The post call thread

[Microbius]

So the call then.
Here's the thread on IStock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=315162&page=1

Thought I should start one here for more open discussion.

I looked through the IStock one and couldn't see anything about the fundamental question of why IStock saw fit to claw back the royalties from contributors rather than taking the hit as:
1. they are responsible for security
2: in any case the contributor will take the bigger hit in lost future earnings therefore morally the agency should probably feel some of the pain too

Was wondering if anything about this was mentioned in the call.

[traveler1116]

Anyone know if we'll keep RCs from this one?

[cobalt]

Yes, we can keep the RC's.

[cathyslife]

So the call then.
Here's the thread on IStock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=315162&page=1

Thought I should start one here for more open discussion.

I looked through the IStock one and couldn't see anything about the fundamental question of why IStock saw fit to claw back the royalties from contributors rather than taking the hit as:
1. they are responsible for security
2: in any case the contributor will take the bigger hit in lost future earnings therefore morally the agency should probably feel some of the pain too

Was wondering if anything about this was mentioned in the call.

Don't know if it was mentioned in the call, but I saw many people saying that they HAD to clawback the money, that we had no right to keep it. They gave an example, something along the lines of "if someone sold you stolen property and the police knew it was stolen and tracked it down, you would have to give it back". Not that exact example, but I couldn't find the specific one in the thread to quote.

It doesn't explain to me why they couldn't have taken the hit (I'm sure they could have if they wanted to) and it certainly doesn't explain why it happened twice.

The call participants did their best, but this call wasn't really meant to accomplish anything constructive, but just buy IS a few more days and quell the rising anger. And of course they would say that they are doing everything possible to stop it. Didn't they say that the first time, too?

[click_click]

The call participants did their best, but this call wasn't really meant to accomplish anything constructive, but just buy IS a few more days and quell the rising anger.

Not to sound arrogant but the participants didn't "do" anything. I don't mean that they were incapable of "doing" anything but IS wouldn't allow them to do something. The participants were supposed to listen as they cannot disclose anything with the public anyway... It's just hypocritical. Asking questions is not really doing anything.

Doing something, is fixing stuff that is broken or improve it. What has been improved by this conference call, is the communication between IS and 0.00001% (rough estimate) of its contributors. WOW. Is everything supposed to be ok now?

That IS has to improve or fix the credit card issue is a bloody no-brainer. Jeeper creepers do they really think it would be ok to leave it the way it is... Sheesh.
So it's obvious that this issue has to be fixed, coincidentally it's also in their own best interest.

And of course they would say that they are doing everything possible to stop it. Didn't they say that the first time, too?

Exactly. I'm blown away by this sheer mass of information that came across during the phone call.

Fine, IS did their conference thing. It has not affected our work or the usability of the site.

Now they have to put the money where their mouth is (is that right? - I'm non-english) as in, don't blow steam, let actions follow, preferably actions being taken by professionals who do their respective jobs on a daily basis.

As Jonathan also asked, why didn't this ever happen at Getty?

Was credit card fraud invented last December? And not only that but get the dang site working the way it should. Not only it would be more efficient to work for us but also some buyers might stick with IS if they had a working interface.

It sure feels like kicking a dead horse but with the difference that the owner comes by and says don't worry "It's just asleep, it'll wake up soon".

[caspixel]

Did anyone expect a different result? Of course iStock would say they are doing everything they could and that the clawbacks were justified. They certainly weren't going to say they were negligent in announcing to the world that they were going on vacation or that they were negligent in allowing it to continue, even though the contributors were reporting the activity as suspicious. In light of the audit and law suit talk, they certainly weren't going to give anyone any information that might be used against them. The whole thing was a total farce. Even down to the way people were chosen. Just like the PTOTW, they ask for feedback, but then do whatever they want. Of course, they were at least *sincere* about it. 

[click_click]

IMO this conference call wasn't just some day-to-day communication between a contributor and a CR rep.

This was IS HQ talking straight to a select few.

Get your act together and present solutions that work. This isn't rocket science. It's web site security. Millions of other web sites on this planet get it right, why can't you?

Sure, they will share information that the small circle chosen ones cannot talk about but still, since the whole "community" was revved up about the whole thing you (American Idol style: Select your favorite photographer for the event) might as well want to come forth with some solid statements.

[Sean Locke Photography]

Did anyone expect a different result? Of course iStock would say they are doing everything they could and that the clawbacks were justified.

They did not say "We are doing everything we can".  They gave several concrete actions and the reasons behind those actions, both reactive and pro-active.  There was no justification given for the withdrawal action, and I think it would have been good apologetic PR to let us keep the money, but there you go.  That was just a business decision, and I'm glad to see that in the short term, going forward, there will be no more withdrawals.

[caspixel]

They did not say "We are doing everything we can".  They gave several concrete actions and the reasons behind those actions, both reactive and pro-active. 

Yes, of course they did. Why wouldn't they amid the chatter of negligence. law suits, and audits? Still doesn't mean they weren't negligent. Doesn't change the fact that they announced to the world they were going on vacation and didn't stop the fraud even when it was evident to contributors. Why were the other two agencies able to tamp it down so quickly and iStock wasn't? It went on for three months and I'd hazard a guess that it's probably still going on.

[cathyslife]

They did not say "We are doing everything we can".  They gave several concrete actions and the reasons behind those actions, both reactive and pro-active. 

Yes, of course they did. Why wouldn't they amid the chatter of negligence. law suits, and audits? Still doesn't mean they weren't negligent. Doesn't change the fact that they announced to the world they were going on vacation and didn't stop the fraud even when it was evident to contributors. Why were the other two agencies able to tamp it down so quickly and iStock wasn't? It went on for three months and I'd hazard a guess that it's probably still going on.

Actually, according to the 800note website, fradulent charges have been going on for years. But I guess if istock contributors weren't directly affected until Dec., it doesn't count. 

[caspixel]

Actually, according to the 800note website, fradulent charges have been going on for years. But I guess if istock contributors weren't directly affected until Dec., it doesn't count. 

That is true, but I mean at the massive scale that it was happening, enough to be noticed by contributors. What I find funny is that someone reported that the fraud is back to pre-December levels (so the levels we see on that 800note site). Whew! LOL

[click_click]

...That was just a business decision, and I'm glad to see that in the short term, going forward, there will be no more withdrawals.

I appreciate your time and patience to keep the community posted!

However your statement (quote above) is making me feel uneasy.

Is this what they said or what you think they were saying?

I think the idea of some sort of insurance against such withdrawals should put an end to it once and for all, not just the short term. Realistically it doesn't matter what I (or maybe even "we") think, since IS will just keep their back door open to take their clawbacks whenever it's convenient for them.

After the whining of not being able to run their business at 60%-80% I really wonder if they use hundred dollar bills as toilet paper.

Where the heck is all that money going?

[caspixel]

Where the heck is all that money going?

Hellman & Friedman's bank account.

[click_click]

Where the heck is all that money going?

Hellman & Friedman's bank account.

Yeah, it was a somewhat rhetorical question. Too bad that IS had it going years ago and it's just a shame that it's going down like this.

[Microbius]

There was no justification given for the withdrawal action, and I think it would have been good apologetic PR to let us keep the money, but there you go.  That was just a business decision

It sucks that we don't get to hear what their justification is for clawing the money back.

I appreciate that it was a business decision, but speaking as someone who is at this moment still showing a negative balance on their IStock account because of it, it's a decision that exposes them as a bunch of self serving *bleeps* who refuse to take any real responsibility when their incompetence causes their contributors to be out of pocket.

[RT]

...and I'm glad to see that in the short term, going forward, there will be no more withdrawals.

Personally it's not the withdrawals that's most important to me it's stopping someone nicking my IP in the first place.

Sean you did your bit and I don't think anybody can expect any answers out of the call because iS clearly said beforehand it was a PR excercise there wouldn't be. Thanks for asking the questions you did.

[CurtPick]

Did anyone expect a different result? Of course iStock would say they are doing everything they could and that the clawbacks were justified.

They did not say "We are doing everything we can".  They gave several concrete actions and the reasons behind those actions, both reactive and pro-active.  There was no justification given for the withdrawal action, and I think it would have been good apologetic PR to let us keep the money, but there you go.  That was just a business decision, and I'm glad to see that in the short term, going forward, there will be no more withdrawals.

I for one hope you don't have to eat your words on the clawbacks Sean. But from the past trackrecord, for gods sake don't hold your breath.

[Risamay]

Posted by PrairieArtProject:

Thanks for everyone who took the time, but I don't see this as a game-changer at all. I'm not posing some conspiracy theory here, but it logically stands to reason that this surprise-select-conference call would not happen unless iStock had some impressive new security steps to show to those selected. After weeks and weeks of forum rage, why now? Because the plans were in place.

I fully believe that Sean and Nano et al are convinced and, while that gives me hope, it does NOT take away any of my outrage that we were not more protected. This does NOT reinstill the trust I had in iStock last summer. This does NOT make me want to go shoot, upload, and repeat. There are far too many issues still on the table, and no amount of focus groups will change it. The entire community needs and demands transparency, clarity, and immediacy, and frankly, I think we all deserve it. You, iStock, are quite content to remind us in the forums that active forum users are not even a tiny percentage of actual users -- so there, we are your focus group.

I caution iStock against feeling too confident just yet. This was an attempt at genuine communication, and a welcome one, but this is not the (whole) answer.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, I waited a whole day to express my cynicism, but this is exactly the outcome I expected.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=315162&page=12

+1 Tracy! Well said.

[click_click]

Yeah, that's how I feel.

[helix7]

I've really been trying to see the silver lining in this that most folks at istock seem to see very clearly. But I'm just not there. Nothing in my opinion of istock or how they handled this has changed as a result of this conference call.

There will be no deductions while they are working on new security measures, which seems like a nice policy but who knows how long that actually protects us for so it's not worth a whole lot. After they are done with the upgrades, it's open season again on fraud deductions. So no reassurances there, really. I know, they're saying it's unlikely to happen. But this is the same company that's been trying to feed us this "unsustainable" B.S. about the royalty cuts for months. They're not exactly a company with a recent history of trustworthiness and integrity, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not buying a word of this "unlikely" company line.

They should have just guaranteed it. No more deductions for fraud, period. It should be on them to seal the leaks and protect the site. That's the purpose of an agency. We supply the work, they distribute it and handle the sales.  

Instead, all we got yesterday was word that they are doing something to improve security, but they're not so confident in their work that they are willing to guarantee that we're protected against future deductions. Can't say I blame them, really. It's not like istock IT is exactly top-shelf.

Maybe they'll prove me wrong. But right now, I think the smart money is on the likelihood that we'll see another fraud deduction before 2011 is through.

[lisafx]

Completely agree with both Tracy and Mike. 

I think leaving the ability to take money back for future fraud sales on the table gives Istock less incentive to completely plug its leaks.  If they were on the hook for all lost funds, they would try harder.

[Sean Locke Photography]

'It sucks that we don't get to hear what their justification is for clawing the money back.'

I assume the thought process is 'we have to give the money back to the card company, so since we're dealing with intangibles, it's no real loss to take it back'.  Of course, since it is 2 months later, we've already counted on the cash as real, so it makes it more painful.  And, obviously, we're of the thought that something has been 'delivered' so we should keep our money. 

[click_click]

... we're of the thought that something has been 'delivered' so we should keep our money. 

That's not just a thought, that's a fact. It's the credit card company's and iStock's fault for implementing unsecured transaction/verification procedures.

iStock has failed to verify the identity of the buyers. Not that everyone has to show their ID at the supermarket but in our situation the buyer signs a contract (as in agreeing to usage terms and copyright ownership). How can a contract be in effect if the (buying) party has not even been verified. Isn't it also of interest for iStock to know who to pursue in case of infringements?

These days the purchasing process has to be "quick quick", which requires different standards than 15 years ago.

The whole process needs to be updated and I think more security measures won't bother anyone.

[PeterChigmaroff]

FWIW, I've seen (personally had) contracts where the agency claws back transactions that fail to pay or where they are required to refund a client. I had one many years ago where the agency allowed who knows what to happen in their Singapore office and the amounts clawed back were huge. And I have had contracts where the agency covered all losses and unpaid accounts. With them you got paid, end of story. So it can fall both ways. I have no idea why iStock bothered with this call though. There was no intent to do anything. I understand the need by many contributors to carry on dealing with this group of thieves I just don't understand actually liking it.

[klsbear]

... we're of the thought that something has been 'delivered' so we should keep our money. 

That's not just a thought, that's a fact. It's the credit card company's and iStock's fault for implementing unsecured transaction/verification procedures.

That's exactly my thinking - digital files were given to iStock for safe keeping and distribution.  They distributed it and those supplying the images should be paid for the distribution.  If iStock failed to get the payment that's their negligence and their burden to bear.  It just seems so wrong that they hand out the goods without paying the creator of the goods - they retain a hefty fee for their services that should cover this.