Quote from: Noedelhap on February 13, 2014, 14:01

Quote from: chromaco on February 12, 2014, 21:23
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.

Don't waste your time. They haven't sent any email whatsoever. They love to keep their contributors guessing.


Not surprisingly, Lobo confirmed that there have been no underpayments, only overpayments. Of course. How convenient for them.

Hmmmm. There was a month where almost everyone was reporting vastly more $$ than usual per sale; but I don't recall anyone saying the opposite.

Quote from: Noedelhap on February 13, 2014, 14:01

Quote from: chromaco on February 12, 2014, 21:23
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.

Don't waste your time. They haven't sent any email whatsoever. They love to keep their contributors guessing.


Not surprisingly, Lobo confirmed that there have been no underpayments, only overpayments. Of course. How convenient for them.

Right. Does anyone really believe that Istuck would even take ANY ACTION if THEY discovered a bug that caused under payments? The partner program underpayment was addressed because CONTRIBUTORS discovered the underpayment and Istuck faced a sh$;t storm of complaints.

Quote from: Mantis on February 13, 2014, 14:45

Quote from: Noedelhap on February 13, 2014, 14:01

Quote from: chromaco on February 12, 2014, 21:23
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.

Don't waste your time. They haven't sent any email whatsoever. They love to keep their contributors guessing.


Not surprisingly, Lobo confirmed that there have been no underpayments, only overpayments. Of course. How convenient for them.

Right. Does anyone really believe that Istuck would even take ANY ACTION if THEY discovered a bug that caused under payments? The partner program underpayment was addressed because CONTRIBUTORS discovered the underpayment and Istuck faced a sh$;t storm of complaints.

And that only because it was so obvious - no downloads for anyone on specific days. Imagine if instead it was no downloads for a bunch of 1/2 days instead - same deficiency, but it wouldn't have been so glaringly obvious and they would have just said normal sales variation.

Has anyone heard anything regarding the clawbacks? I hate to have an umbrella of debt floating over me for a duration that IS decides is in their best interest and for an unknown amount.

Quote from: Mantis on February 20, 2014, 21:29
Has anyone heard anything regarding the clawbacks? I hate to have an umbrella of debt floating over me for a duration that IS decides is in their best interest and for an unknown amount.

The last official note was from Lobo on 11th Feb "I will update the OP as soon as I have a time table to share.", which hasn't happened yet.

Quote from: Mantis on February 20, 2014, 21:29
Has anyone heard anything regarding the clawbacks? I hate to have an umbrella of debt floating over me for a duration that IS decides is in their best interest and for an unknown amount.

No mate. Their accountant is in hospital after licking his pencil once too often.

Quote from: Noedelhap on February 13, 2014, 14:01

Quote from: chromaco on February 12, 2014, 21:23
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.

Don't waste your time. They haven't sent any email whatsoever. They love to keep their contributors guessing.


Not surprisingly, Lobo confirmed that there have been no underpayments, only overpayments. Of course. How convenient for them.

Well I can confirm there was an under payment only today I had a surprise addition to December sales from the PP program.  A month after it was closed.

Not a huge amount ($0.60) but an addition nonetheless and an extra sale was posted.

Some news from IS forum. Lobo posted a few minutes ago:

"We've reduced the number of affected contributors from 25k down to a little over 9k. We've completed all the calculations and will be sending out notification emails out to all the affected contributors later today.

Rather than perform one single recoupment we have established a 6 month recoupment schedule. The email we are sending will contain the total amount that will be recouped as well as the monthly recoupment amount. We will not be providing an individual file breakdown."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&page=13#post6987258

How did they reduce the number? did they just write off the small fry or what? Their accounting and reporting does leave something to be desired.

"We decided to forgo recouping on amounts that were less than $50. This essentially reduced the affected contributor numbers by more than half. It's not a perfect solution, but we did want to find a way to limit the impact of the recoupment."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6987266
Mazel tov for the small guys.

Quote from: ShadySue on February 24, 2014, 21:20
"We decided to forgo recouping on amounts that were less than $50. This essentially reduced the affected contributor numbers by more than half. It's not a perfect solution, but we did want to find a way to limit the impact of the recoupment."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6987266
Mazel tov for the small guys.

Does that mean they are going to hack $50 off of someone who might owe, say, $200 to make it fair across the board?

Why are they suddenly concerned about the impact of the clawback?  They never were before.  For instance, they took $150 from me in one blow back in 2012.  That, aside from all the refund payments that can jump into hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 24, 2014, 21:29
Why are they suddenly concerned about the impact of the clawback?  They never were before.  For instance, they took $150 from me in one blow back in 2012.  That, aside from all the refund payments that can jump into hundreds or thousands of dollars.

The only reason I can think of that they'd suddenly get misty-eyed about contributors is that they are vulnerable (in some way we don't know about) to charges that they're responsible for this eff-up. Offering something would then reduce the likelihood people might pursue this and significantly reduce the size of any "angry mob". They're trying to protect or immunize themselves, IMO.

And I agree that they should just forgive $50 of whatever's owed across the board rather than full boat for those over and freebie for those under $50 owed.

Maybe the overheads in clawing back small payments weren't worth it, though they have done that, too, in the past. (Maybe learning from past costs/benefits?)

I also wondered if they were going to cancel out the first $50 of bigger gainers, but they haven't said so, yet.

OK fine with it, no choice to deal with that, and i'm still angry and didn't trust istock anymore ! Now can they sends us JANUARY PP Payment at least ?

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 24, 2014, 21:41

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 24, 2014, 21:29
Why are they suddenly concerned about the impact of the clawback?  They never were before.  For instance, they took $150 from me in one blow back in 2012.  That, aside from all the refund payments that can jump into hundreds or thousands of dollars.

The only reason I can think of that they'd suddenly get misty-eyed about contributors is that they are vulnerable (in some way we don't know about) to charges that they're responsible for this eff-up. Offering something would then reduce the likelihood people might pursue this and significantly reduce the size of any "angry mob". They're trying to protect or immunize themselves, IMO.

And I agree that they should just forgive $50 of whatever's owed across the board rather than full boat for those over and freebie for those under $50 owed.

I suspect that the cost of administrating an extra 16,000 transactions would simply be too high and take too long. Mathematically the average should be about $25 (of those being overpaid between $1 - $50) so the 'write off' should be about $400K. That's probably about half of one day's sales for IS.

Just got my email, the clawbacks have begun!

I dont think they have a clue what the amounts are without resort to the slate and abacus so its only worth it for relatively large amounts

Notice received. Now on the six month payment plan. Feel like I am buying a new TV on the instalment plan.

Just got my recoupement email too. I am f***ing incandescent. The f***ing incompetent b***ards!

Over Payment Total=$77.04

Monthly Recoup Amount=$12.84

Really? Goes from bad to worse.

I just got an email saying they are clawing back my $37 in over payment. So much for the $50 cutoff. Hard to believe there are communication issues with IS.

.. sigh...

QuoteHello leaf,

We discovered that there were some irregularities with September 2013 and October 2013 Partner Program royalties payments. There were a number of contributor accounts that were overpaid royalties over these two months. Unfortunately your account was one of the affected accounts.

We have calculated the over payment amount to be $416.10. Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period. Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $69.35. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. You will receive a monthly notification as immediately after the funds are removed.

Over Payment Total=$416.10

Monthly Recoup Amount=$69.35

If you have any questions please contact us via our Contributor Relations Contact Ticket feature.

Regards,
iStockphoto LP

Everyone should ask why the under $50 recipients get a free $50, and the rest don't.  If they are going to drop the amounts by $50, it should be across the board.

Guess I'm lucky, only $83 bucks. They're taking $13 bucks a month out to recompense themselves. No explanation as to why they overpaid me in the first place though which is a little disturbing.