Author Topic: iSock - Class action (Read 3214 times)

JFP · « **on:** November 23, 2012, 07:05 »

Over the last couple of years, istock/Getty keep underpaying contributors, having a broken site because their IT team s**ks, unitarily changing ASA without even informing contributors, etc, etc.... some example include:
- Not doing retro-payments when contributors go to a higher level
- Not transferring files to Getty as promised in exchange of lower royalties on Vettas
- Not paying royalties when they mess up the site by doing "upgrades" (a few times a year) as their IT team is not able to write scripts to correct their mess
- Not paying royalties based on what the customers are paying for the image (as initially indicated in the ASA), but based on a "net" amount on payment in non-USD currencies (with up-to 20% markup!). When some contributors realized that it was going one since a few years (thanks to the new Cash Sales), istock changed the ASA without telling anybody and not giving the choice to contributors to agree or not on the new terms.

Anybody knows a US/Canadian lawyer that would be able to act on behalf of contributors (class-action type), as individual contributors don't have a single chance to get paid what we are supposed to!

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** November 23, 2012, 08:32 »

This has already been attempted (not to sue istock though, but another agency) and it pretty much fell by the wayside. And the reason it did, I think, is because no attorney will take on suits nowadays without getting paid money up front. And since the parties instigating the lawsuit were handling it over the internet, I personally don't believe people in this industry are going to be willing to give up thousands of dollars to an attorney they don't know and people instigating the lawsuit that they don't know. I sure wouldn't.

If anyone is going to sue, it will be an individual with a bunch of money that sees wrongdoing and will be willing to find an attorney, get the lawsuit going and follow through, all on behalf of all contributors, but not expecting any monetary compensation from those contributors.

aspp · « **Reply #2 on:** November 23, 2012, 11:23 »

Quote from: JFP on November 23, 2012, 07:05

a broken site because their IT team s**ks, unitarily changing ASA without even informing contributors, etc, etc.... some example include:
- Not doing retro-payments when contributors go to a higher level
- Not transferring files to Getty as promised in exchange of lower royalties on Vettas
- Not paying royalties when they mess up the site by doing "upgrades" (a few times a year) as their IT team is not able to write scripts to correct their mess
- Not paying royalties based on what the customers are paying for the image (as initially indicated in the ASA), but based on a "net" amount on payment in non-USD currencies (with up-to 20% markup!). When some contributors realized that it was going one since a few years (thanks to the new Cash Sales), istock changed the ASA without telling anybody and not giving the choice to contributors to agree or not on the new terms.

we know about this and will update you as soon as we have any more information

... should be their slogan

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2012, 11:37 »

I followed the previous class action attempt and might of got involved but I thought it wasn't a good idea to take legal action against sites that were generally better to me than some of the others. I also felt that some people were pursuing it for the wrong reasons. With istock, I might not find it such a predicament.