hope they're willing to revisit the sort of conference call they're willing to have. Going from "trust us" to "trust them" isn't much of a step forward IMO.
Very well said, agree with you 100%
-
I'd be happy to participate in a conference call - no NDA - to discuss major contributor problems. Discuss is an operative word - i.e. not just listen. Problems plural is key as well - the clawback of funds and loss of control of our images is very important, but is only one of the major failings on the site at the moment. If they dont' fix search soon, the future doesn't look bright at all.
I think iStock is trying to deflect trouble rather than solve problems. I think they want to try and ratchet down the contributor discontent and aren't thinking about solving the problems as the way to do that.
I hope they're willing to revisit the sort of conference call they're willing to have. Going from "trust us" to "trust them" isn't much of a step forward IMO.
Very well said, agree with you 100%
Me too. 'We' the contributors need to have some say in what we want out of this too.
-
My prediction on the favored five:
Stacey NewmanCamrocker
double_p
feverstockphoto
Willowpix
Pesky Monkey, jsnover, TerryJ and jtyler look like they have already declined. I just can't see Sean signing an NDA. So all that will be left are the 'syncopaths'. :D
You gotta be kidding me, right?
Believe it or not, she has been nominated!
PinkCottonCandy was nominated too if you can believe that. While usually reasonable, her actions of late and her Moderator badge would put her at the bottom of the list in my book.
-
Three words: class action lawsuit. I am in if anyone can get it rolling.
Those are the only three words that matter at this point. Lots of us will be on that bandwagon, I think.
-
Anyone else find it interesting that Locke has not been heard from here there or anywhere since this conference call was announced? Hmmmm....
I would not be to chatty either if I had lost $5K this month; I would be spending my time speaking with an attorney, not some stuffed suit at IS
Yes indeed. I think you are exactly right.
-
Has anyone wondered about the timing of that announcement? If KK is in Calgary, the announcement was posted at 4:30 local time. What was he doing at that ungodly hour? Drunk posting? Will he regret it tomorrow? LOL
-
I'd be happy to participate in a conference call - no NDA - to discuss major contributor problems. Discuss is an operative word - i.e. not just listen. Problems plural is key as well - the clawback of funds and loss of control of our images is very important, but is only one of the major failings on the site at the moment. If they dont' fix search soon, the future doesn't look bright at all.
I think iStock is trying to deflect trouble rather than solve problems. I think they want to try and ratchet down the contributor discontent and aren't thinking about solving the problems as the way to do that.
I hope they're willing to revisit the sort of conference call they're willing to have. Going from "trust us" to "trust them" isn't much of a step forward IMO.
Under those conditions, I agree with you. A conference with those terms might be productive. But I am willing to wager it isn't going to happen that way because I don't think their purpose is to give anything to contributors or negotiate. Their cash cow is threatened and they need to make some move to "look" like they are extending themselves, but really they just want to take 5 key figures off the table.
The security problem and cc fraud is only a part of it all...and in the past few months, NOTHING has effectively been accomplished towards fixing the problems that have been there since the F5 rollout. That has NOTHING to do with a fraud investigation and having to keep that private.
Deflecting is a good word.
-
I think the group chosen should include contributors that represent all types of interests including vector. vector artists are certainly marginalized these days. yes, I've been nominated, and I'm glad there are contributors who trust me. I truly appreciate it. I don't feel I have the expertise to participate regarding this specific issue. I wouldn't accept the role because I don't believe I'm a good choice in this instance. it's moot anyways. there are five people who've been nominated more than any other five and I think they're all good choices.
I understand the reasoning behind not allowing non-exclusives, but I would have liked a non-exclusive on the panel. Jo Ann, FWIW, I think it's a mistake that you not accept the role as given to you by your peers. IMO and with respect, I think you're focusing on the NDA instead of the opportunity to truly advocate regarding an important issue. in any case, I guess we'll see how it goes.
-
The NDA can be necessary. Or not. It's difficult to tell without knowing what has happened (although I suspect that there's something more in the thieves motivations than the scheme "stolen credit-cards/illegal downloads for profit). At least, the elected contributors will be able to say if they are satisfied or not with what they wil be told. That would be enough for me.
-
I think the group chosen should include contributors that represent all types of interests including vector. vector artists are certainly marginalized these days.
I've nothing against that, but in the context of the fraud, which I believe is all the conference call is about, I don't think it's vitally important. I'm not even sure whether the (top) Vector/Video/Audio/Flash contributors were affected proportionately to the (top) photographers by the fraud (?)
-
Does iStock really think they will calm the masses by doing this conference call with 5 exclusives then have them sign a NDS? Why in the world would they even do that if those 5 weren't able to tell anyone else what is going on? That is so ridicules. I feel sorry for the 5 that do go along with this...they will find their in boxes full of PMs asking what was discussed...If it is a security issue they do not want to tell the community about, then why would they tell any one about it, especially if those could not repeat it?
-
I wonder if the NDA will contain a clause about not suing or arbitration or something like that.
-
iMHO, this is a very poorly conceived move on IS part. Any five contributors that are selected are going to be active contributors, contributors with large port. on IS and contributors that have lost thousands during the past frauds not including the losses incurred because of the poor management and non-functioning IT department.
I would not be able to contain myself on such a call; i might start calm and collected but I am sure near the middle of the call my line would be disconnected. Despite the purpose of the conference call; how could it not turn into a "bitch fest"
-
Here we go again.
istock announces more clawbacks. Uproar in the forums and threats of lawsuits and audits. Whoa, we better do something. kk posts in forum on the weekend. Invites contributor participation, insinuating that something is actually going to happen. Hundreds of posts ensue.
Oh, the drama. Really, these people should be in Hollywood, writing a reality show.
What ever happened to contributors uploading images, selling, and getting paid. Really, it's a simple concept. Look what greed has done.
-
Aside from the fact that I think this is a less than transparent, strategic move by iStock - I can't imagine anyone thinking this through and being willing to take it on. They'd be tied to whatever the NDA says, held responsible by the iStock community, likely unable to share much of anything (good or bad) and forever tied to the iStock admin in that "remember - we did you a favor..." kind of way. Nothing good will come of this and its just further manipulation by Bruce's band buddies who've graduated to running iStock. What a huge mess that's become. I'm embarrassed to have ever endorsed iStock on any level.
-
I think the group chosen should include contributors that represent all types of interests including vector. vector artists are certainly marginalized these days.
I've nothing against that, but in the context of the fraud, which I believe is all the conference call is about, I don't think it's vitally important. I'm not even sure whether the (top) Vector/Video/Audio/Flash contributors were affected proportionately to the (top) photographers by the fraud (?)
this may be true. I don't know what the numbers are for types of affected contributors. I was just using vector artists as an example because in many other respects right now, they really seem to have lost so much ground on iStock. vectors are fresh in my mind because of a shoot I did recently with two vector artists who have stopped producing vectors altogether for iStock. anyways, not related.
-
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.
-
What ever happened to contributors uploading images, selling, and getting paid. Really, it's a simple concept. Look what greed has done.
Hear bloody hear.
Great post Cathy.
I'm also thinking - why would I trust the word of someone who signed an NDA that was written by an agency that has broken my trust?
-
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.
IS PCC even eligible? - I thought it was "no admin/inspectors/moderators" or maybe I was just wishing it to be that way. In any case, you're totally right.
-
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.
I agree 110%.
-
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.
IS PCC even eligible? - I thought it was "no admin/inspectors/moderators" or maybe I was just wishing it to be that way. In any case, you're totally right.
Just wishful thinking/hoping, I think. Although, I don't think they can avoid doing it that way. Mods & admins have absolutely no credibility . . . inspectors, I have less issue with -- barring the perennial woo-yayers. Got no use for them.
-
I've nothing against that, but in the context of the fraud, which I believe is all the conference call is about, I don't think it's vitally important. I'm not even sure whether the (top) Vector/Video/Audio/Flash contributors were affected proportionately to the (top) photographers by the fraud (?)
[/quote]
Oh, we vector contributors were affected, believe me. :'(
-
I've nothing against that, but in the context of the fraud, which I believe is all the conference call is about, I don't think it's vitally important. I'm not even sure whether the (top) Vector/Video/Audio/Flash contributors were affected proportionately to the (top) photographers by the fraud (?)
Oh, we vector contributors were affected, believe me. :'(
[/quote]
Right, sorry. I just checked on a few pages on the clawback thread and didn't see any vector-only contributors there.
Unrepresentative sample, poor science. :-[
-
Can I just say I love how many new IS people have come on over!
-
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.
I've already said flat out I'm not the right choice. though I've never had a conversation with you so I'm sorry you've made up your mind about who I am. in any case, it's not about me and I hope that the people chosen on the panel represent a wide group of contributors' interests in regards to the fraud.
-
iMHO, this is a very poorly conceived move on IS part. Any five contributors that are selected are going to be active contributors, contributors with large port. on IS and contributors that have lost thousands during the past frauds not including the losses incurred because of the poor management and non-functioning IT department.
I would not be able to contain myself on such a call; i might start calm and collected but I am sure near the middle of the call my line would be disconnected. Despite the purpose of the conference call; how could it not turn into a "bitch fest"
KKT's post said the chosen 5 would be the "Ears" of the community, not the voice, so there is a good chance they'll set the call up so that only the moderator can speak and everyone else will be on mute without even a chance of having any input.
-
I'd be happy to participate in a conference call - no NDA - to discuss major contributor problems. Discuss is an operative word - i.e. not just listen. Problems plural is key as well - the clawback of funds and loss of control of our images is very important, but is only one of the major failings on the site at the moment. If they dont' fix search soon, the future doesn't look bright at all.
I think iStock is trying to deflect trouble rather than solve problems. I think they want to try and ratchet down the contributor discontent and aren't thinking about solving the problems as the way to do that.
I hope they're willing to revisit the sort of conference call they're willing to have. Going from "trust us" to "trust them" isn't much of a step forward IMO.
Very well said, agree with you 100%
+1
Three words: class action lawsuit. I am in if anyone can get it rolling.
Those are the only three words that matter at this point. Lots of us will be on that bandwagon, I think.
+1
-
IMO and with respect, I think you're focusing on the NDA instead of the opportunity to truly advocate regarding an important issue.
IMO and with respect, I don't think you understand what a non-disclosure agreement is. If you did, you wouldn't be in any way thrilled about the terms of this supposed "opportunity to truly advocate regarding an important issue." And if you do, well. I guess it's just another instance of your BI-WINNING way of looking at things :D
-
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.
+1 to the power of infinity!
-
I agree with Karen
Even that I'm not happy with any of how things are being handled, lets not start speculating about the NDA as an "all bad" stuff.
An NDA can be as broad and extended as we can imagine; but it could also be very limited and specific about certain points.
As many have pointed in here, people like Sean will not fall easily for it, if it is fuzzy or shady.
I've signed several NDAs for sensitive projects that I've developed; and believe me, not all NDAs are as bad as they seem.
...I'm trying to be as objective and positive as I can be with all this.
-
I agree with Karen
Even that I'm not happy with any of how things are being handled, lets not start speculating about the NDA as an "all bad" stuff.
An NDA can be as broad and extended as we can imagine; but it could also be very limited and specific about certain points.
As many have pointed in here, people like Sean will not fall easily for it, if it is fuzzy or shady.
I've signed several NDAs for sensitive projects that I've developed; and believe me, not all NDAs are as bad as they seem.
...I'm trying to be as objective and positive as I can be with all this.
We don't know what the NDA will/might entail. And therein lies part and parcel of the problem. Particularly as there is already a dire [and well-founded] dearth of trust in IS on the part of its contributor base - from Black Diamonds on down.
Why not share the information with everyone in the community of contributors? Why just a select 5 (and why only Exclusives?), who will then be bound to some degree of silence and secrecy by an NDA? Whatever these 5 are able to share with the rest of us, I'll just be wondering what they've been prevented from saying, according to the terms/teeth of the NDA. The NDA does nothing but further deteriorate trust in IS. What are they trying to hide? Tell all of us everything. Not a handful of 5 people who are then muzzled by a legal agreement. It doesn't matter that we can't know to what degree the NDA is binding. The point is that IS is asking these people to sign an NDA at all, if they are to participate in this conversation.
It's not rocket science why we should all be leery of this strange arrangement, conversation, and the NDA. Seems a desperate move and misguided attempt at damage control on the part of a guilty party (IS).
Which makes me think all the more that it's high time for: a) a formal, third-party audit of IS and, b) per the findings of said audit, pursuing/filing a class-action lawsuit.
-
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.
I've already said flat out I'm not the right choice. though I've never had a conversation with you so I'm sorry you've made up your mind about who I am. in any case, it's not about me and I hope that the people chosen on the panel represent a wide group of contributors' interests in regards to the fraud.
you said you're not the right choice, but did you actually decline?
-
I thought KK's idea was a nice way to reach out, but after further consideration it will likely result in a lose-lose situation for the Fab 5.
If the Fab 5 says Istock is being legit then the angry mob will say that Istock fooled them.
If they say that Istock hasn't done their job then they will likely fear the possible consequences of standing up to Getty and H&F.
In either scenario, the Fab 5 won't be able to explain their position.
-
I agree with you Marisa, but we know that IS will never agree to an open forum... unfortunately (and I'm in no way defending IS about the 5 and the NDA), we've seen what happens in the forums... these kind of things always develop into Monster threads, with people deviating into other stuff, even cat fights among contributors.
I sadly believe that this conference will only turn out to be a listen only-and I'm only telling what I want, and is a diversion to keep the masses calm.
Maybe, they are trying to prevent/catch the thieves, but until now I've seen no effort in doing so... by deducting $$$ from the affected contributors, they are only keeping the financial balance, and making the big boss happy.
All this stuff could have been partially stopped, if at least we knew that the credit purchasing system was more secure.
Really, I've been buying stuff at smaller sites with my CC, and in a couple of instances it has been rejected because "Your information differs with the information on the bank records" ...Is that so difficult to implement on Istock?
-
This whole spin that the Fab 5 are going to be "the ears" of the community is so ridiculous. What use are their ears if they don't have mouths?
-
This whole spin that the Fab 5 are going to be "the ears" of the community is so ridiculous. What use are their ears if they don't have mouths?
"hear evil, speak no evil, see no evil"
-
Really, I've been buying stuff at smaller sites with my CC, and in a couple of instances it has been rejected because "Your information differs with the information on the bank records" ...Is that so difficult to implement on Istock?
Happens to me as well, and what it does is make me remember to update my own information when I forget. I don't get angry about not being able to purchase, as much as I get annoyed at my own forgetfulness.
Surely buyers would understand the change in policy, given the rampant fraud? I know I would...
-
I think IS need the money to buy new Shovels. The old ones are getting worn out from digging that hole deeper and deeper.
BTW.. has anyone nominated Lobo :D
-
*big snip*
Which makes me think all the more that it's high time for: a) a formal, third-party audit of IS and, b) per the findings of said audit, pursuing/filing a class-action lawsuit.
Absolutely!
An audit can't be that tough to get organized. Many peeps seem in for it, no one seems willing to get it started...
I have no clue how and where to start. No one here is an accountant? (or married to one or something?)
-
Can I just say I love how many new IS people have come on over!
I've looked at this forum a handful of times over the years, but have not felt compelled to register and post until now.
-
i've been a member of these forums since 2009... just never posted.
I hope TPTB on istock provide us with more information regarding the goals of this conference call tomorrow.
-
Can I just say I love how many new IS people have come on over!
I've looked at this forum a handful of times over the years, but have not felt compelled to register and post until now.
Good for you Cheryl. I also have been around (mostly reading)... it's time to mingle... :)
-
i've been a member of these forums since 2009... just never posted.
I hope TPTB on istock provide us with more information regarding the goals of this conference call tomorrow.
Yes Nico, let's hope they do that
-
What are you guys doing HERE??? ;)
-
BUISNESS!! whatever happend to that? Meeting about fraud? waste of everyones time. Ofcourse! it will give a prolonged excuse for not fixing any bugs and glitches, etc, leaving the site in total shambles not to speak of reputation.
I dont care about this fraud business, I dont care about loosing some dosh, dont care! AS LONG AS THE SITE IS BACK; UP AND RUNNING THE WAY IT USED TO BE.
-
"They can be the ears of the entire community..."
What ears do they mean when we may not hear anything?
-
What are you guys doing HERE??? ;)
;D
-
So pointless, how is the community supposed to feel comforted by the knowledge that someone else knows what's going on? and worse can't even tell them if they are satisfied with what they have been told or not?
More smoke and mirrors? (or is that cloaks and daggers?)
-
I felt in one of KellyK's posts he wished the iStock staff could let the contributers know more of what is going on and how things are going to be resolved - but they couldn't for some reason.
I feel the conference call will be letting those 5 contributers know what they wished they could tell everyone. I feel they want to tell those 5 contributers why / how things will get 'better' so they can tell everyone else that it is true, things will get 'better'. That way it can come from the mouths of someone 'impartial' instead of the iStock staff who most people no longer believe.
So if THAT is all true, the NDA would just be making sure they don't repeat what was actually said but they could (and hopefully would) repeat that yes, things will get 'better'. ... and know why themselves.
-
That way it can come from the mouths of someone 'impartial' instead of the iStock staff who most people no longer believe.
IMO someone 'impartial' would not be an iStock exclusive, if they want impartiality an independent contributor would be the best choice.
Here's something to consider, if there is indeed an investigation ongoing that involves outside agencies why are iStock trying to instigate the 'secret five', I find it strange to believe that any outside official agency would tell iStock that they can't disclose anything to the majority about the investigation but it's OK to go ahead and tell five people in secret. My biggest fear is that's in an in-house investigation which leaves me no faith in a satisfactory outcome whatsoever.
I've had some images stolen as a result of this fiasco like the majority of us, however at this stage there's isn't enough for me to consider committing the time to follow it up, but for anybody that does feel they want to commit that time you could consider this, iStock have informed you your property (images) have been stolen using a fraudulent credit card, YOU are the victim it's your property, iStock are not a victim as they've taken the money back (commissions) from you (which I'm not even sure is legal, it's hard for me to search not being in the US/Canada but most info I can find says it's the 'merchant' who is responsible for bearing the loss of fraudulent card use), therefore it is YOU that is the victim and is entitled to report the crime to the authorities, iStock are an involved in an administrative role and have chosen to keep vital information from us, if you want answers it might be the route to take.
-
now feeling that Sean Locke is the Messiah! Give us a sign!
(hopefully if he accepts (and only the true messiah denies his divinity) he will found out more than.. Blessed are they who convert their neighbour's ox, for they shall inhibit their girth)
-
I felt in one of KellyK's posts he wished the iStock staff could let the contributers know more of what is going on and how things are going to be resolved - but they couldn't for some reason.
I feel the conference call will be letting those 5 contributers know what they wished they could tell everyone. I feel they want to tell those 5 contributers why / how things will get 'better' so they can tell everyone else that it is true, things will get 'better'. That way it can come from the mouths of someone 'impartial' instead of the iStock staff who most people no longer believe.
So if THAT is all true, the NDA would just be making sure they don't repeat what was actually said but they could (and hopefully would) repeat that yes, things will get 'better'. ... and know why themselves.
Well stated. I think all is reduced to that, no need of conspiracy theories.
-
BTW.. has anyone nominated Lobo :D
I don't know, but a few people have nominated Bruce. But it turns out, he's inelible for the same reason as Rob.
http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter (http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter)
A little factoid that I'd missed.
-
BTW.. has anyone nominated Lobo :D
I don't know, but a few people have nominated Bruce. But it turns out, he's inelible for the same reason as Rob.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter[/url])
A little factoid that I'd missed.
Bruce?? well not sure about that, he sold this place to Getty in the first place, fully aware of the Getty reputation of messing up things. So did Tony-Stone and Stan-Kanney BUT in them days Mark-Getty was the chairman and everyone was earning a fortune.
-
BTW.. has anyone nominated Lobo :D
I don't know, but a few people have nominated Bruce. But it turns out, he's inelible for the same reason as Rob.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter[/url])
A little factoid that I'd missed.
Bruce?? well not sure about that, he sold this place to Getty in the first place, fully aware of the Getty reputation of messing up things. So did Tony-Stone and Stan-Kanney BUT in them days Mark-Getty was the chairman and everyone was earning a fortune.
The point was that he's not now exclusive to iStock.
-
I felt in one of KellyK's posts he wished the iStock staff could let the contributers know more of what is going on and how things are going to be resolved - but they couldn't for some reason.
I feel the conference call will be letting those 5 contributers know what they wished they could tell everyone. I feel they want to tell those 5 contributers why / how things will get 'better' so they can tell everyone else that it is true, things will get 'better'. That way it can come from the mouths of someone 'impartial' instead of the iStock staff who most people no longer believe.
So if THAT is all true, the NDA would just be making sure they don't repeat what was actually said but they could (and hopefully would) repeat that yes, things will get 'better'. ... and know why themselves.
I understand all of that. But TPTB and admins have been telling us for months that "things will get better"...how is 5 more people giving that oh-so-generic line going to solve anything? If Sean says things are going to get better, I believe him. That doesn't mean that shenanigans haven't been taking place, IP has been stolen and now in the hands of thieves, and money hasn't been clawed back from contributors.
It's all just more drama and diversion and smoke and mirrors. Audits and accountability are the way to go, for every single person who has their IP with istockphoto, not just exclusives, not just for those who have lost big time, but EVERYONE.
-
I felt in one of KellyK's posts he wished the iStock staff could let the contributers know more of what is going on and how things are going to be resolved - but they couldn't for some reason.
I feel the conference call will be letting those 5 contributers know what they wished they could tell everyone.
It seems unlikely to me that even under NDA there could be any discussion of anything which is potentially sub judice or which might now or in the future relate to any investigation. I don't understand why they have made any of this public. I do not understand why they would not have preferred to quietly take the loss themselves against future profits and solve the security issues in private.
I guess that would be one of the questions which I would hope the 5 would ask. Since they are not a listed company -- so they do not have to answer to the share price or investor growth expectations.
I do think this is a potentially a positive move though.
ETA: thinking about this some more - I suppose it is possible that there is going to be some sort of compensation offered by iStockphoto to the people who have had their images stolen (and presumably distributed) but that for some reason it cannot be discussed yet. That might explain things to some extent. In which they may have a very positive message to deliver under NDA.
-
Sean, are you going to sign the NDA?
-
What other conclusion could the five possibly return with, other than "Things will get better"? Could they possibly get worse? iStock wouldn't initiate this conversation unless they had some type of action plan to show off to them - whether its feasible, whether it even goes forward, can't possibly be known by the 5 selected. All they can possibly do is say, "What they have planned will help. Things will get better."
And that puts us no further forward than hearing Andrew say, "We're on it. Believe me, please, we don't like this any more than you do." Personally I trust Andrew a lot -- it's just that the crap they give him to feed to us stinks. But it's all they give him. The Selected 5 will be in the same boat.
-
I still don't get it.
Will it make an iota of difference to anyone if the five get back from the call and say "don't worry it'll all be fine" or "ooohhhh it's terrible run for the hills" with no further info?
Everyone except those five will still be in the mushroom position; in the dark and fed on sh*t
-
What other conclusion could the five possibly return with, other than "Things will get better"? Could they possibly get worse? iStock wouldn't initiate this conversation unless they had some type of action plan to show off to them - whether its feasible, whether it even goes forward, can't possibly be known by the 5 selected. All they can possibly do is say, "What they have planned will help. Things will get better."
It's also about whether the reason the frauds went on for over two months is valid or not. That's the point that is probably sub judice.
-
I still don't get it.
Will it make an iota of difference to anyone if the five get back from the call and say "don't worry it'll all be fine" or "ooohhhh it's terrible run for the hills" with no further info?
Everyone except those five will still be in the mushroom position; in the dark and fed on sh*t
I'm feeling rather like a mushroom myself ;D
-
I felt in one of KellyK's posts he wished the iStock staff could let the contributers know more of what is going on and how things are going to be resolved - but they couldn't for some reason.
I feel the conference call will be letting those 5 contributers know what they wished they could tell everyone. I feel they want to tell those 5 contributers why / how things will get 'better' so they can tell everyone else that it is true, things will get 'better'. That way it can come from the mouths of someone 'impartial' instead of the iStock staff who most people no longer believe.
So if THAT is all true, the NDA would just be making sure they don't repeat what was actually said but they could (and hopefully would) repeat that yes, things will get 'better'. ... and know why themselves.
Wanted to thank you for providing us with this forum. Its great that we have an alternative.
-
I still don't get it.
Will it make an iota of difference to anyone if the five get back from the call and say "don't worry it'll all be fine" or "ooohhhh it's terrible run for the hills" with no further info?
Everyone except those five will still be in the mushroom position; in the dark and fed on sh*t
I think it's because they see us more as sheep than mushrooms.
-
BTW.. has anyone nominated Lobo :D
I don't know, but a few people have nominated Bruce. But it turns out, he's inelible for the same reason as Rob.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter[/url])
A little factoid that I'd missed.
Peebert is still exclusive ::)
-
BTW.. has anyone nominated Lobo :D
I don't know, but a few people have nominated Bruce. But it turns out, he's inelible for the same reason as Rob.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter[/url])
A little factoid that I'd missed.
Peebert is still exclusive ::)
So is the aforementioned Brentman . . . an IT guy would be very helpful on the panel, in addition to a lawyer and an accountant ;)
-
Here's something to consider, if there is indeed an investigation ongoing that involves outside agencies why are iStock trying to instigate the 'secret five', I find it strange to believe that any outside official agency would tell iStock that they can't disclose anything to the majority about the investigation but it's OK to go ahead and tell five people in secret.
I thought that was strange too. "We can't say anything about it, but we can tell 5 chose people about it"? With or without the NDA, if it's an on-going investigation, why can they suddenly disclose sensitive information to 5 (random) people?
-
I'm not nominating anyone as long as the "exclusives only" rule applies. There's no point, really, when istock is making it very clear that the voices and concerns of independent artists are not important.
-
I'm not nominating anyone as long as the "exclusives only" rule applies. There's no point, really, when istock is making it very clear that the voices and concerns of independent artists are not important.
I know. Screw the non-ex contributors who also had money taken away, lost revenues, can't upload, etc. ad nauseum.
edited: if exclusives want so much to be exclusive, why don't the exclusives bear the brunt exclusively of the clawback? It's only fair if exclusives make more money, have given up more, deserve more perks, are the only ones allowed to represent contributors, etc. (all of which I am ok with), then logic only says that non-exclusives should not be held accountable for any of the clawbacks. Right? ;) Exclusivity only seems to go one way.
-
IMHO, I think the exclusive requirement is there to help enforce the DNA. They have a lot more leverage with exclusives adhering to the document as they have the most to lose if they break the agreement.
-
I still don't get it.
Will it make an iota of difference to anyone if the five get back from the call and say "don't worry it'll all be fine" or "ooohhhh it's terrible run for the hills" with no further info?
Everyone except those five will still be in the mushroom position; in the dark and fed on sh*t
Yes, provided I can trust this persons (i.e. sjocke), for me it would be enough.
-
For me, not enough.
Here we go again, at the high drama stage...everyone anxiously awaiting a peep from kk, admin, the big five...drum roll, please.
I'm off to do something constructive. Like shooting, uploading, selling and depositing money from all the other sites who are still functioning as they intended.
-
Couldnt care one iota. Just want the site to get back to normal again without hickups and bugs. Oh yes, Im going to as Ingemar Kamprad, the owner of IKEA if he wants to buy IS, everything would be working in five minutes flat and he only lives a few kilometers from me.
-
Couldnt care one iota. Just want the site to get back to normal again without hickups and bugs. Oh yes, Im going to as Ingemar Kamprad, the owner of IKEA if he wants to buy IS, everything would be working in five minutes flat and he only lives a few kilometers from me.
Site would look a lot nicer too ;) Ask him :D
-
Just got back from 5 days of vacation and saw this thread - absolutely the weirdest thing to come out of IS yet. All Will Be Made Known to the Chosen Five...
Now I'm wondering if IS is actually owned by the Scientologists.
-
<Snip> @cclapper
edited: if exclusives want so much to be exclusive, why don't the exclusives bear the brunt exclusively of the clawback? It's only fair if exclusives make more money, have given up more, deserve more perks, are the only ones allowed to represent contributors, etc. (all of which I am ok with), then logic only says that non-exclusives should not be held accountable for any of the clawbacks. Right? ;) Exclusivity only seems to go one way.
[/quote]
Why do you have so much ill will toward exclusives? I've lost $340 from the clawback. How much have you lost now that you've deleted your port down to 5 images? With only 5 images what does it matter what they do anyway?
There are plenty of woo-yayers that probably hope flattery will get them some Vettas approved or some position with the company. I don't think that's representative of the bulk of exclusive contributors. We don't like what's happened either and TPTB want nothing more than an angry division between exclusives and non-exclusives.
Exclusives and non-exclusives should be working together to figure out how to make the future of microstock better for all of us, not engaging in cat fights and petty squabbles.
-
Exclusives and non-exclusives should be working together to figure out how to make the future of microstock better for all of us, not engaging in cat fights and petty squabbles.
I totally agree and in fairness there's many exclusives and non-exclusives who do just that.
.. if exclusives want so much to be exclusive, why don't the exclusives bear the brunt exclusively of the clawback?
Because the clawback has nothing to do with exclusivity, it's a legal requirement, otherwise you'd be making a financial gain through criminal activities.
Selling stock is not like other businesses who sell products because in that case the business has bought the product from the supplier, if they get hit with a fraudulent card case the business takes the whole hit because they own the product they sold, in microstock and specifically in this case iStock they don't own the product we do, they're just acting as a sales agent. The point to discover is whether they or the cards companies have any liability.
-
<Snip> @cclapper
edited: if exclusives want so much to be exclusive, why don't the exclusives bear the brunt exclusively of the clawback? It's only fair if exclusives make more money, have given up more, deserve more perks, are the only ones allowed to represent contributors, etc. (all of which I am ok with), then logic only says that non-exclusives should not be held accountable for any of the clawbacks. Right? ;) Exclusivity only seems to go one way.
Why do have so much ill will toward exclusives? I've lost $340 from the clawback. How much have you lost now that you've deleted your port down to 5 images? With only 5 images what does it matter what they do anyway?
There are plenty of woo-yayers that probably hope flattery will get them some Vettas approved or some position with the company. I don't think that's representative of the bulk of exclusive contributors. We don't like what's happened either and TPTB want nothing more than an angry division between exclusives and non-exclusives.
Exclusives and non-exclusives should be working together to figure out how to make the future of microstock better for all of us, not engaging in cat fights and petty squabbles.
Re: first bold...Is the amount really relevant? Thank goodness I have deactivated my images, I don't have to worry about another clawback. Do I only get a say if I have lost $10? $100? $1000. No one should be losing anything...we joined to MAKE money! Everyone that contributes there has the right to answers.
You are asking me why I have ill will against exclusives. You should be asking the exclusives what they have against non-exclusives! They (and kk) are the ones supporting the decision to make this an exclusive only issue! Personally, I don't think a conference call with anyone is going to do anything, so really, it is all totally moot.
Ask kk why he is making this an exclusive-only issue. Once again, it's much easier for you to tell me how I am causing a cat fight or petty squabble than it is to talk to kk, so since sh*t rolls downhill, put the blame on me. Deflect the real cause of the problem from Getty/IS and turn it towards the contributors who just want real answers, not smoke and mirrors.
-
I have spoken... ;)
-
I have spoken... ;)
The Voice of the People becomes the Choice of the People.
Go to it, Sean!
-
Because the clawback has nothing to do with exclusivity, it's a legal requirement, otherwise you'd be making a financial gain through criminal activities.
Selling stock is not like other businesses who sell products because in that case the business has bought the product from the supplier, if they get hit with a fraudulent card case the business takes the whole hit because they own the product they sold, in microstock and specifically in this case iStock they don't own the product we do, they're just acting as a sales agent. The point to discover is whether they or the cards companies have any liability.
Do you think the answer to that is going to come back to all the contributors from the conference call?
-
@cclapper
"Do I only get a say if I have lost $10? $100? $1000."
Yes, everyone should have their say. You deleted your port down to 5 images. I guess I don't understand why you are still so emotionally involved with what happens at Istock.
"They (and kk) are the ones supporting the decision to make this an exclusive only issue!"
No, read KK's post here. He only wants exclusives for the meeting. I think everyone would be fine with Lisa, Joe or Yuri in the meeting.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=60#post6069182 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=60#post6069182)
My point is that I don't understand your anger specifically at exclusive contributors. We are taking it on the chin as well. I do understand your anger at Istock the company. We all understand that.
-
Do you think the answer to that is going to come back to all the contributors from the conference call?
No I don't think or expect the answer to that or in fact the answer to anything is going to come back from the conference call, iStock made it clear all nominees will be signing an NDA so they've already told us were not getting answers, but once things can be discussed having already asked the questions should hopefully expedite proceedings.
The aim of the conference call as I see it is to try and appease the masses, for the informed amongst us it's a waste of time, and for the really informed amongst us if what's been said is true then it could even jeopordise any legal proceedings but it'll keep the cheerleaders happy at least!
-
"Do I only get a say if I have lost $10? $100? $1000."
Yes, everyone should have their say. You deleted your port down to 5 images. I guess I don't understand why you are still so emotionally involved with what happens at Istock.
You answered your own question...I have the right to have my say, too. As long as I have an account open at IS, I am a contributor.
My point is that I don't understand your anger specifically at exclusive contributors. We are taking it on the chin as well. I do understand your anger at Istock the company. We all understand that.
You have changed my point about segregating out non-exclusives from the conference call into some general anger I have against exclusives. The reason you don't understand it is because it isn't there. ;) Out of the first page of people in my CN which totals 20, 14 are exclusive. Where's the anger?
-
I feel the conference call will be letting those 5 contributers know what they wished they could tell everyone.
It's not about wishing, it's about wanting and will.
If they can tell 5 of us anything so supposedly secret, then it's not a secret (after all) and they could tell all of us.
Clearly, for some reason, they just don't want to.
-
What other conclusion could the five possibly return with, other than "Things will get better"? Could they possibly get worse? iStock wouldn't initiate this conversation unless they had some type of action plan to show off to them - whether its feasible, whether it even goes forward, can't possibly be known by the 5 selected. All they can possibly do is say, "What they have planned will help. Things will get better."
And that puts us no further forward than hearing Andrew say, "We're on it. Believe me, please, we don't like this any more than you do." Personally I trust Andrew a lot -- it's just that the crap they give him to feed to us stinks. But it's all they give him. The Selected 5 will be in the same boat.
Exactamundo.
-
I have spoken... ;)
But will you be able to after you sign the NDA?
-
Too funny that rogermexico is now talking about more contributor panels. The talk of class action lawsuits and audits in particular must have them running scared. Clearly they have something to hide. If I were a contributor I would not be mollified by these empty attempts to placate. They have the forums for to communicate with contributors, why do they suddenly need contributor panels? This just means more and more critics are going to have to sign NDAs. And how is anyone even going to know what they are being told is the truth.
You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...
-
"Do I only get a say if I have lost $10? $100? $1000."
Yes, everyone should have their say. You deleted your port down to 5 images. I guess I don't understand why you are still so emotionally involved with what happens at Istock.
You answered your own question...I have the right to have my say, too. As long as I have an account open at IS, I am a contributor.
If I had deleted my port down to 5 images, I could care less about what goes on at Istock. I obviously don't understand why you still care so much. It seems like unnecessary stress to me but by all means keep fighting the good fight.
My point is that I don't understand your anger specifically at exclusive contributors. We are taking it on the chin as well. I do understand your anger at Istock the company. We all understand that.
You have changed my point about segregating out non-exclusives from the conference call into some general anger I have against exclusives. The reason you don't understand it is because it isn't there. ;) Out of the first page of people in my CN which totals 20, 14 are exclusive. Where's the anger?
I didn't change your point. Here is what you said,
<Snip>
"edited: if exclusives want so much to be exclusive, why don't the exclusives bear the brunt exclusively of the clawback? It's only fair if exclusives make more money, have given up more, deserve more perks, are the only ones allowed to represent contributors, etc. (all of which I am ok with), then logic only says that non-exclusives should not be held accountable for any of the clawbacks. Right? Wink Exclusivity only seems to go one way."
That sounded angry to me.
-
Too funny that rogermexico is now talking about more contributor panels. The talk of class action lawsuits and audits in particular must have them running scared. Clearly they have something to hide. If I were a contributor I would not be mollified by these empty attempts to placate. They have the forums for to communicate with contributors, why do they suddenly need contributor panels? This just means more and more critics are going to have to sign NDAs. And how is anyone even going to know what they are being told is the truth.
You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...
The audit is what I really want. If they want to have panels, then fine -- I think those are helpful, especially with regard to site functionality. Ideally, the panels would be composed of buyers and contributors (a unique and unheard of concept, I'm sure ;). But as far as the fraud, yeah . . . I'm interested in getting Sean's et al impression of the plans, but what about the money problems of the last 6 months? We need an independent audit, just so we have a good place to start over again.
-
Too funny that rogermexico is now talking about more contributor panels. The talk of class action lawsuits and audits in particular must have them running scared. Clearly they have something to hide. If I were a contributor I would not be mollified by these empty attempts to placate. They have the forums for to communicate with contributors, why do they suddenly need contributor panels? This just means more and more critics are going to have to sign NDAs. And how is anyone even going to know what they are being told is the truth.
You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...
The audit is what I really want. If they want to have panels, then fine -- I think those are helpful, especially with regard to site functionality. Ideally, the panels would be composed of buyers and contributors (a unique and unheard of concept, I'm sure ;). But as far as the fraud, yeah . . . I'm interested in getting Sean's et al impression of the plans, but what about the money problems of the last 6 months? We need an independent audit, just so we have a good place to start over again.
But according to iStock, they already do extensive research with regards to site functionality and other features, right? According to them, in the whole course of implementing the new F5 designers, users, and contributors (?) were consulted on the new design and asked to test the new features. Or was that a lie too?
-
Exclusives and non-exclusives should be working together to figure out how to make the future of microstock better for all of us, not engaging in cat fights and petty squabbles.
I totally agree and in fairness there's many exclusives and non-exclusives who do just that.
.. if exclusives want so much to be exclusive, why don't the exclusives bear the brunt exclusively of the clawback?
Because the clawback has nothing to do with exclusivity, it's a legal requirement, otherwise you'd be making a financial gain through criminal activities.
Selling stock is not like other businesses who sell products because in that case the business has bought the product from the supplier, if they get hit with a fraudulent card case the business takes the whole hit because they own the product they sold, in microstock and specifically in this case iStock they don't own the product we do, they're just acting as a sales agent. The point to discover is whether they or the cards companies have any liability.
True! we should all be working together, exclusive or independant doesnt matter, same goal and I know quite many exclusives who has taken a smack here and for big money as well.
trouble is these sort of conversations are open to abuse and many who havent really lost anything are jumping on the bandwagon, creating more noise then the ones that lost a fortune.
-
Too funny that rogermexico is now talking about more contributor panels. The talk of class action lawsuits and audits in particular must have them running scared. Clearly they have something to hide. If I were a contributor I would not be mollified by these empty attempts to placate. They have the forums for to communicate with contributors, why do they suddenly need contributor panels? This just means more and more critics are going to have to sign NDAs. And how is anyone even going to know what they are being told is the truth.
You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...
Actually, we talked doing this early last month when we were chatting about something else - it's not a new thought.
-
True! we should all be working together, exclusive or independant doesnt matter, same goal and I know quite many exclusives who has taken a smack here and for big money as well.
trouble is these sort of conversations are open to abuse and many who havent really lost anything are jumping on the bandwagon, creating more noise then the ones that lost a fortune.
Again with the notion that the dollar amount lost has any relativity to the right to speak up. <sigh>
-
Too funny that rogermexico is now talking about more contributor panels. The talk of class action lawsuits and audits in particular must have them running scared. Clearly they have something to hide. If I were a contributor I would not be mollified by these empty attempts to placate. They have the forums for to communicate with contributors, why do they suddenly need contributor panels? This just means more and more critics are going to have to sign NDAs. And how is anyone even going to know what they are being told is the truth.
You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...
Actually, we talked doing this early last month when we were chatting about something else - it's not a new thought.
Talked about more contributor panels or about an audit?
-
Too funny that rogermexico is now talking about more contributor panels. The talk of class action lawsuits and audits in particular must have them running scared. Clearly they have something to hide. If I were a contributor I would not be mollified by these empty attempts to placate. They have the forums for to communicate with contributors, why do they suddenly need contributor panels? This just means more and more critics are going to have to sign NDAs. And how is anyone even going to know what they are being told is the truth.
You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...
The audit is what I really want. If they want to have panels, then fine -- I think those are helpful, especially with regard to site functionality. Ideally, the panels would be composed of buyers and contributors (a unique and unheard of concept, I'm sure ;). But as far as the fraud, yeah . . . I'm interested in getting Sean's et al impression of the plans, but what about the money problems of the last 6 months? We need an independent audit, just so we have a good place to start over again.
But according to iStock, they already do extensive research with regards to site functionality and other features, right? According to them, in the whole course of implementing the new F5 designers, users, and contributors (?) were consulted on the new design and asked to test the new features. Or was that a lie too?
well, it was either an outright lie or their "research" isn't worth squat. The site absolutely sucks. I don't know anyone who wouldn't have had problems.
What I really really don't want to see is a figurehead "panel" that has no real input, or the input they give is wholly disregarded. Otherwise, it's just busywork. And I don't know anyone who needs more to do just to waste time.
-
Too funny that rogermexico is now talking about more contributor panels. The talk of class action lawsuits and audits in particular must have them running scared. Clearly they have something to hide. If I were a contributor I would not be mollified by these empty attempts to placate. They have the forums for to communicate with contributors, why do they suddenly need contributor panels? This just means more and more critics are going to have to sign NDAs. And how is anyone even going to know what they are being told is the truth.
You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...
Actually, we talked doing this early last month when we were chatting about something else - it's not a new thought.
I assume you are talking about the contributor panels. Frankly, I don't see what it will solve or how it will improve anything. It's not like they were ever prohibited from contacting contributors about anything in the past and they can certainly use their forums to communicate things as well.
They are hearing the war drums beating louder and louder with each successive c*ck up. Now, with people screaming about audits they figure they better make good on what was supposed to be an empty promise.
-
Again with the notion that the dollar amount lost has any relativity to the right to speak up. <sigh>
This is about business not universal suffrage. In business your right to act/speak/vote is entirely relative to "the dollar amount" that you are invested. If you own more shares than someone else then you get a bigger say (via votes). If you own 50.1% of a business then you can do anything you want and the other shareholders can do nothing about it.
-
Panel, schmanel.
I want an independent audit. Then, per the findings of said audit, I want to take IS to court. Class-action style, if the findings of the audit support such course of action.
The panel and anything short of an independent audit is nice in theory, perhaps, but leads me to believe even more firmly that IS is hiding something and scared of the lot of us seeking to tear back the curtain and see just exactly what they've been doing [wrong].
If I knew how to go about beginning such a course, I'd be all over it. My hope is that folks like Sean and Nico and others with the most money to lose will band together and make this happen. We are all (or would be) behind you to support such an effort and help out in any way that we can.
-
deleted
-
Panel, schmanel.
I want an independent audit. Then, per the findings of said audit, I want to take IS to court. Class-action style, if the findings of the audit support such course of action.
The panel and anything short of an independent audit is nice in theory, perhaps, but leads me to believe even more firmly that IS is hiding something and scared of the lot of us seeking to tear back the curtain and see just exactly what they've been doing [wrong].
If I knew how to go about beginning such a course, I'd be all over it. My hope is that folks like Sean and Nico and others with the most money to lose will band together and make this happen. We are all (or would be) behind you to support such an effort and help out in any way that we can.
Could not agree more! +1
-
Panel, schmanel.
I want an independent audit. Then, per the findings of said audit, I want to take IS to court. Class-action style, if the findings of the audit support such course of action.
The panel and anything short of an independent audit is nice in theory, perhaps, but leads me to believe even more firmly that IS is hiding something and scared of the lot of us seeking to tear back the curtain and see just exactly what they've been doing [wrong].
If I knew how to go about beginning such a course, I'd be all over it. My hope is that folks like Sean and Nico and others with the most money to lose will band together and make this happen. We are all (or would be) behind you to support such an effort and help out in any way that we can.
Could not agree more! +1
I'm with you on the panel, schmanel and the audit. +2
-
Again with the notion that the dollar amount lost has any relativity to the right to speak up. <sigh>
This is about business not universal suffrage. In business your right to act/speak/vote is entirely relative to "the dollar amount" that you are invested. If you own more shares than someone else then you get a bigger say (via votes). If you own 50.1% of a business then you can do anything you want and the other shareholders can do nothing about it.
Simmer down, this is a forum. I'm posting on a forum. :)
-
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.
What makes you certain they need their heads checked? I would be more concern people nominating people who respond out of anger and not thinking before they react!
pink_cotton_candy is not qualified since she's a moderator.
-
Too funny that rogermexico is now talking about more contributor panels. The talk of class action lawsuits and audits in particular must have them running scared. Clearly they have something to hide. If I were a contributor I would not be mollified by these empty attempts to placate. They have the forums for to communicate with contributors, why do they suddenly need contributor panels? This just means more and more critics are going to have to sign NDAs. And how is anyone even going to know what they are being told is the truth.
You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...
Actually, we talked doing this early last month when we were chatting about something else - it's not a new thought.
Well. i don't do much chatting with the people who run Istock. All i want is an honest system that is run according to rules that don't change to benefit only one side of the equation. Maybe this will help. maybe not. But there's already too much of an in crowd there who only wants to do whats right for them. I'd rather see an audit by an independent arbitrator who can go all the way into the details of the operation and make sure that Istock is not playing more games than we already know about. There should also be a clear policy going forward about fraud in the future, and a true accounting of any underlying fraud insurance that may already exist, and real figures on who is paying what. I would think that exclusives care as much about that as non exclusives, but it wouldn't be the first time that they end up with a better deal for exclusives.
-
Panel, schmanel.
I want an independent audit. Then, per the findings of said audit, I want to take IS to court. Class-action style, if the findings of the audit support such course of action.
The panel and anything short of an independent audit is nice in theory, perhaps, but leads me to believe even more firmly that IS is hiding something and scared of the lot of us seeking to tear back the curtain and see just exactly what they've been doing [wrong].
If I knew how to go about beginning such a course, I'd be all over it. My hope is that folks like Sean and Nico and others with the most money to lose will band together and make this happen. We are all (or would be) behind you to support such an effort and help out in any way that we can.
How ridiculous that people are now falling all over themselves to thank rogermexico and iStock for just the *suggestion* of contributor panels. Just because they say they are going to do it doesn't even mean they will! Ask rogermexico when exactly they will be implemented and I bet you'll get the same answer as everything else..."soon".
Someone somewhere is laughing at the contributors on how easily they are pacified. Probably not rogermexico, as I think he is a stand-up guy, but I all I can think of is those Enron guys joking about how they were robbing poor grandmothers, and I'm sure someone over at H&F thinks iStock contributors are a bunch of ball-less schmucks.
-
Actually, we talked doing this early last month when we were chatting about something else - it's not a new thought.
I assume you are talking about the contributor panels. Frankly, I don't see what it will solve or how it will improve anything. It's not like they were ever prohibited from contacting contributors about anything in the past and they can certainly use their forums to communicate things as well.
Yes the panels. There seems to be a disconnect between the people writing the software, and those using it, and there is the thought that getting the two together might improve the experience (aside from obviously fixing anything that just generally isn't working right).
-
You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...
The audit is what I really want. If they want to have panels, then fine -- I think those are helpful, especially with regard to site functionality. Ideally, the panels would be composed of buyers and contributors (a unique and unheard of concept, I'm sure ;). But as far as the fraud, yeah . . . I'm interested in getting Sean's et al impression of the plans, but what about the money problems of the last 6 months? We need an independent audit, just so we have a good place to start over again.
I completely agree. I think the contributor panels would have been a good idea back in September when the site meltdown began in earnest. They might still serve a useful purpose with respect to addressing the multitude of site issues.
But this particular issue - making contributors pay many thousands of dollars for their negligent failure to protect our intellectual property - is not going to be resolved by talking. It's time to get lawyers and accountants involved.
-
Simmer down, this is a forum. I'm posting on a forum. :)
Sorry __ that was supposed to be my 'gentle and patient' voice. I was just concerned because the same point had been mentioned several times.
Can't say I'm particularly bothered about the 'Secret Squirrel Club' as I don't really see what it is likely to achieve. In my view the contrast between Istock and all other agencies regarding the recent fraud issues is profound. On that basis alone I consider the problem to be Istock's negligence and Istock's problem to deal with __ preferably very quickly. This hand-wringing exercise should not be necessary.
If Istock can't even provide such basics as a working search facility (apparently after months of trying) and real-time statistics (which they just gave up trying to achieve couple of years ago) then why should we credit them with any confidence in their site security?
-
Simmer down, this is a forum. I'm posting on a forum. :)
Sorry __ that was supposed to be my 'gentle and patient' voice. I was just concerned because the same point had been mentioned several times.
Can't say I'm particularly bothered about the 'Secret Squirrel Club' as I don't really see what it is likely to achieve. In my view the contrast between Istock and all other agencies regarding the recent fraud issues is profound. On that basis alone I consider the problem to be Istock's negligence and Istock's problem to deal with __ preferably very quickly. This hand-wringing exercise should not be necessary.
If Istock can't even provide such basics as a working search facility (apparently after months of trying) and real-time statistics (which they just gave up trying to achieve couple of years ago) then why should we credit them with any confidence in their site security?
:)
I totally agree with you.
Posted by: sjlocke
Yes the panels. There seems to be a disconnect between the people writing the software, and those using it, and there is the thought that getting the two together might improve the experience (aside from obviously fixing anything that just generally isn't working right).
Wait a minute. So now this panel is going to do IT's job for them, for free? Aren't the people who have been hired study the interactivity and how best to make it work? While I certainly agree that you, Sean, have more of a grasp on it all than they do, frankly, a panel isn't needed for that. You are needed for that. They can hire you as a consultant to fix the bloody mess.
-
Wait a minute. So now this panel is going to do IT's job for them, for free? Aren't the people who have been hired study the interactivity and how best to make it work? While I certainly agree that you, Sean, have more of a grasp on it all than they do, frankly, a panel isn't needed for that. You are needed for that. They can hire you as a consultant to fix the bloody mess.
That is a great point! Now they get consultants for FREE, WHILE they STILL take their massive commission. The guys in the backroom are having a great laugh about his.
The only thing that is going to make them change their behavior at this point is an audit, which may potentially lead to a lawsuit.
-
I think of it more as a user focus group. But whatever, I guess. I have no problems sitting down in a chat or whatever and pointing out where I am having usability problems.
-
I think of it more as a user focus group. But whatever, I guess. I have no problems sitting down in a chat or whatever and pointing out where I am having usability problems.
that is what I was thinking, too. a focus group.
-
I do have to say, getting the contributors all excited about these panels is really a brilliant move by iStock. Deflects, yet again from the fraud and all the other criticisms about the site AND they get FREE consulting. My head is spinning.
-
I think of it more as a user focus group. But whatever, I guess. I have no problems sitting down in a chat or whatever and pointing out where I am having usability problems.
But you can post them on the forums? And have been for months, no? What makes these panels any different? Except, oh, you might have to sign an NDA and get some super special 'iStock secrets'. ;)
-
I think of it more as a user focus group. But whatever, I guess. I have no problems sitting down in a chat or whatever and pointing out where I am having usability problems.
Haven't they already got all the 'user focus' they could possibly need from all those forum posts? How will expressing your view by 'conference call' be different from writing it on the forum. At least on the forum it remains a permanent record which can be referred back to.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious what's wrong (perhaps to everyone but Istock), they just need to pull their finger out and get it sorted.
Holding 'user focus' groups is usually a sure-fire method of getting nothing done at all. Lots of meetings, lots of talking, very little 'doing' other than writing up the minutes of the previous meeting and arranging the next one.
-
How much more do they need than Sean's Greasemonky scripts???
-
I think of it more as a user focus group. But whatever, I guess. I have no problems sitting down in a chat or whatever and pointing out where I am having usability problems.
Haven't they already got all the 'user focus' they could possibly need from all those forum posts? How will expressing your view by 'conference call' be different from writing it on the forum. At least on the forum it remains a permanent record which can be referred back to.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious what's wrong (perhaps to everyone but Istock), they just need to pull their finger out and get it sorted.
Holding 'user focus' groups is usually a sure-fire method of getting nothing done at all. Lots of meetings, lots of talking, very little 'doing' other than writing up the minutes of the previous meeting and arranging the next one.
hmmm.. good point. If a "focus group" is just another way of asking for input but going ahead and doing what they want to do anyway (kind of like how the Pimp Thread of the Week was handled), then I suppose it is pointless. I am wearing my rose-colored glasses today and am hoping there is something good to come of all this. But I suppose that hasn't happened in all these months so why would this be any different. I think the "community" is broken beyond repair at this point.
Did anyone see PastorScott's recent post (page 29, I believe) of the nomination thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&messageid=6083042 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&messageid=6083042)
-
I think of it more as a user focus group. But whatever, I guess. I have no problems sitting down in a chat or whatever and pointing out where I am having usability problems.
But you can post them on the forums? And have been for months, no? What makes these panels any different? Except, oh, you might have to sign an NDA and get some super special 'iStock secrets'. ;)
Nah, you are expecting too much mate. If we can get the site back to normal so everyone can do business again and go about their everyday routine, thats good enogh for me.
All this is bad for business, thay cant be earning much right now and if they are not earning, we are not earning. We cant expect a type GM saviour to come out of the woodworks.
Istock secrets??? dont know what youre talking about here, this is a picture agency not the CIA.
Lets get this mumbojumbo out of the way and do business again.
Now if Sean can go there and get a few things done or out of the way. Thats great.
-
Great post by Lisa on this page http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=29 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=29)
-
Great post by Lisa on this page [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=29[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=29[/url])
Yep. Give em hell, Harry Lisa!
-
What I also find amazing is that so many people seem to be so willing to give iStock their time and expertise FOR FREE (in the form of these panels). Are they not taking enough from you already? Do people need to be reminded that this is a multi-MILLION dollar company (who are already taking the bulk of the selling price of your photos)? This is not the up-start company where people were sharing files anymore and need all the free support they can get. I've never understood why people are so willing to do stuff for big corporations for free. It's genius marketing. Corporations pay companies big bucks for consulting (or to run focus groups if that's how you want to look at it), yet iStock's going to get it for free. Amazing.
-
Great post by Lisa on this page [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=29[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=29[/url])
Yep. Give em hell, Harry Lisa!
my thoughts exactly! And Kris' reply to Lisa to not make it personal kind of pisses me off. He made it personal when he put his post in LARGE font and basically said that all independents have no integrity and could easily be bought. Give me a break. what's to say that an istock exclusive can't be bought for their "inside" information as well?
-
Great post by Lisa on this page [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=29[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=29[/url])
Yep. Give em hell, Harry Lisa!
my thoughts exactly! And Kris' reply to Lisa to not make it personal kind of pisses me off. He made it personal when he put his post in LARGE font and basically said that all independents have no integrity and could easily be bought. Give me a break. what's to say that an istock exclusive can't be bought for their "inside" information as well?
That's Kris Hanke for you. His standard forum MO. He's been shut down in the forums multiple times, I believe, for just those same type of attacks.
-
Thanks for the support guys. :)
For some reason his shouting about how we independents don't have anything at stake, or any relationship with Istock, nor the integrity to adhere to an NDA, really fries my bacon. Guess because it is just adding insult to injury. My stuff is stolen, but I don't count because I'm allergic to Kool-aide?
There is a very distinct Animal Farm atmosphere over there lately and his post epitomizes it.
If there turns out to be some difference in the way this is dealt with for exclusives vs. non-exclusives, meaning that site security and retention of income earned becomes an "exclusive perk", then that will be the last straw for me.
-
Thanks for the support guys. :)
For some reason his shouting about how we independents don't have anything at stake, or any relationship with Istock, nor the integrity to adhere to an NDA, really fries my bacon. Guess because it is just adding insult to injury. My stuff is stolen, but I don't count because I'm allergic to Kool-aide?
There is a very distinct Animal Farm atmosphere over there lately and his post epitomizes it.
If there turns out to be some difference in the way this is dealt with for exclusives vs. non-exclusives, meaning that site security and retention of income earned becomes an "exclusive perk", then that will be the last straw for me.
There was more than one person today hinting that this is the way it should be in that thread on the istock forum. Don't know if it's true, but one more reason to add to the list of things to find out in an audit.
-
I think of it more as a user focus group. But whatever, I guess. I have no problems sitting down in a chat or whatever and pointing out where I am having usability problems.
But you can post them on the forums? And have been for months, no? What makes these panels any different? Except, oh, you might have to sign an NDA and get some super special 'iStock secrets'. ;)
Exactly.
The IS forums are just one big open panel, discussion, bug-list, etc. Call it what you will. If they can't fix things based on what people report on the IS forums, then they can't fix things.
Adding a new layer of private panel isn't going solve anything. And that's CLEARLY not the point of it - IS has proposed this to quell the rash of rage. And apparently it's working, on some of the outraged. Which I find quite outrageous, in and of itself!
C'mon folks. We're smarter than ... "Oh look - a squirrel!"
-
Great post by Lisa on this page [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=29[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=29[/url])
Yep. Give em hell, Harry Lisa!
Awesome post, Lisa. Go, you!
-
What I also find amazing is that so many people seem to be so willing to give iStock their time and expertise FOR FREE (in the form of these panels). Are they not taking enough from you already? Do people need to be reminded that this is a multi-MILLION dollar company (who are already taking the bulk of the selling price of your photos)? This is not the up-start company where people were sharing files anymore and need all the free support they can get. I've never understood why people are so willing to do stuff for big corporations for free. It's genius marketing. Corporations pay companies big bucks for consulting (or to run focus groups if that's how you want to look at it), yet iStock's going to get it for free. Amazing.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't want to give iStock anything for free for the reasons you mentioned, however it might be in my best interests to do so.
While that may sound contradictory, to the extent that I can help get them back on track - and it'd have to be the most blinkered soul who'd argue about them having severely lost their way - I benefit from that. I don't know if I'll be participating in any of those future panels (if they occur), but I would definitely consider it if I thought it could help get problems addressed faster. People who know the site and can prioritize the things that will make the most difference; consultants will take a bunch of time to come up to speed (or will suggest things like redesigning the my_uploads page).
If I thought it was turning into the same black hole as the suggestion forum - where tons of good ideas have gone ignored for years - then I'd bail.
And as far as Lisa's reaction to the anti-independent sentiments, see here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&messageid=6083612) for my take on that.
-
If I thought it was turning into the same black hole as the suggestion forum - where tons of good ideas have gone ignored for years - then I'd bail.
But see, that's the thing. They've had countless (free) suggestions from the forums. And it hasn't helped a bit. I don't know why these panels would be any different, aside from the fact that instead of wasting your valuable time typing, you'd be doing it sitting on the phone. Still not getting paid. At this point, I think that place is beyond fixing, but a few "feel good" gestures might hold the contributors at bay for a while longer (at least until they can cook the books :D)
-
Thanks for the support guys. :)
For some reason his shouting about how we independents don't have anything at stake, or any relationship with Istock, nor the integrity to adhere to an NDA, really fries my bacon. Guess because it is just adding insult to injury. My stuff is stolen, but I don't count because I'm allergic to Kool-aide?
There is a very distinct Animal Farm atmosphere over there lately and his post epitomizes it.
If there turns out to be some difference in the way this is dealt with for exclusives vs. non-exclusives, meaning that site security and retention of income earned becomes an "exclusive perk", then that will be the last straw for me.
Simply brilliant post Lisa __ THWACK!!! You've certainly made me re-think my thoughts on the issue. Take a Heart for your trouble (I read it via the link from here so it counts!) and the smile you put on my face.
-
If I thought it was turning into the same black hole as the suggestion forum - where tons of good ideas have gone ignored for years - then I'd bail.
But see, that's the thing. They've had countless (free) suggestions from the forums. And it hasn't helped a bit. I don't know why these panels would be any different, aside from the fact that instead of wasting your valuable time typing, you'd be doing it sitting on the phone. Still not getting paid. At this point, I think that place is beyond fixing, but a few "feel good" gestures might hold the contributors at bay for a while longer (at least until they can cook the books :D)
I'm married, and I think there's a similar set of issues in the maintenance of long term personal relationships - are you better off with him or without him. And sometimes, even if people have been truly sh*tty, you try to patch things up and make it work.
I wouldn't argue with you that iStock has behaved unbelievably badly over the last 7 months or so. The fact that they're largely unrepentant makes it worse. However, I'm not yet ready to give up on them. I have a lot to gain if they turned it around. If they don't, I'll at least feel that I gave it my best shot.
And BTW this marriage is my 2nd, so I do know about the process of deciding that it just isn't going to work and moving on - I'm not a hopeless pollyanna :)
-
Well, I wish you good luck in whatever you decide to do. :)
-
Perhaps Istock will reconsider adding an independent to the five. FWIW, I think LisaFX would be an excellent representative for the non-exclusives.
I'm a fellow Floridian btw. ( I saw you post that in another thread.)
-
Under the proposal of an NDA I think it fitting that no one show up. Just politely decline.
-
Perhaps Istock will reconsider adding an independent to the five. FWIW, I think LisaFX would be an excellent representative for the non-exclusives.
I'm a fellow Floridian btw. ( I saw you post that in another thread.)
Don't suppose I'd get a vote in that, but she absolutely would. Plenty at stake; has been around microstock since 2005; articulate and reasonable but with good BS radar and an unwillingness to be pushed around.
-
Perhaps Istock will reconsider adding an independent to the five. FWIW, I think LisaFX would be an excellent representative for the non-exclusives.
I'm a fellow Floridian btw. ( I saw you post that in another thread.)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys. I doubt there will be an independent at all, and especially me. Probably nobody at Istock HQ thinks I could keep my big mouth shut ;)
-
Perhaps Istock will reconsider adding an independent to the five. FWIW, I think LisaFX would be an excellent representative for the non-exclusives.
I'm a fellow Floridian btw. ( I saw you post that in another thread.)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys. I doubt there will be an independent at all, and especially me. Probably nobody at Istock HQ thinks I could keep my big mouth shut ;)
LOL - I do think people like Lisa, JoAnn and others should be paid for their work in the contributors working condition topic. I would certainly throw a 10$ per month in this, knowing than I would eventually get more in return on the long term.
-
The IS forums are just one big open panel, discussion, bug-list, etc. Call it what you will. If they can't fix things based on what people report on the IS forums, then they can't fix things.
Adding a new layer of private panel isn't going solve anything. And that's CLEARLY not the point of it - IS has proposed this to quell the rash of rage. And apparently it's working, on some of the outraged. Which I find quite outrageous, in and of itself!
C'mon folks. We're smarter than ... "Oh look - a squirrel!"
Where? Where? I can't see it!
-
C'mon folks. We're smarter than ... "Oh look - a squirrel!"
Where? Where? I can't see it!
It's over there, next to the log with a wig on!
-
What is the current exclusive / independant ratio? the 5 should be divided the same 3-4 independants, 1-2 exclusives LOL
Does noone else see the analogy with the ideal that the majority should be represented solely by the minority as they cannot be trusted and the minority knows whats best. The majority still havent even been told if they have a vote at all. To keep the analogy going further, while there is at least 30000 independants, how many go to istock forums and post? We just congratulate Lisa in our own part of town.
-
This whole thing is a facade in my opinion. They all sign NDA's. So the inference you can get from Kelly's comments, "They can be the ears of the entire community and see if we're doing anything out of the ordinary" means that all the five will be are additional non-employee block & tacklers in the forums, helping take the brunt of the legitimate issues contributors bring up but don't get answers to. The five wont be able to give us answers either, but they will be able to speak to us in useless code like the admins do when the bother to post anything telling us we are wrong but I can't tell you why.
-
C'mon folks. We're smarter than ... "Oh look - a squirrel!"
Where? Where? I can't see it!
It's over there, next to the log with a wig on!
ROFL :D
-
if i could have nominated an independent, Lisa was my choice. as an independent and longtime contributor, she's simply someone i feel confidently that i can trust. i think Andrew (richvintage's) posts are worth reading in the IS thread too for anyone who hasn't popped back over there in a bit.
-
This whole thing is a facade in my opinion. They all sign NDA's. So the inference you can get from Kelly's comments, "They can be the ears of the entire community and see if we're doing anything out of the ordinary" means that all the five will be are additional non-employee block & tacklers in the forums, helping take the brunt of the legitimate issues contributors bring up but don't get answers to. The five wont be able to give us answers either, but they will be able to speak to us in useless code like the admins do when the bother to post anything telling us we are wrong but I can't tell you why.
You are aware of the legal concept of sub judice, I presume?
Try this for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice)
-
This whole thing is a facade in my opinion. They all sign NDA's. So the inference you can get from Kelly's comments, "They can be the ears of the entire community and see if we're doing anything out of the ordinary" means that all the five will be are additional non-employee block & tacklers in the forums, helping take the brunt of the legitimate issues contributors bring up but don't get answers to. The five wont be able to give us answers either, but they will be able to speak to us in useless code like the admins do when the bother to post anything telling us we are wrong but I can't tell you why.
You are aware of the legal concept of sub judice, I presume?
Try this for starters:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice[/url])
Sure am.
-
There are some pretty disgusting comments over there regarding independents and the suggestion that independents can't be trusted to sign an NDA and stick to the contract, as if any independent who would be theoretically asked to be on the panel would immediately turn around and sell trade secrets to competitors.
Occasionally you can pick up on some "us vs. them" sentiment at istock, but man this is just unreal. Truly surprising.
-
Like I said earlier - it's starting to sound like Scientology. If you aren't Exclusive, you're not one of us, and can't be trusted.
-
There are some pretty disgusting comments over there regarding independents and the suggestion that independents can't be trusted to sign an NDA and stick to the contract, as if any independent who would be theoretically asked to be on the panel would immediately turn around and sell trade secrets to competitors.
Occasionally you can pick up on some "us vs. them" sentiment at istock, but man this is just unreal. Truly surprising.
I agree. I don't understand the logic of alienating independents. The exclusives vs. independents mentality is precisely what the agencies want. If the top 20% of contributors started making decisions together we would all make a lot more money in the long run.
-
Someone on the iStock forums is suggesting that the TOP 5 who lost the most in the fraud should be the Fab 5. Well, what if one of those was an Agency contributor? How would that change things?
-
If by Agency contributor, you mean one of the Getty-ingested pseudo exclusives, I'd ignore anything they had to say as it pertained to iStockphoto.com
-
I don't think Kris would consider them as part of IS. I know I don't.
-
There are some pretty disgusting comments over there regarding independents and the suggestion that independents can't be trusted to sign an NDA and stick to the contract, as if any independent who would be theoretically asked to be on the panel would immediately turn around and sell trade secrets to competitors.
Occasionally you can pick up on some "us vs. them" sentiment at istock, but man this is just unreal. Truly surprising.
I agree. I don't understand the logic of alienating independents. The exclusives vs. independents mentality is precisely what the agencies want. If the top 20% of contributors started making decisions together we would all make a lot more money in the long run.
if I put myself in the shoes of independents, I would feel alienated by this too. but I think it's been misinterpreted as something ugly when it's simply a legal necessity. independents equally deserve representation. but, independents also contribute images to competitor sites. it's not personal, I don't see any company allowing potential competitors access to sensitive information. but those who are attending the conference call will certainly be sharing what they cna share with everyone, so it's not like non-exclusives won't benefit from that information too.
I think fighting over the inclusion of independents and using it as a platform means independents aren't seeing the forest for the trees.
-
Like I said earlier - it's starting to sound like Scientology. If you aren't Exclusive, you're not one of us, and can't be trusted.
imo its been like that for years
-
There are some pretty disgusting comments over there regarding independents and the suggestion that independents can't be trusted to sign an NDA and stick to the contract, as if any independent who would be theoretically asked to be on the panel would immediately turn around and sell trade secrets to competitors.
Occasionally you can pick up on some "us vs. them" sentiment at istock, but man this is just unreal. Truly surprising.
I agree. I don't understand the logic of alienating independents. The exclusives vs. independents mentality is precisely what the agencies want. If the top 20% of contributors started making decisions together we would all make a lot more money in the long run.
if I put myself in the shoes of independents, I would feel alienated by this too. but I think it's been misinterpreted as something ugly when it's simply a legal necessity. independents equally deserve representation. but, independents also contribute images to competitor sites. it's not personal, I don't see any company allowing potential competitors access to sensitive information. but those who are attending the conference call will certainly be sharing what they cna share with everyone, so it's not like non-exclusives won't benefit from that information too.
I think fighting over the inclusion of independents and using it as a platform means independents aren't seeing the forest for the trees.
but just because we sell our product through other outlets does not make us competitors. Does Walmart consider Rubbermaid a competitor because they also sell their product at KMart, Target and Home Depot? I think that's the misconception here. As an exclusive you want to feel like you are iStock - I know I did when the only place I knew was iStock. I really felt like I was a part of that company. but in reality, it's not so. It comes down to the fact that we are all contributors. not stockholders. not company management. not company employees. contributors. suppliers of products that iStock sells.
-
I agree with your analogy. and I don't see a reason to exclude anyone willing to sign the NDA. I guess my point is simply that I don't feel there's anything underhanded behind it. as contributors, we can maintain as much solidarity as we choose despite any lines that might be drawn between exclusives/non-exclusives/photographer/vector artist... whatever. we don't have to draw those lines. personally I don't.
-
if I put myself in the shoes of independents, I would feel alienated by this too. but I think it's been misinterpreted as something ugly when it's simply a legal necessity. independents equally deserve representation. but, independents also contribute images to competitor sites. it's not personal, I don't see any company allowing potential competitors access to sensitive information. but those who are attending the conference call will certainly be sharing what they cna share with everyone, so it's not like non-exclusives won't benefit from that information too.
I think fighting over the inclusion of independents and using it as a platform means independents aren't seeing the forest for the trees.
I don't understand how it's being interpreted as a legal necessity. That's what the NDA is for. Anyone, exclusives and independents alike, could be approached by competitors and tempted to dish on sensitive information. The implication that independents would be more likely to ignore the NDA and divulge sensitive data to a competitor has nothing to do with legalities and more to do with the bizarre notion that independents lack the moral fiber to honor a contract simply because we entered into a different type contract with istock as non-exclusive contributors.
I actually have no real issue with istock making this an exclusive-only panel for the conference call. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't take issue with the fact that istock can do as they please when it comes to their company. It's their right to do so, much as I think it's a slap in the face to independents. The more surprising thing I'm seeing in the forums is this idea that istock is doing this for legal reasons (has this even been confirmed by anyone at HQ?) and that a legal argument is justified in this matter. There is no legal reason to exclude independents, and this B.S. legal necessity argument is just a cover for a generalized opinion that independents can't be trusted with the same information as exclusives, despite the fact that there is no logical reason to think that an exclusive contributor is any more or less capable of breaking the NDA.
Like I said in the istock forum thread, I've signed dozens of NDAs over the years. I've never breached an NDA, and the suggestion that I would be more likely to break this one simply because of my affiliation with competing companies is insulting and offensive.
-
^ I guess if I put myself on the HQ side, in the current climate, I would choose to keep something like this involving sensitive data with exclusives too. again, absolutely no implication that any individual non-exclusive is not trustworthy. any contributor, whether exclusive or not, could be potentially abusive with the data despite signing the NDA. but in this industry, competition is fierce and I see the logic behind it.
I think we're probably thinking of the panel as a two way information exchange or mediation. in which case I'd say absolutely every type of contributor should be represented. but I think it's more of a here's the situation, the five participants simply listening and then told what portions of the information they can disseminate to members within the community. that will include all contributors including indies.
-
if I put myself in the shoes of independents, I would feel alienated by this too. but I think it's been misinterpreted as something ugly when it's simply a legal necessity.
No it isn't
I don't see any company allowing potential competitors access to sensitive information.
Neither do I but I haven't yet seen anyone suggesting the owners or staff at Fotolia or Dreamstime get nominated for the 5. ::) I however have seen lots of people suggesting an independent contributor to iStock is nominated which of course for 99.999r% of the worlds population would not be classed as a competitor.
iStock made it very clear they only want exclusives, but people have aired their opinion that they would like to see an independent amongst the 5, it ain't gonna happen for obvious reasons but that's nothing to do with a legal necessity (because there isn't one) and nothing to do with allowing competitors access to sensitive information (because independent contributors are not competitors)
I understand the 5 all being exclusives and although I don't think it's the best idea I also understand why iStock only want exclusives, and I have one plea, please please please please if you get chosen turn it down.
-
What are you guys doing HERE??? ;)
;D
+1 :)
-
Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene there was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.
Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.
-
(snip)
Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.
But with all the bad things going on at iStock, more and more people, including your good self, of course, are handing in their crowns, so there's no saying that the 5 might also do so in the near or far future. Especially as they have taken big or huge hits and are presumably at least 'considering their options'.
I've cast four votes via sitemail, very soon after the voting thead was opened and was interested to see that three of my four choices have been largely the main people nominated by most people (the fourth was a wildcard, way out in left field).
However, I'd be more than delighted to have you, LisaFX or PaulCowan (for example) representing independents.
-
I haven't followed all the responses here and other threads but doesn't this smell like a diversion?
Out of the sudden everyone talks about the big conference call and all the NDA stuff, getting all dizzy not knowing who to nominate for this big gig.
What about the fact, that IS has to straighten out their act nonetheless?
To me it just looks like they're trying to "buy" time and divert from the real problems. They couldn't care less if contributors are upset because we've been upset for years and they didn't care.
And what is this conference call good for anyway? No information will leak out, a few exclusive will become unpaid forum moderators to work in IS's favor and the problems with the site still persist?
Oh now I understand, the criminals will get scared, knowing there is a conference call and therefore won't download any files anymore illegally.... Smart move IS... ::)
-
There is nothing that would stop a current exclusive from becoming a competitor, is there? Even one who is nominated to the Fab 5 and participates in the conference call? In addition to the NDA are they going to make them sign an non-compete? Uh oh. Hopefully I'm not giving anyone any ideas. :D
-
Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene there was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.
Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.
isn't Patrick Lor an ex-pat too? thanks for the post Rob. a lot of that stuff is invisible to those of us who weren't here then.
-
Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene there was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.
Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.
isn't Patrick Lor an ex-pat too? thanks for the post Rob. a lot of that stuff is invisible to those of us who weren't here then.
I remember Patrick. Where is he now?
-
Thanks for sharing the background Rob. This makes istocks wariness of including non exclusives much more understandable.
-
Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene there was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.
Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.
Rob! thats interesting actually because same thing happend in the old trad-agencies prior to 1993, a couple of employees within Stones and Image-Bank, set up ACE, Rondanini and Hardings but to be frank they never reached any hights, just barely got off the ground another former Getty photographer split and set up a photo-agency within the London stock-exchange, specialicing only in financial images, rumors has it he got so big that Getty bought his agency in 96. Thats rumors, i doint really know.
Anyway there is lots of scull duggery in this business.
-
Patrik Lor is now President at Fotolia
http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/06/co-founder-of-istockphoto-joins-rival-fotolia-as-new-ceo/ (http://techcrunch.com/2009/05/06/co-founder-of-istockphoto-joins-rival-fotolia-as-new-ceo/)
-
skullduggery is an awesome word. nicely used Christian!
-
Patrick's at Fotolia, right?
Geez guys, chill out a bit. Everyone's all "they never tell us anything", and here they are going to tell us something, and then it's all "it's a conspiracy", "they're going to lie", "why do they hate independents", "they're going to gag everyone with this NDA", "istock sux", rhetorical example this that and the other. Why not just relax and see what the outcome is?
-
I guess this is normal business.
-
I guess this is normal business.
(NO SARCASM)
-
Thanks for sharing the background Rob. This makes istocks wariness of including non exclusives much more understandable.
How so? What is to stop an exclusive from dropping the crown and becoming a competitor? With or without an NDA? Non-exclusivity is just 30 days away from any contributor. The only way to stop an exclusive from becoming a competitor is to have them sign an non-compete agreement. iStock doesn't currently require that, do they?
-
I guess this is normal business.
(NO SARCASM)
Yup! just another day at the office.
-
Thanks for sharing the background Rob. This makes istocks wariness of including non exclusives much more understandable.
How so? What is to stop an exclusive from dropping the crown and becoming a competitor? With or without an NDA? Non-exclusivity is just 30 days away from any contributor. The only way to stop an exclusive from becoming a competitor is to have them sign an non-compete agreement. iStock doesn't currently require that, do they?
So what??? you do like I did back in the 90s, just do business in another name, fat help hey?
-
I guess this is normal business.
(NO SARCASM)
Yup! just another day at the office.
On the path to sustainability. ;-)
-
Personally I think we shouldn´t get divided about the question if someones included thats indipendent or not. We´re sitting in the same boat. I trust Sean - and so would I do Lisa, Rob and some others (from what I´ve read from them in the forums). The exclusives are surley better to nail to the NDA - simply because we´re at the moment dipendent from the IS income. But as someone else has already stated we´re maby just 30 days away from being independent.
-
Yes but today, going from exclusive to independant is no duckswalk anymore, its at best a nightmare. Competition is at break neck speed and its time consuming, its a very dangerous step to take, nowdays that is.
I know a few that have tried and failed completely, ended up not knowing which leg to stand on.
-
Patrick's at Fotolia, right?
Geez guys, chill out a bit. Everyone's all "they never tell us anything", and here they are going to tell us something, and then it's all "it's a conspiracy", "they're going to lie", "why do they hate independents", "they're going to gag everyone with this NDA", "istock sux", rhetorical example this that and the other. Why not just relax and see what the outcome is?
what? You aren't used to this by now? :) this is how it always is after some 'controversial' thing (which often only becomes controversial after it hits the forums and gets 100 different opinions and speculations thrown at it.
-
Yes but today, going from exclusive to independant is no duckswalk anymore, its at best a nightmare. Competition is at break neck speed and its time consuming, its a very dangerous step to take, nowdays that is.
I know a few that have tried and failed completely, ended up not knowing which leg to stand on.
not sure where you are getting this idea. I don't seem to be having any problem going from exclusive to independent. Maybe I don't walk like a duck.
-
Thanks for providing us with some context, Rob. While I don't agree that this prejudice against non-exclusives is justified in the current situation, knowing the history his helpful.
I can't help but find it ironic that this bit of Istock history is still so deeply ingrained, while every positive aspect of cooperation between contributors and HQ has been abandoned and forgotten by TPTB.
Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene there was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.
Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.
-
Patrick's at Fotolia, right?
Geez guys, chill out a bit. Everyone's all "they never tell us anything", and here they are going to tell us something, and then it's all "it's a conspiracy", "they're going to lie", "why do they hate independents", "they're going to gag everyone with this NDA", "istock sux", rhetorical example this that and the other. Why not just relax and see what the outcome is?
Sean, I am really glad you were chosen. You were my first thought when this panel was suggested.
Please don't let us down by turning into just another mouthpiece for Getty, trying to pacify us all into submission...
-
Sean, I am really glad you were chosen. You were my first thought when this panel was suggested.
Please don't let us down by turning into just another mouthpiece for Getty, trying to pacify us all into submission...
I don't see that happening with Sean. :)
And I'd like to add my thanks - Thank you for agreeing to do this, Sean.
have they posted the selected names yet? or the NDA?
-
Sean, I am really glad you were chosen. You were my first thought when this panel was suggested.
Please don't let us down by turning into just another mouthpiece for Getty, trying to pacify us all into submission...
I don't see that happening with Sean. :)
And I'd like to add my thanks - Thank you for agreeing to do this, Sean.
have they posted the selected names yet? or the NDA?
I am sure you are right. Just that Kelvin's 180 is still fresh in my mind...
-
I hope this is more than a distraction. IS already knows all the problems with the site, issues with security, anger by nonexclusives, etc... they are written in the forums and sitemails. I hope we learn something from this call and IS will keep the contributors in mind before making changes in the future. Maybe they have realized they need to change and that's why all this is going on now?
-
I hope this is more than a distraction. IS already knows all the problems with the site, issues with security, anger by nonexclusives, etc... they are written in the forums and sitemails. I hope we learn something from this call and IS will keep the contributors in mind before making changes in the future. Maybe they have realized they need to change and that's why all this is going on now?
I think this is no more or less than trying to distract us from calling for an audit or organizing a class action lawsuit.
-
I hope this is more than a distraction. IS already knows all the problems with the site, issues with security, anger by nonexclusives, etc... they are written in the forums and sitemails. I hope we learn something from this call and IS will keep the contributors in mind before making changes in the future. Maybe they have realized they need to change and that's why all this is going on now?
I think this is no more or less than trying to distract us from calling for an audit or organizing a class action lawsuit.
that's what I am thinking.
-
I hope this is more than a distraction. IS already knows all the problems with the site, issues with security, anger by nonexclusives, etc... they are written in the forums and sitemails. I hope we learn something from this call and IS will keep the contributors in mind before making changes in the future. Maybe they have realized they need to change and that's why all this is going on now?
I think this is no more or less than trying to distract us from calling for an audit or organizing a class action lawsuit.
So far it's working pretty well. If they only put this level of effort into making things actually work...
-
I hope this is more than a distraction. IS already knows all the problems with the site, issues with security, anger by nonexclusives, etc... they are written in the forums and sitemails. I hope we learn something from this call and IS will keep the contributors in mind before making changes in the future. Maybe they have realized they need to change and that's why all this is going on now?
I think this is no more or less than trying to distract us from calling for an audit or organizing a class action lawsuit.
that's what I am thinking.
Yup, yup. They think we're f'idiots.
-
Sean, I am really glad you were chosen. You were my first thought when this panel was suggested.
Please don't let us down by turning into just another mouthpiece for Getty, trying to pacify us all into submission...
+1 :)
-
Sean!!
There could be a knighthood in for you. Lord Sean of the Lock. Funny thing is, there is such a Baron in Scotland. Didnt know that did you.
-
Sean!!
There could be a knighthood in for you. Lord Sean of the Lock. Funny thing is, there is such a Baron in Scotland. Didnt know that did you.
Maybe he could have the title Lord Sean of the StockMess?
-
So let's try to get the English aristocracy straight please :) The venerable Debrett's (http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles.aspx) can assist.
Lord Humphemhumph is a peer - a Baron (life or hereditary). Sir Floppyears Humphemhumph is a knight - awarded a knighthood lifetime only
Peerages use last name, not first - Lord Locke - knighthoods first name - Sir Sean. The peer is "of Someplace" - as in Lord Locke of St. Louis (which sounds rather odd)
And as a US citizen (I presume) the esteemed Mr. Locke isn't elgible for anything but the honorary form :)
-
So let's try to get the English aristocracy straight please :) The venerable Debrett's ([url]http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles.aspx[/url]) can assist.
Lord Humphemhumph is a peer - a Baron (life or hereditary). Sir Floppyears Humphemhumph is a knight - awarded a knighthood lifetime only
Peerages use last name, not first - Lord Locke - knighthoods first name - Sir Sean. The peer is "of Someplace" - as in Lord Locke of St. Louis (which sounds rather odd)
And as a US citizen (I presume) the esteemed Mr. Locke isn't elgible for anything but the honorary form :)
It must seem comically ridiculous to citizens of the US where the highest title is 'Mr' __ as in 'Mister' President.
-
...It must seem comically ridiculous to citizens of the US where the highest title is 'Mr' __ as in 'Mister' President.
Seems pretty antique and cobweb-draped to me, and I grew up with this stuff :)
-
So let's try to get the English aristocracy straight please :) The venerable Debrett's ([url]http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles.aspx[/url]) can assist.
Lord Humphemhumph is a peer - a Baron (life or hereditary). Sir Floppyears Humphemhumph is a knight - awarded a knighthood lifetime only
Peerages use last name, not first - Lord Locke - knighthoods first name - Sir Sean. The peer is "of Someplace" - as in Lord Locke of St. Louis (which sounds rather odd)
And as a US citizen (I presume) the esteemed Mr. Locke isn't elgible for anything but the honorary form :)
Well I dont want to brag or boast but I actually originate from the 13th centuary Clan of MacLomond, which in later years became known as Montrose and an arch enemy of Rob-Roy.
There of my half British/Scotish ancestry.
didnt know that, did you.
-
So let's try to get the English aristocracy straight please :) The venerable Debrett's ([url]http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles.aspx[/url]) can assist.
Lord Humphemhumph is a peer - a Baron (life or hereditary). Sir Floppyears Humphemhumph is a knight - awarded a knighthood lifetime only
Peerages use last name, not first - Lord Locke - knighthoods first name - Sir Sean. The peer is "of Someplace" - as in Lord Locke of St. Louis (which sounds rather odd)
And as a US citizen (I presume) the esteemed Mr. Locke isn't elgible for anything but the honorary form :)
It must seem comically ridiculous to citizens of the US where the highest title is 'Mr' __ as in 'Mister' President.
A Mister in England is one of the highest titles for a Doctor, often a surgeon, so its not too bad.
-
The NDA is up: http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=38 (http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=38)
Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, all information received by the Recipient during the discussion of fraudulent activity on www.istockphoto.com (http://www.istockphoto.com), whether received orally or in writing.
-
I hope this is more than a distraction. IS already knows all the problems with the site, issues with security, anger by nonexclusives, etc... they are written in the forums and sitemails. I hope we learn something from this call and IS will keep the contributors in mind before making changes in the future. Maybe they have realized they need to change and that's why all this is going on now?
I think this is no more or less than trying to distract us from calling for an audit or organizing a class action lawsuit.
iStock have an idea, execute it , and it works???!!!
That's a first :-)
that's what I am thinking.
Yup, yup. They think we're f'idiots.
-
Lawyer RBFried weighs in:
"Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, all information received by the Recipient during the discussion of fraudulent activity on www.istockphoto.com (http://www.istockphoto.com), whether received orally or in writing."
As a background, I've been a technology law attorney for 20 years and have negotiated thousands of NDAs. I do find this description is very broad ("ALL information received" during the call). I don't know how useful the call is going to be if absolutely nothing at all can be disclosed about it. Additionally, if the NDA is going to say "not limited" there should be some requirement on the disclosing party to declare/label the specific piece of information as "confidential" (how else is the recipient going to know that the info disclosed is supposed to be proprietary? You can't read iStock's mind and know that it considers a specific piece of information to be "either information not known by actual or potential competitors of the Disclosing Party or is proprietary information of the Disclosing Party." This is not necessarily easy to determine if you're the recipient.) [that being said, the language in the NDA is mostly standard stuff...and, in fairness, I have occasionally drafted NDAs this broad before. Just not sure it serves the current purpose of supplying the contributors with some degree of explanation of the situation.]
On the flip side, if it's an open investigation, I have to think that iStock should be cautious about what gets out there, and that it certainly does not want any financial details or details around its fraud detection technology or anything else like that to be made public. That's totally understandable. So, I do get why there needs to be an NDA, and why a lot of stuff should be held confidential.
Is there a list of things that the representatives ARE allowed to gather from this conference call and disclose to contributors? Can that be agreed upon and carved out during the call? Otherwise, if the NDA is treated at face value, this conference call could be like a tree falling in the forest with no one around. After the call, maybe the parties can at least agree on some sanitized description that gives us a little more information??
Personally, my concern is: As our agent, iStock should have at least some fiduciary duty to us to let us know why our images got stolen, what it will do to make things right, and why is it putting the onus on us for its mistakes? As many have said: our images have been stolen and are floating around thanks to its (likely negligent) actions, causing their value to be greatly reduced/diluted...and, to top it off, we are also out any compensation for those images (I'm not losing as much as some, but I'm certainly out at least hundreds of dollars...approaching $1000).
I do firmly believe that we are entitled to a more detailed explanation...and, I believe, some compensation from iStock for its role in this...at a bare minimum.
http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=38 (http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=38)
-
Lawyer RBFried weighs in:
"Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, all information received by the Recipient during the discussion of fraudulent activity on [url=http://www.istockphoto.com]www.istockphoto.com[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com[/url]), whether received orally or in writing."
As a background, I've been a technology law attorney for 20 years and have negotiated thousands of NDAs. I do find this description is very broad ("ALL information received" during the call). I don't know how useful the call is going to be if absolutely nothing at all can be disclosed about it. Additionally, if the NDA is going to say "not limited" there should be some requirement on the disclosing party to declare/label the specific piece of information as "confidential" (how else is the recipient going to know that the info disclosed is supposed to be proprietary? You can't read iStock's mind and know that it considers a specific piece of information to be "either information not known by actual or potential competitors of the Disclosing Party or is proprietary information of the Disclosing Party." This is not necessarily easy to determine if you're the recipient.) [that being said, the language in the NDA is mostly standard stuff...and, in fairness, I have occasionally drafted NDAs this broad before. Just not sure it serves the current purpose of supplying the contributors with some degree of explanation of the situation.]
On the flip side, if it's an open investigation, I have to think that iStock should be cautious about what gets out there, and that it certainly does not want any financial details or details around its fraud detection technology or anything else like that to be made public. That's totally understandable. So, I do get why there needs to be an NDA, and why a lot of stuff should be held confidential.
Is there a list of things that the representatives ARE allowed to gather from this conference call and disclose to contributors? Can that be agreed upon and carved out during the call? Otherwise, if the NDA is treated at face value, this conference call could be like a tree falling in the forest with no one around. After the call, maybe the parties can at least agree on some sanitized description that gives us a little more information??
Personally, my concern is: As our agent, iStock should have at least some fiduciary duty to us to let us know why our images got stolen, what it will do to make things right, and why is it putting the onus on us for its mistakes? As many have said: our images have been stolen and are floating around thanks to its (likely negligent) actions, causing their value to be greatly reduced/diluted...and, to top it off, we are also out any compensation for those images (I'm not losing as much as some, but I'm certainly out at least hundreds of dollars...approaching $1000).
I do firmly believe that we are entitled to a more detailed explanation...and, I believe, some compensation from iStock for its role in this...at a bare minimum.
[url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=38[/url] ([url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=38[/url])
Blimey!! I take it, you are taking this seriously?
-
So let's try to get the English aristocracy straight please :) The venerable Debrett's ([url]http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles.aspx[/url]) can assist.
Lord Humphemhumph is a peer - a Baron (life or hereditary). Sir Floppyears Humphemhumph is a knight - awarded a knighthood lifetime only
Peerages use last name, not first - Lord Locke - knighthoods first name - Sir Sean. The peer is "of Someplace" - as in Lord Locke of St. Louis (which sounds rather odd)
And as a US citizen (I presume) the esteemed Mr. Locke isn't elgible for anything but the honorary form :)
Well I dont want to brag or boast but I actually originate from the 13th centuary Clan of MacLomond, which in later years became known as Montrose and an arch enemy of Rob-Roy.
There of my half British/Scotish ancestry.
didnt know that, did you.
I most certainly didn't :) I'm a mongrel - Yorkshire ex-Vikings, gypsy, French & German - not a drop of anything noble in sight!
-
IS better hope this call satisfies all the participants or it will backfire on them. Basically they'll be able to come back and say "No, I'm not satisfied" but won't be able to explain why.
-
Thanks for sharing the background Rob. This makes istocks wariness of including non exclusives much more understandable.
How so? What is to stop an exclusive from dropping the crown and becoming a competitor? With or without an NDA? Non-exclusivity is just 30 days away from any contributor. The only way to stop an exclusive from becoming a competitor is to have them sign an non-compete agreement. iStock doesn't currently require that, do they?
Did I anywhere say that I think non exclusives should be excluded???
You still read the istock forums, don´t you?
-
So let's try to get the English aristocracy straight please :) The venerable Debrett's ([url]http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles.aspx[/url]) can assist.
Lord Humphemhumph is a peer - a Baron (life or hereditary). Sir Floppyears Humphemhumph is a knight - awarded a knighthood lifetime only
Peerages use last name, not first - Lord Locke - knighthoods first name - Sir Sean. The peer is "of Someplace" - as in Lord Locke of St. Louis (which sounds rather odd)
And as a US citizen (I presume) the esteemed Mr. Locke isn't elgible for anything but the honorary form :)
Well I dont want to brag or boast but I actually originate from the 13th centuary Clan of MacLomond, which in later years became known as Montrose and an arch enemy of Rob-Roy.
There of my half British/Scotish ancestry.
didnt know that, did you.
I most certainly didn't :) I'm a mongrel - Yorkshire ex-Vikings, gypsy, French & German - not a drop of anything noble in sight!
Thats good enough for me, my best pal is from Harrogate, i been walking around the Shambles with him for 20 years, Yorkshire is so beautyful its unbelievable, lovely place, you should be proud.
-
Thanks for sharing the background Rob. This makes istocks wariness of including non exclusives much more understandable.
How so? What is to stop an exclusive from dropping the crown and becoming a competitor? With or without an NDA? Non-exclusivity is just 30 days away from any contributor. The only way to stop an exclusive from becoming a competitor is to have them sign an non-compete agreement. iStock doesn't currently require that, do they?
Did I anywhere say that I think non exclusives should be excluded???
You still read the istock forums, don´t you?
That wasn't the point that I was making. I was curious as to why it would make it understandable for iStock to be wary of including non-exclusives, even knowing the history, since an exclusive could become a competitor just as easily as a non-exclusive.
And what is to stop an exclusive from becoming a competitor even after signing the NDA?
I'm just pointing out the irrationality of their wariness. Nothing personal towards you.
-
The NDA is up: [url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=38[/url] ([url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=38[/url])
Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, all information received by the Recipient during the discussion of fraudulent activity on [url=http://www.istockphoto.com]www.istockphoto.com[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com[/url]), whether received orally or in writing.
thanks for linking to it directly. I guess it is too much work to put it on the first page for everyone to find. always irritates me to no end when I have to flip through pages to find some new piece of information.
-
No problem. I would have linked to the post directly if I could have. But one of the side-effects of being banned from the forums is that you are no longer allowed to see the "Permalink" link.
-
Really extremely interesting perspective from RBFried. So glad there are some legal eagles amongst us. :)
-
So, in summary, the NDA contains the same vague legalese that the ASA contains. It should also be noted that no one in any official capacity has said whether or not the Fab 5 can even give their opinion. And, if one wants to go on the NDA, well, that could potentially be confidential information as well, since the NDA doesn't specify what *is* confidential or even what isn't.
How typical of iStock. :D
-
So, in summary, the NDA contains the same vague legalese that the ASA contains. It should also be noted that no one in any official capacity has said whether or not the Fab 5 can even give their opinion. And, if one wants to go on the NDA, well, that could potentially be confidential information as well, since the NDA doesn't specify what *is* confidential or even what isn't.
How typical of iStock. :D
I expected the NDA to be very vague, and I expect the conference call will be as well.
-
IS better hope this call satisfies all the participants or it will backfire on them. Basically they'll be able to come back and say "No, I'm not satisfied" but won't be able to explain why.
I'm imagining (but who can say with iStock?) that on this issue alone (the fraud) they feel they are in more of an 'in the right' position than most of us have been willing to concede.
But we will see what the five have to say, and we'll all be told in the fullness of time. I hope.
-
I expected the NDA to be very vague, and I expect the conference call will be as well.
Very true. As Nubroc says, this could well backfire on Istock if they don't convince the Fab 5 of their diligence and capabilities. I am also very confident in Sean, JoAnn and many others suggested to ask the right questions and to fully assess the quality of the answers. Just wish Lisa could be there too on behalf of independent contributors.
-
Just wish Lisa could be there too on behalf of independent contributors.
For the record, my pick would have been you. Don't know anyone LESS likely to be intimidated.
-
Just wish Lisa could be there too on behalf of independent contributors.
For the record, my pick would have been you. Don't know anyone LESS likely to be intimidated.
Haha! So true. Or less likely to be fleeced.
-
This is interesting (via Cogent_Marketing):
I forwarded the NDA to a colleague of mine this evening - he is a sitting District Court Judge in the UK. He was immediately concerned by the contents of the NDA and sent it onto a QC (Queens Counsel) based in a London chambers for comment. She has now responded back, pro bono.
Her feedback is interesting. Without the legalistic jargon - "This NDA is unenforceable under English or international law and is in contradiction to seven specific and identifiable criteria of non-disclosure censure" I quote, "even a very junior counsel could ride a horse and carriage through this NDA in either an English or an international court". It would also be unenforceable.
I'll state in again, only this could happen in Canada. What a bunch of amateurs. They cannot even get the wording of an NDA. What possible hope do they have in stopping the theft of our copyrighted IPR's?
-
This is interesting (via Cogent_Marketing):
I forwarded the NDA to a colleague of mine this evening - he is a sitting District Court Judge in the UK. He was immediately concerned by the contents of the NDA and sent it onto a QC (Queens Counsel) based in a London chambers for comment. She has now responded back, pro bono.
Her feedback is interesting. Without the legalistic jargon - "This NDA is unenforceable under English or international law and is in contradiction to seven specific and identifiable criteria of non-disclosure censure" I quote, "even a very junior counsel could ride a horse and carriage through this NDA in either an English or an international court". It would also be unenforceable.
I'll state in again, only this could happen in Canada. What a bunch of amateurs. They cannot even get the wording of an NDA. What possible hope do they have in stopping the theft of our copyrighted IPR's?
I saw a couple of things that I was dubious about, but seven? ROFLAMO
-
I'll state in again, only this could happen in Canada. What a bunch of amateurs. They cannot even get the wording of an NDA. What possible hope do they have in stopping the theft of our copyrighted IPR's?[/i]
Don't be hatin' on Canada :)
-
I'll state in again, only this could happen in Canada. What a bunch of amateurs. They cannot even get the wording of an NDA. What possible hope do they have in stopping the theft of our copyrighted IPR's?[/i]
Don't be hatin' on Canada :)
Hey, it wasn't me, I was just reposting. I love you guys. :)
-
I'll state in again, only this could happen in Canada. What a bunch of amateurs. They cannot even get the wording of an NDA. What possible hope do they have in stopping the theft of our copyrighted IPR's?[/i]
Don't be hatin' on Canada :)
Hey, it wasn't me, I was just reposting. I love you guys. :)
Actually, I'm not Canadian, just a Canuckophile :P I live in a border state, though (Washington). I'm on the call and it will be 7 AM my time — yikes.
-
This is interesting (via Cogent_Marketing):
I forwarded the NDA to a colleague of mine this evening - he is a sitting District Court Judge in the UK. He was immediately concerned by the contents of the NDA and sent it onto a QC (Queens Counsel) based in a London chambers for comment. She has now responded back, pro bono.
Her feedback is interesting. Without the legalistic jargon - "This NDA is unenforceable under English or international law and is in contradiction to seven specific and identifiable criteria of non-disclosure censure" I quote, "even a very junior counsel could ride a horse and carriage through this NDA in either an English or an international court". It would also be unenforceable.
I'll state in again, only this could happen in Canada. What a bunch of amateurs. They cannot even get the wording of an NDA. What possible hope do they have in stopping the theft of our copyrighted IPR's?
Odd how pretty much everyone else seems to feel it's a pretty standard NDA.
-
Actually, I'm not Canadian, just a Canuckophile :P I live in a border state, though (Washington). I'm on the call and it will be 7 AM my time — yikes.
So do you know who else - you, Sean and ??
-
This is interesting (via Cogent_Marketing):
I forwarded the NDA to a colleague of mine this evening - he is a sitting District Court Judge in the UK. He was immediately concerned by the contents of the NDA and sent it onto a QC (Queens Counsel) based in a London chambers for comment. She has now responded back, pro bono.
Her feedback is interesting. Without the legalistic jargon - "This NDA is unenforceable under English or international law and is in contradiction to seven specific and identifiable criteria of non-disclosure censure" I quote, "even a very junior counsel could ride a horse and carriage through this NDA in either an English or an international court". It would also be unenforceable.
I'll state in again, only this could happen in Canada. What a bunch of amateurs. They cannot even get the wording of an NDA. What possible hope do they have in stopping the theft of our copyrighted IPR's?
Odd how pretty much everyone else seems to feel it's a pretty standard NDA.
Lawyers write NDAs all the time - but it takes a real expert to draft one that will actually stick. Most of them are like warning take down letters from lawyers with regard to intellectual property- enough to scare off/ensure good behaviour by those who don't have deep enough pockets (ie most people) to test the things in court. Many if tested in court would probably be shot down in flames. It's the probably that is the killer as it's a very expensive bet to make.
NB I am not a lawyer - but i have one in the family.
-
So do you know who else - you, Sean and ??
[/quote]
Nope. I haven't signed the NDA yet, so that's the truth ;)
-
Odd how pretty much everyone else seems to feel it's a pretty standard NDA.
Yes, it pretty much looks like a standard NDA... like the ones you go and buy at Office Depot :D
-
It's well known that Istock is part of Calgary proudness though. It's possible that some "authorities" would favor them in some ways.
Calgary is the headquarters of most tar sand industries. They basically destroyed some of the beautifulest lakes in the name of money, why not lives.
-
So do you know who else - you, Sean and ??
Nope. I haven't signed the NDA yet, so that's the truth ;)
[/quote]
:)
Nano just posted that she's on the list
-
So do you know who else - you, Sean and ??
Nope. I haven't signed the NDA yet, so that's the truth ;)
:)
Nano just posted that she's on the list
[/quote]
cool, she's a great choice!
-
Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene there was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.
Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.
------------------------------
So Rob, what's the name of your competing site going to be? Sylvantime? Robstock? ;D
-
This is interesting (via Cogent_Marketing):
I forwarded the NDA to a colleague of mine this evening - he is a sitting District Court Judge in the UK. He was immediately concerned by the contents of the NDA and sent it onto a QC (Queens Counsel) based in a London chambers for comment. She has now responded back, pro bono.
Her feedback is interesting. Without the legalistic jargon - "This NDA is unenforceable under English or international law and is in contradiction to seven specific and identifiable criteria of non-disclosure censure" I quote, "even a very junior counsel could ride a horse and carriage through this NDA in either an English or an international court". It would also be unenforceable.
I'll state in again, only this could happen in Canada. What a bunch of amateurs. They cannot even get the wording of an NDA. What possible hope do they have in stopping the theft of our copyrighted IPR's?
That's the problem with crowd sourcing, someone in the crowd might know a QC, brilliant ;D
-
Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene th ere was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.
Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.
------------------------------
So Rob, what's the name of your competing site going to be? Sylvantime? Robstock? ;D
KoolaidStock! :P
-
iRockStock
-
So, how are the five being 'elected'? Who is selecting them from the 'nominees'? Please don't tell me it is IS!
-
Odd how pretty much everyone else seems to feel it's a pretty standard NDA.
At worst it is effective, at best it is meaningless. It's not a problem for you/us if it is worthless.
-
I predict this whole thing is going to be extremely anti-climactic.
-
I just read over at IS that neither Whiteway nor Jsnover have been contacted to participate in the call.
what?????????
YEP, I think I was right with my first post:
What a bunch of horse poop!
I'm so glad to be rid of IS and all the drama. This pushed me to finally close my port.
-
I predict this whole thing is going to be extremely anti-climactic.
Thats almost a guarantee and the point. A smart move on istocks part to get the community to vote on five who will listen and come back to calm the angry mob.
-
I predict this whole thing is going to be extremely anti-climactic.
Thats almost a guarantee and the point. A smart move on istocks part to get the community to vote on five who will listen and come back to calm the angry mob.
And look, it has postponed any further talk of audits and legal action for at least a few days...as someone mentioned earlier (maybe caspixel?), maybe enough time to cook the books? ;)
-
I predict this whole thing is going to be extremely anti-climactic.
Thats almost a guarantee and the point. A smart move on istocks part to get the community to vote on five who will listen and come back to calm the angry mob.
And look, it has postponed any further talk of audits and legal action for at least a few days...as someone mentioned earlier (maybe caspixel?), maybe enough time to cook the books? ;)
Not only has it postponed it, but when the trusted Fab 5 come back with, "iStock is on the up-and-up and doing everything they can" it will effectively extinguish it. Who even thinks for a second that iStock is not going to put it's best foot forward in this conference call (which they have complete control over)?
-
How can it be that Jsnover has not been contacted?
She has been elected by a vast mayority!
One step forward and two steps backwards.
-
How can it be that Jsnover has not been contacted?
She has been elected by a vast mayority!
One step forward and two steps backwards.
That's been mystifying me.
-
I think it is probably because on the forum she had said she wouldn't sign the DNA. She may have PMed them and refused.
-
I didn't PM them and refuse.
I did make two posts; the first (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&messageid=6072892) saying I thought it should be a discussion about multiple issues, not just fraud (i.e. search problems being so bad for so long) and a second (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&messageid=6093402) where I said I could sign the NDA if it were clear what was proprietary and what not during the phone call.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why they made the decision they did.
-
Maybe it's like the PTOTW thread, IS asks for opinion then just ignores it anyway. Is there any transparency with regards to who is chosen?
-
I don't know how many banned members voted by SM, so wouldn't be visible on the forum. I voted by SM, but JoAnn was one of my choices.
-
LeggNet is in.
-
I didn't PM them and refuse.
I did make two posts; the first ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&messageid=6072892[/url]) saying I thought it should be a discussion about multiple issues, not just fraud (i.e. search problems being so bad for so long) and a second ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&messageid=6093402[/url]) where I said I could sign the NDA if it were clear what was proprietary and what not during the phone call.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why they made the decision they did.
I'm not sure whether I should be shocked or not as to why they didn't chose you. You got a lot of nominations. More than Leggnet, Freetransform and Nano, from what it seemed like. I don't have time to tally them up, though, but it looked like your name appeared. A lot. They are probably afraid of you. ;)
-
They are probably afraid of you. ;)
Which is even more worrying.
If this is a move towards regaining confidence and there is nothing to hide how do they even think about censoring someone elected by contributors.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have any of the people chosen ever spent time as independents before becoming Istock exclusive? If I had to guess, JoAnn, I would say that your time as an independent, and your history of activism are the reasons you were not contacted.
And I agree with Atwim. It is worrying.
-
Odd how pretty much everyone else seems to feel it's a pretty standard NDA.
At worst it is effective, at best it is meaningless. It's not a problem for you/us if it is worthless.
:)
I predict this whole thing is going to be extremely anti-climactic.
I second your prediction.
-
They are probably afraid of you. ;)
Which is even more worrying.
If this is a move towards regaining confidence and there is nothing to hide how do they even think about censoring someone elected by contributors.
+1
I'm telling you, this is a textbook exercise in wagging the dog and,
Oh look - a squirrel!
-
Although I voted for JoAnn and not for some of the other people selectioned that doesn't mean that those selected won't do a great job representing the community.
-
I'm completely flabbergasted then as to why you weren't contacted. Your name was mentioned almost as many times as locke.
-
Although I voted for JoAnn and not for some of the other people selectioned that doesn't mean that those selected won't do a great job representing the community.
My concern over their ignoring JoAnn's MANY nominations isn't because I don't trust the people selected to do a good job. They are all great people with integrity AFAIK. What worries me is why she would have been omitted.
-
There was a post asking if the votes would be posted for us to see, and wondering why jsnover wasn't one of the 5.
A post that has gone mysteriously absent. Hmmmm.
-
There was a post asking if the votes would be posted for us to see, and wondering why jsnover wasn't one of the 5.
A post that has gone mysteriously absent. Hmmmm.
Typical iStock transparency.
-
Nothing against him, but why Whiteway?
-
Just wanted to add my comment that I have confidence in the people selected. I am guessing it wasn't strictly a tally the votes process, but as long as Sean's leading the parade, I can't imagine anyone will be able to pull any fast ones.
If they were going to hand pick people, however, why go through the process of asking contributors for input? Does make me wonder who I've pissed off though :)
-
If they were going to hand pick people, however, why go through the process of asking contributors for input?
Probably the same reason they asked for input about PTOTW. To give the appearance as though what contributors say matters. And then they go ahead and do whatever they want anyway.
There is no way they are going to say anything in this conference call that is going to make any of the Fab 5 say anything negative.
I'd say go ahead and organize that audit, folks!
-
Just wanted to add my comment that I have confidence in the people selected. I am guessing it wasn't strictly a tally the votes process, but as long as Sean's leading the parade, I can't imagine anyone will be able to pull any fast ones.
If they were going to hand pick people, however, why go through the process of asking contributors for input? Does make me wonder who I've pissed off though :)
Maybe you were just too articulate in pointing out their flaws and the injustice. Thats why i never post anything overtly negative in that forum and my secret identity over here.
-
Without jsnover on board, who clearly was second most popular choice and the one with the most gravitas, I wouldn't want to be one of the five they picked. This little plan of theirs will backfire. They are afraid, and that must mean the issues aren't being dealt with as they should.
Now we need a campaign to get jsnover in on that call, get them to admit how the voting went!
-
As JoAnn has said before that she's considered/considering going independent again, I think it is what Rob said yesterday, the belief that independents can't be trusted.
-
Now we need a campaign to get jsnover in on that call, get them to admit how the voting went!
While I completely agree I would have liked to see her on that call, I think it is a waste of time to campaign for her. Our time would be better spent organizing an audit. The whole phone call thing is an intentional distraction.
-
Now we need a campaign to get jsnover in on that call, get them to admit how the voting went!
While I completely agree I would have liked to see her on that call, I think it is a waste of time to campaign for her. Our time would be better spent organizing an audit. The whole phone call thing is an intentional distraction.
I think that's absolutely right. Because now there are apparently more than 5, according to Andrew? Typical istock, just make the crap up as they go along.
-
Now we need a campaign to get jsnover in on that call, get them to admit how the voting went!
While I completely agree I would have liked to see her on that call, I think it is a waste of time to campaign for her. Our time would be better spent organizing an audit. The whole phone call thing is an intentional distraction.
Agreed. Let's see what the call produces and then move forward from there.
I guess honesty about ambivalence makes one a little less exclusive than the rest (All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm)). As long as they keep paying me, they can be as rude about me as they like :)
-
There was a post asking if the votes would be posted for us to see, and wondering why jsnover wasn't one of the 5.
A post that has gone mysteriously absent. Hmmmm.
Typical iStock transparency.
The question posed was fair. Why delete it?
Exactly.
And on a related note, I wonder if they've muzzled Lobo because they know that his tone would only fuel the fire. Not that the other admin don't do a fine job of that, themselves.
-
This is interesting and I'm surprised it's still up (moderators on a break? close to quitting time?):
Good choices, except for istock's refusal to deal with independents. If the tone of the email I received this morning from contributor relations in response to my outraged email last week is anything to go by, they can expect to meet self defensiveness, statements of the Bleeding Obvious and not a single tiny hint of apology or even regret that our intellectual property was stolen.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45)
Thinking it's going to be yet another iStock Epic Fail.
-
This is interesting and I'm surprised it's still up (moderators on a break? close to quitting time?):
Good choices, except for istock's refusal to deal with independents. If the tone of the email I received this morning from contributor relations in response to my outraged email last week is anything to go by, they can expect to meet self defensiveness, statements of the Bleeding Obvious and not a single tiny hint of apology or even regret that our intellectual property was stolen.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45[/url])
Thinking it's going to be yet another iStock Epic Fail.
I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.
Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
-
Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
I used to have that talent, too. And then, the wolf turned on me :D
-
I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.
Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.
-
Hmm. People are pointing out SimonKR has been excluded as well. He got a lot of votes. Wonder why.
-
This is interesting and I'm surprised it's still up (moderators on a break? close to quitting time?):
Good choices, except for istock's refusal to deal with independents. If the tone of the email I received this morning from contributor relations in response to my outraged email last week is anything to go by, they can expect to meet self defensiveness, statements of the Bleeding Obvious and not a single tiny hint of apology or even regret that our intellectual property was stolen.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45[/url])
Thinking it's going to be yet another iStock Epic Fail.
I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.
Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
Really very well stated Liz. Glad your voice is still part of this discussion :)
-
This is interesting and I'm surprised it's still up (moderators on a break? close to quitting time?):
Good choices, except for istock's refusal to deal with independents. If the tone of the email I received this morning from contributor relations in response to my outraged email last week is anything to go by, they can expect to meet self defensiveness, statements of the Bleeding Obvious and not a single tiny hint of apology or even regret that our intellectual property was stolen.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=45[/url])
Thinking it's going to be yet another iStock Epic Fail.
I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.
Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
Really very well stated Liz. Glad your voice is still part of this discussion :)
I'm really Susan! It's the other Sue that is Liz...!
-
Way to be transparent about the selection process, iStock:
Why was jjneff added to make 6? I went through that all 46 pages of this thread and he was only nominated once on page 5, seems like there many more people who had more votes.
Of course, the post will probably disappear as well: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=46#post6106002 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=46#post6106002)
-
Kk original post said 5 but with a question mark so i figured it could be more or less. Also, they never said our nominations are votes did they? I thought they were just suggestions not votes.
Nice diversion. At least istock can do something right these days. :)
-
Way to be transparent about the selection process, iStock:
Why was jjneff added to make 6? I went through that all 46 pages of this thread and he was only nominated once on page 5, seems like there many more people who had more votes.
Of course, the post will probably disappear as well: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=46#post6106002[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=46#post6106002[/url])
Simonkr repsonded:
well, maybe those, who count votes at HQ, count is their own numeric system, unknown to us...
Liz (the Real One)
-
Patrick's at Fotolia, right?
Geez guys, chill out a bit. Everyone's all "they never tell us anything", and here they are going to tell us something, and then it's all "it's a conspiracy", "they're going to lie", "why do they hate independents", "they're going to gag everyone with this NDA", "istock sux", rhetorical example this that and the other. Why not just relax and see what the outcome is?
I actually heard that in your best valley girl...good post and glad you said it
-
I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.
Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.
That also speaks volumes to how the entire organization is run. Rules aren't applied evenly, and people who clearly aren't capable of running things are still there as a result. While this may work for a while, it usually leads to more trouble.
-
Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
I used to have that talent, too. And then, the wolf turned on me :D
I think in his case lobo refers to a character from a comic....Omega men or something or other. even though I too have always used lobo in reference to wolves.
-
Frick! Curt_Pickens just nailed their asses to the wall and JJ actually responded, with a warning. But * if I got it copy/pasted in time. Now it too is gone.
-
Yep they banned Me. Oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. Time for a break and off to find other avenues.
Yes it's me .
Curt Pickens.
-
Welcome aboard. Sorry I missed the post. Care to share here?
-
More or less told them (Getty Employees) they are full of BS. Not transparent. All talked the company line. And hope their conscious would eat their hearts out. Nothing to bad really !! :) Anyway JJRD banned me. Maybe best. I was getting way to attached to the crap they fed people and, I never was one to hold my tongue. And never will be. So, off to my next venture.
-
Good luck and enjoy your new ride!
-
I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.
Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.
Cas, no worries. Lobo did not contact me directly. I contacted him. We had a discussion and Lobo being Lobo calmed me down. I relented. Tried being a good boy. But he didn't give me any preferential treatment in any way shape or form. I hope he is still there honestly. I do think he has left. Just wanted to set that part of the story straight. Best of luck to you.
Curt
-
As JoAnn has said before that she's considered/considering going independent again, I think it is what Rob said yesterday, the belief that independents can't be trusted.
And that would be absolute crap to use that reason. There is only 30 days standing between exclusivity and independance. What rubbish to use that excuse!!!
-
Welcome to the 'club' Curt ;D
-
I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.
Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.
Cas, no worries. Lobo did not contact me directly. I contacted him. We had a discussion and Lobo being Lobo calmed me down. I relented. Tried being a good boy. But he didn't give me any preferential treatment in any way shape or form. I hope he is still there honestly. I do think he has left. Just wanted to set that part of the story straight. Best of luck to you.
Curt
LOL. Lobo has a very different effect on you than on me! Our last sitemail exchange was anything but calm. Well, I'm sorry they banned you, because you did speak the truth, and they can't handle the truth! It's just a shame so many good people are getting hurt because of their corporate dishonesty.
-
More or less told them (Getty Employees) they are full of BS. Not transparent. All talked the company line. And hope their conscious would eat their hearts out. Nothing to bad really !! :) Anyway JJRD banned me. Maybe best. I was getting way to attached to the crap they fed people and, I never was one to hold my tongue. And never will be. So, off to my next venture.
-----------------------------------------
I think folks here are a bit more willing to embrace the truth. ::) Welcome aboard.
When you say off to your next venture are you getting out of stock?
-
I imagine someone looked at a copy of the email I was sent and couldn't find any way to disagree with my assessment of it.
Edit to add - for some reason I seem to be able to get away with stuff on the istock forums that other people can't (now that's tempting fate!) I've only ever had one post removed by lobo that I can remember- I've self censored a couple of times.
Curt Pickens seems to get away with a lot too. He's said way worse stuff than I ever did and he still has his posting privileges. And when he was threatening to leave exclusivity, Lobo even contacted him directly and talked him down. It is interesting to see how far some people can push it (and how some people get special treatment as well). BTW, Susan, I am glad you can still post. You crack me up.
Cas, no worries. Lobo did not contact me directly. I contacted him. We had a discussion and Lobo being Lobo calmed me down. I relented. Tried being a good boy. But he didn't give me any preferential treatment in any way shape or form. I hope he is still there honestly. I do think he has left. Just wanted to set that part of the story straight. Best of luck to you.
Curt
LOL. Lobo has a very different effect on you than on me! Our last sitemail exchange was anything but calm. Well, I'm sorry they banned you, because you did speak the truth, and they can't handle the truth! It's just a shame so many good people are getting hurt because of their corporate dishonesty.
I don't know why he and I hit if off. But years ago he called me to chew my ass, and it turned into a very pleasant conversation. Go figure !
I was wondering what happened to you folks. Got out while the getting was good eh !! ;)
-
Well, if anyone was wondering, Lobo still works there. He just appeared to lock the thread.
-
I predict this whole thing is going to be extremely anti-climactic.
Well, your prediction was spot on. The answers are vague. And while some appear to be satisfied with that, I am not in that group. There are still so many problems with the site and so many questions about the financial goings-on, the only way to get true answers would be an audit.
Anyway, the drama du jour is over. Life can get back to normal at istock. ;)
-
Normal as in hoping that our lowest-in-the-industry commissions will actually be paid rather than clawed back? Not sure how much longer I can keep my portfolio there... :-\
-
I think in his case lobo refers to a character from a comic....Omega men or something or other. even though I too have always used lobo in reference to wolves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobo_(DC_Comics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobo_(DC_Comics))
Yes, yes. Thank you, but I know Chris' reference to the Lobo comic. Despite that prior knowledge, I chose to go with 'wolf' for my post. Just because.
-
Welcome to the 'club' Curt ;D
Yes. Welcome! And so the club grows, by [another] one.
It's pretty much getting to be anyone and everyone who's [long] gone off the Kool-Aid.
-
Anyway, the drama du jour is over. Life can get back to normal at istock. ;)
By 'normal' do you mean crazy-time level orange, instead of crazy-time code red?
:D
-
I predict this whole thing is going to be extremely anti-climactic.
Well, your prediction was spot on. The answers are vague. And while some appear to be satisfied with that, I am not in that group. There are still so many problems with the site and so many questions about the financial goings-on, the only way to get true answers would be an audit.
Anyway, the drama du jour is over. Life can get back to normal at istock. ;)
You know, I practically could have written all of their posts before hand too. Was there ever any doubt that iStock was not going to put its best game face forward? You can bet those calls of negligence hit very very close to home. But now, of course, now all the talk of legal action and audits have been extinguished, just as I predicted. People are one step away from thanking iStock for taking the money away from them!
Classic iStockholm syndrome.
-
But now, of course, now all the talk of legal action and audits have been extinguished, just as I predicted. People are one step away from thanking iStock for taking the money away from them!
Classic iStockholm syndrome.
Don't be so sure. Apparently any critical posts are being deleted, so there may appear to be more support than there actually is.
Speaking for myself, I did thank the participants, and I sincerely meant it, but that doesn't in any mean I am letting Istock off the hook. They just stole over $300 from my account. I don't feel a bit mollified.
-
But now, of course, now all the talk of legal action and audits have been extinguished, just as I predicted. People are one step away from thanking iStock for taking the money away from them!
Classic iStockholm syndrome.
Don't be so sure. Apparently any critical posts are being deleted, so there may appear to be more support than there actually is.
Speaking for myself, I did thank the participants, and I sincerely meant it, but that doesn't in any mean I am letting Istock off the hook. They just stole over $300 from my account. I don't feel a bit mollified.
PaulCowen had a negative post that is still up from a few hours ago, so maybe that is the token one they are leaving behind? How do you know negative posts are being deleted?
You guys should probably never should have posted your questions online. No wonder "there wasn't a single time where they were caught off guard or didn't have an answer", as stated by FreeTransform. They had a few days to prepare the perfect answers. ::)
What a farce.
-
Wow, just checked the Istock thread, Carolyn, and I see your point. I think I threw up a little.
One guy is actually suggesting that Istock send out a MONTHLY letter on the 15th of each month, telling us how much they plan to deduct that month from our totals.
"Thank you sir. May I have another?"
(I was going to post a picture of a baboon "presenting" but they were so gross I decided against it. But you get my drift, anyway...)
-
Wow, just checked the Istock thread, Carolyn, and I see your point. I think I threw up a little.
One guy is actually suggesting that Istock send out a MONTHLY letter on the 15th of each month, telling us how much they plan to deduct that month from our totals.
"Thank you sir. May I have another?"
Seriously. And people seem to have forgotten that iStock announced to the world that they were leaving the store unattended.
Oh, and fraud is back to pre-December levels? That's not particularly confidence-inspiring, is it? If that 800notes.com website is anything to go by. And those were just the people that knew about that website and were reporting it.
-
"Classic iStockholm syndrome"
Lol, classic caspixel... :)
-
"Classic iStockholm syndrome"
Lol, classic caspixel... :)
You have to admit Sean. people dont act they have a brain to think with anymore. And when they speak up they get either deleted by Lobo or my new best friend Oh Kelvin AlMighty.
I would have no issues in stating to you "classic Sean". wink wink... MA
-
"Classic iStockholm syndrome"
Lol, classic caspixel... :)
I'm quite surprised that you were hoodwinked by them. ;)
I mean seriously, did anyone think they weren't going to say they were taking the utmost precautions and that everything they did and were doing regarding the clawbacks was justified? They certainly weren't going to get on the phone and tell you there were negligent when they announced to the world they were going on vacation and, once discovering the fraud, allowed it to go on, even when *contributors* were noticing it.
-
You have to admit Sean. people dont act they have a brain to think with anymore...
Anymore? It's not a new phenomenon. Just the usual "woo yay" stuff going on again.
Call me a cynic, skeptic, all around negative nelly, whatever, but I'd bet considerably more money than I lost today that we see another mass fraud and deduction this year. I can appreciate that istock is taking steps to seal the leaks in their security, but I'm less than convinced that it will help as much as they're suggesting it will. We're talking about the same company that doesn't have the IT capabilities to fix even the most basic site bugs. Do they really have a staff of security experts capable of stopping this from happening again?
And if/when another theft takes place, let's keep in mind that little gem of info that was divulged in today's conference call about how they're only guaranteeing there will be no fraud deductions while the new security measures are being put into place. After that, the door is wide open for more deductions if istock is the victim of more fraud.
-
You have to admit Sean. people dont act they have a brain to think with anymore...
Anymore? It's not a new phenomenon. Just the usual "woo yay" stuff going on again.
Call me a cynic, skeptic, all around negative nelly, whatever, but I'd bet considerably more money than I lost today that we see another mass fraud and deduction this year. I can appreciate that istock is taking steps to seal the leaks in their security, but I'm less than convinced that it will help as much as they're suggesting it will. We're talking about the same company that doesn't have the IT capabilities to fix even the most basic site bugs. Do they really have a staff of security experts capable of stopping this from happening again?
And if/when another theft takes place, let's keep in mind that little gem of info that was divulged in today's conference call about how they're only guaranteeing there will be no fraud deductions while the new security measures are being put into place. After that, the door is wide open for more deductions if istock is the victim of more fraud.
If you read the response from those who attended the meeting. No where did it say they were not going to take from our accounts again. If you can find a definitive statement saying that, please copy it for me. At no time as I read all the responses did I see that promise/statement made by any official at iStock, or for that case any of those who attended.