MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Did a Test at IStock  (Read 33565 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: August 18, 2009, 13:57 »
+1
It hurts to read his posts.  The complete lack of grammar and Random capitalization and run on sentences and the 'classes' and tricks and 40+ years.  Thats all :)


« Reply #51 on: August 18, 2009, 16:47 »
0
It hurts to read his posts.

Cosmetically they might be ugly but I think his posts are rich in content. IMHO.

« Reply #52 on: August 18, 2009, 17:02 »
0
Someone's account at iStock seems to be missing now.... hmmm....

« Reply #53 on: August 18, 2009, 17:07 »
0
I don't mind that reviewer may be a bit more tolerant with exclusives, I only think this should be a clear rule. 

« Reply #54 on: August 18, 2009, 17:14 »
0
Someone's account at iStock seems to be missing now.... hmmm....

When typing www.istockphoto.com/rinderart, ti goes to IS home page. I just guessed Rinder's user name there. Other guesses say "Hang in there" page not found. So it might be true.

I agree with Adelaide. There should be a clear rule spelled out about this.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 17:20 by goldenangel »

« Reply #55 on: August 18, 2009, 17:20 »
0
Yes, his profile is missing. IS obviously deleted it.

« Reply #56 on: August 18, 2009, 17:24 »
0
I wonder if his exclusive friend has been removed as well of if he has been given special treatment :)

« Reply #57 on: August 18, 2009, 17:36 »
0
This reminds me of times when communists ruled in my country. Many people were imprisoned and some people were even been killed for telling jokes about Tito (our president). One could never say something against communists or he could expect to be in jail the first morning after it.
OK, I understand Rinder did something that was against rules, but he proved something we all unofficially knew.
Maybe they could react in more human way, not by simple deleting his account without any notice or explanation.

KB

« Reply #58 on: August 18, 2009, 17:41 »
0
Laurin has always reminded me of Harlen Ellison (if anyone here happens to know who he is).

Loads of talent, but zero tolerance for mere mortals. Having never met Laurin in person, perhaps he isn't quite as nasty as Ellison (whom I have met in person). But I've read some very ugly (I don't mean formatting-wise) posts from Laurin which led to my association of him with Ellison.

As to this thread, I would venture to say that had Laurin done the same thing but with another non-exclusive contributor, he might very well have had the identical result (all images accepted). Though I've found IS' reviewers to be the most consistent of any agency, that doesn't mean they are 100% consistent. Perhaps he encountered one who was new (or maybe one who Laurin had pissed off in the past!), and so submitting them under another contributor's name might very well have resulted in 100% acceptance.

Most of my CN is made up of exclusives, and I have read of plenty of odd rejections. I'm not convinced that exclusives enjoy more relaxed standards, but perhaps they do. But AFAIC,  Laurin's little test proved nothing (at least, not relating to that ;D ).

« Reply #59 on: August 18, 2009, 17:41 »
0
Yes, his profile is missing. IS obviously deleted it.

Oooohh, that's bad.   :-\

« Reply #60 on: August 18, 2009, 17:45 »
0
It seems that copyright reassignment would still be against IS rules:

"Uploading any of the following is strictly prohibited and may result in a lifetime ban or legal action:
...
   2. A photograph that you didn't take.
...
"

Still, I agree with what Whitechild said about it and hope Rinder and IS get this resolved.

« Reply #61 on: August 18, 2009, 17:46 »
0
Yes, his profile is missing. IS obviously deleted it.

Oooohh, that's bad.   :-\

I don't always agree with Rinder, but I cannot agree with Istock on this one either.

« Reply #62 on: August 18, 2009, 17:51 »
0
I am not surprised they deleted his account. He played against basic rules, and he said that here. But on the other hand, I think IS should just say something, and explain why they deleted his account, because that would be professional from their side.
This way, by deleting his account without a single note, it looks like they demonstrate power. It looks like they don't give a sh*t about us, and it's proving how miserable we are comparing to agencies..... and I mean all agencies, not just IS. We are nothing to them...

« Reply #63 on: August 18, 2009, 17:54 »
0
I don't expect them to give any explanation. Even if they give one, it would be very simple: He violated the rules and was banned for it.

KB

« Reply #64 on: August 18, 2009, 17:55 »
0
His account may have just been suspended. I'm aware of cases in which an offender (or accused offender) had his account suspended for a few weeks, and it was later re-instated once the matter was resolved. Perhaps that will be the case here.

KB

« Reply #65 on: August 18, 2009, 17:57 »
0
It seems that copyright reassignment would still be against IS rules:

"Uploading any of the following is strictly prohibited and may result in a lifetime ban or legal action:
...
   2. A photograph that you didn't take.
...
"

That would be a reason his partner in crime would be banned, not Laurin. Laurin did not upload a photograph he didn't take.  ;D

« Reply #66 on: August 18, 2009, 18:05 »
0
It seems that copyright reassignment would still be against IS rules:

"Uploading any of the following is strictly prohibited and may result in a lifetime ban or legal action:
...
   2. A photograph that you didn't take.
...
"

Still, I agree with what Whitechild said about it and hope Rinder and IS get this resolved.

So who took all those NASA photos?  I have never understood why that rule is allowed to be broken all the time.


« Reply #67 on: August 18, 2009, 18:07 »
0
I don't expect them to give any explanation. Even if they give one, it would be very simple: He violated the rules and was banned for it.

He didn't violate any rules, he didn't upload any photos he didn't take. He was honest by using his real name. All he did was to test a point and then had the photos deleted.

I hope someone in IS higher management will review this case. Sounds like a power trip to me. This is BAD PR to say the least!

« Reply #68 on: August 18, 2009, 18:16 »
0
His account may have just been suspended. I'm aware of cases in which an offender (or accused offender) had his account suspended for a few weeks, and it was later re-instated once the matter was resolved. Perhaps that will be the case here.

Yes, this is true. They may have just suspended his account whilst they investigate; I hope so anyway. If Laurin and his accomplice grovel hard and tug their forelocks enough then they will probably be let off with a warning. Somehow I don't think that Laurin will play ball though!

Come to think of it didn't LR also state that he is (as in currently) a reviewer for SS too? If so that is an automatic account suspension/deletion anyway. You're not allowed to be an 'employee' of a competing agency.

« Reply #69 on: August 18, 2009, 18:27 »
0
His account may have just been suspended. I'm aware of cases in which an offender (or accused offender) had his account suspended for a few weeks, and it was later re-instated once the matter was resolved. Perhaps that will be the case here.

Yes, this is true. They may have just suspended his account whilst they investigate; I hope so anyway. If Laurin and his accomplice grovel hard and tug their forelocks enough then they will probably be let off with a warning. Somehow I don't think that Laurin will play ball though!

Come to think of it didn't LR also state that he is (as in currently) a reviewer for SS too? If so that is an automatic account suspension/deletion anyway. You're not allowed to be an 'employee' of a competing agency.

I thought most reviewers were freelance contractors who got paid on piece-work basis, just like the contributing photographers. Only salaried staff are considered employees in most situations.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 18:30 by Freedom »

« Reply #70 on: August 18, 2009, 18:36 »
0
I thought most reviewers were freelance contractors who got paid on piece-work basis, just like the contributing photographers. Only salaried staff are considered employees in most situations.

Not as far as IS are concerned. Been there and had to make the phone call. That's why almost all non-IS reviewers are effectively 'undercover' nowadays.

bittersweet

« Reply #71 on: August 18, 2009, 19:33 »
0
I am not surprised they deleted his account. He played against basic rules, and he said that here. But on the other hand, I think IS should just say something, and explain why they deleted his account, because that would be professional from their side.
This way, by deleting his account without a single note, it looks like they demonstrate power.
I'm curious why several believe that they did it with no notice. Do you have direct confirmation of this from Laurin? Or are you assuming it because they haven't come here to explain themselves to all of you?

rinderart

« Reply #72 on: August 18, 2009, 20:14 »
0
Hey Guys. well... I screwed up doing this. I got a letter from them.My account has been suspended. It was a very, Very stupid thing to do and I broke the agreement with them I've had for 4 1/2 years and I take full and complete responsibility for my actions. If I would have not said anything, no One would have known. it didn't prove anything at all about exclusives getting better treatment at all. I did this as a test and maybe to shed some light on the long Lingering doubts about this long running issue. There are no images on the site that do not belong to me or anyone else. if they terminate my account for doing this, I don't Blame them One bit and I told them so. Bottom Line, it was a Dumb thing to do and Im sorry for it. I hope they understand but, If not I'll take the hit I deserve. Thanks to my friends for the support. laurin

Pls lets let it go now. I feel bad enough. Thanks. and no I don't review for SS.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 20:17 by rinderart »

« Reply #73 on: August 18, 2009, 20:38 »
0
Thanks. and no I don't review for SS.

Thank God for that __ you'd really have to be on your uppers to be doing that for 5c a pop or whatever they pay nowadays!

If you slip on your very best pair of Grovelling Pants (the ones with the knees completely worn out) you might, just this once, get a reprieve. Good luck!

tobkatrina

  • Crazy Bird Lady
« Reply #74 on: August 18, 2009, 21:33 »
0
Wow, bummer Laurin.

I feel for ya man.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4810 Views
Last post July 16, 2011, 20:52
by Will Dutt
55 Replies
10288 Views
Last post August 16, 2011, 16:06
by Suljo
6 Replies
1203 Views
Last post December 17, 2012, 14:16
by WarrenPrice
6 Replies
1589 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 03:49
by sdeva
12 Replies
2849 Views
Last post April 23, 2013, 07:23
by archibald1221

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results