Author Topic: 82 refunds in the past hour (Read 10562 times)

mbug · « **on:** January 30, 2013, 18:47 »

As it says on the tin,

Manage to get through to speak to someone in contributor relations, (must of been a bit of a shock for them to actually talk to the lowly contributor that they feed off, but hey ho) she told me that $1000 fraudulent transactions in an hour, is the risk that I take for selling online, I might have been a bit curt, after all, I am their client, they make money from me. I pay them 65% on every sale to market and protect my work.

posted this in the forums

I am exclusive here for you to protect my work, you make 65% on every sale to protect my work, I had to call you to inform you that $1000 of sales in the past hour might be a tad suspicious, along with giving work away to Google, what exactly do you do to justify your percentage?

One snotty illiterate email from them later, and I am banned from the forums.

I was a loyal exclusive, ( I know, stupid)

(edited to remove some of the rage)

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2013, 18:52 »

Quote from: mbug on January 30, 2013, 18:47

As it says on the tin,

Manage to get through to speak to someone in contributor relations, (must of been a bit of a shock for them to talk to the filth that they feed off, but hey ho) she told me that a $1000 fraudulent transactions in an hour, is the risk that I take for selling online, I might have been a bit curt, After all, I am their client, they make money from me. I pay them 65% on every sale to market and protect my work.

posted this in the forums

I am exclusive here for you to protect my work, you make 65% on every sale to protect my work, I had to call you to inform you that $1000 of sales in the past hour might be a tad suspicious, along with giving work away to Google, what exactly do you do to justify your percentage?

One snotty illiterate sitemail later, and I am banned from the forums.

I was a loyal exclusive, ( I know, stupid)

I hope was is the operative word.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2013, 18:55 »

I'm really sorry you got hit with this. There is life after exclusivity (e.g. me!) if you decide you've had enough

I don't know how the other sites manage it but it seems iStock is the refund champion

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:01 »

So, was Lobo lying when he wrote:
Hold on a second. You called and talked to someone(I don't know how)
{@Lobo, it's called a phone}
(Lobo once said that contributors could not ever phone CR, no exceptions, and that was in response to a contributor/buyer apparently trying to ask a question in their buyer capacity. However a different admin [oldladybird?] said we had to phone as soon as we suspected fraudulent activity. But Lobo seems not to know about that.

"and railed on the Contributor Relations rep demanding an apology from someone higher up than her. I'm not sure what you think you will accomplish by not telling the entire story, but I will tell you this I'm not going to let you make a bunch of unfounded statements in here.
It's not going to happen. So please understand your not entirely being truthful in here."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351067&messageid=6833227
If there is more to the story, can you share it?
If there isn't, make a screendump very quickly as that could be libel.

mbug · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:01 »

Sorry, it is now 111 refunds, and they ban me for being angry!!!, What do they expect me to be? Grateful for the exposure? Member for 10 years, exclusive for 5, just about had enough, bar stewards.

KarenH · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:02 »

To just say that's the risk he takes when he sells online -- what an incredibly insensitive cavalier attitude, and certainly not appropriate when they're taking the lion's share of the royalties! I wonder though if he didn't get an actual contributor support person (do they have those there anymore?), and maybe got someone who just happened to answer the phone and didn't know what to do.

mbug · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:12 »

I'm a she :-). Called this number 44 (0) 203 227 2713 (it is on the website), was a bit surprised to talk to someone, and yes I was a bit upset, it was obvious someone was stealing my work, and rather than solutions , or apologies, I was receiving patronising platitudes from the people I pay to protect/market my work. Sorry cant really talk right now I am so angry.

Suljo · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:14 »

Quote from: mbug on January 30, 2013, 18:47

As it says on the tin,

Manage to get through to speak to someone in contributor relations, (must of been a bit of a shock for them to talk to the filth that they feed off, but hey ho) she told me that a $1000 fraudulent transactions in an hour, is the risk that I take for selling online, I might have been a bit curt, After all, I am their client, they make money from me. I pay them 65% on every sale to market and protect my work.

posted this in the forums

I am exclusive here for you to protect my work, you make 65% on every sale to protect my work, I had to call you to inform you that $1000 of sales in the past hour might be a tad suspicious, along with giving work away to Google, what exactly do you do to justify your percentage?

One snotty illiterate sitemail later, and I am banned from the forums.

I was a loyal exclusive, ( I know, stupid)

From the forum or from the site mail?
Last few weeks they are little nervous with stinking pile of crap which they produce in they office which cause explosion of they fcktard mental diarrhea.

mbug · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:22 »

134 refunds and counting

click_click · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:23 »

Quote from: KarenH on January 30, 2013, 19:02

To just say that's the risk he takes when he sells online -- what an incredibly insensitive cavalier attitude, and certainly not appropriate when they're taking the lion's share of the royalties!...

Unreal behavior! To speak to your own exclusives that way is a disgrace.

Where does this support rep think their salary money is coming from???

WOW, sorry the OP had to go through this.

KarenH · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:24 »

Quote from: mbug on January 30, 2013, 19:12

I'm a she :-). Called this number 44 (0) 203 227 2713, was a bit surprised to talk to someone, and yes I was a bit upset, it was obvious someone was stealing my work, and rather than solutions , or apologies, I was receiving patronising platitudes from the people I pay to protect/market my work. Sorry cant really talk right now I am so angry.

Oops, apologies for the wrong pronoun!

That would have made me angry too -- they used to say call right away if there is any indication of a fraud, but they seem to not really mean that.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:30 »

Quote from: KarenH on January 30, 2013, 19:24

Quote from: mbug on January 30, 2013, 19:12
I'm a she :-). Called this number 44 (0) 203 227 2713, was a bit surprised to talk to someone, and yes I was a bit upset, it was obvious someone was stealing my work, and rather than solutions , or apologies, I was receiving patronising platitudes from the people I pay to protect/market my work. Sorry cant really talk right now I am so angry.
Oops, apologies for the wrong pronoun! That would have made me angry too -- they used to say call right away if there is any indication of a fraud, but they seem to not really mean that.

No, it's just that Lobo isn't up to speed on that.
Anyone have a link to the post which said we should phone if there was a reasonable suspicion of fraud?

mbug · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:33 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 30, 2013, 19:01

So, was Lobo lying when he wrote:
Hold on a second. You called and talked to someone(I don't know how)
{@Lobo, it's called a phone}
(Lobo once said that contributors could not ever phone CR, no exceptions, and that was in response to a contributor/buyer apparently trying to ask a question in their buyer capacity. However a different admin [oldladybird?] said we had to phone as soon as we suspected fraudulent activity. But Lobo seems not to know about that.

"and railed on the Contributor Relations rep demanding an apology from someone higher up than her. I'm not sure what you think you will accomplish by not telling the entire story, but I will tell you this I'm not going to let you make a bunch of unfounded statements in here.
It's not going to happen. So please understand your not entirely being truthful in here."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351067&messageid=6833227
If there is more to the story, can you share it?
If there isn't, make a screendump very quickly as that could be libel.

No, no more to the story, and yes I did take a screen grab

flotsom · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:33 »

The more I read about igetty the more I dislike them, they're totally unbelievable. Arrogant bar stewards!

Suljo · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:36 »

Sometimes I ask my self how it is possible that this kind of iLive-stock organisms just dont forgot to breath.

John W. · « **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:46 »

This is unbelievable. Did you quit exclusivity already? as I see no crown.

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:47 »

Quote from: jwolf on January 30, 2013, 19:46

This is unbelievable. Did you quit exclusivity already? as I see no crown.

It's a yellow paintbrush for an exclusive illustrator.

mbug · « **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2013, 19:50 »

Im a Vector Illustrator, we no longer get a lckle exclusive crown, I believe our pen nib icon is a slightly different colour, to be honest, i am not that interested anymore.

Amanda_K · « **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2013, 20:29 »

You have a great portfolio and a unique style! Sorry you are having to deal with this. As a former exclusive illustrator there are other sites out there that are much more enjoyable to upload to/deal with and you'd probably do well as an independent if you decide to go in that direction.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2013, 20:38 »

Quote from: mbug on January 30, 2013, 19:01

Sorry, it is now 111 refunds, and they ban me for being angry!!!, What do they expect me to be? Grateful for the exposure? Member for 10 years, exclusive for 5, just about had enough, bar stewards.

I'd certainly be mad if that happened to me, so it's not surprising if you hd the red mist coming down.

mbug · « **Reply #20 on:** January 31, 2013, 03:06 »

I have slept on this, and am still angry, but also very upset. I can not believe that after allowing somebody to steal 136 of my files, they close my thread down, ban me from the forums, and accuse me of lying. All I can imagine is they want to keep the scale of their incompetence and lack of security quiet. What a way to treat Clients, shocking.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #21 on:** January 31, 2013, 03:17 »

Quote from: mbug on January 31, 2013, 03:06

I have slept on this, and am still angry, but also very upset. I can not believe that after allowing somebody to steal 136 of my files, they close my thread down, ban me from the forums, and accuse me of lying. All I can imagine is they want to keep the scale of their incompetence and lack of security quiet. What a way to treat Clients, shocking.

They can't ban you from Facebook, Twitter or posting on your own blog. I'd suggest you make a lot of noise about what happened to you. Be careful not to libel them - don't want more fun with the Getty legal team - but there is generally a fair bit of mileage in getting the word out about what's going on and how a contributor's work was mishandled. It won't get you your files back, but it should allow you to set the record straight.

Horrible as this is, it isn't an isolated incident at iStock - having large numbers of sales in a short period of time that turn out to be fraud. They keep saying that this is just the cost of doing business online and via credit cards, but if that's true, why isn't this happening at all the agencies? I just don't buy their explanations.

basti · « **Reply #22 on:** January 31, 2013, 03:56 »

Mbug: This behaviour is quite typical, honestly said not only for IStock. I would write a short email to the support with about this:

My dear guys, I was loyal exclusive many years and because of YOUR mistakes MY illustrationes were stolen. When I told that to you, I was accused of lying, banned and told some excuses of "risk of selling online". Im sorry that it got this way and I will publish whole story including screens from phorums on independent phorum. You should take also some responsibility if you take most of royalties and behave this way.

Have a nice day

They should realize who is really making most of work in this business. Definitely not tha agency which is taking most of profit...

nicku · « **Reply #23 on:** January 31, 2013, 05:25 »

Quote from: mbug on January 30, 2013, 18:47

As it says on the tin,

Manage to get through to speak to someone in contributor relations, (must of been a bit of a shock for them to actually talk to the lowly contributor that they feed off, but hey ho) she told me that $1000 fraudulent transactions in an hour, is the risk that I take for selling online, I might have been a bit curt, after all, I am their client, they make money from me. I pay them 65% on every sale to market and protect my work.

posted this in the forums

I am exclusive here for you to protect my work, you make 65% on every sale to protect my work, I had to call you to inform you that $1000 of sales in the past hour might be a tad suspicious, along with giving work away to Google, what exactly do you do to justify your percentage?

One snotty illiterate email from them later, and I am banned from the forums.

I was a loyal exclusive, ( I know, stupid)

(edited to remove some of the rage)

Another BIG + for working SS.... they NEVER refund. We pay the commission and they deliver/protect us. If is committed any fraud we... the contributors don't have any fault.

Zerkalo · « **Reply #24 on:** January 31, 2013, 05:39 »

Very sad. I wish you strength.

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** January 31, 2013, 06:17 »

Quote from: nicku on January 31, 2013, 05:25

Another BIG + for working SS.... they NEVER refund. We pay the commission and they deliver.

Fair enough, but do they tell you if a refund was made from their end?
Because the main issue with refunds is what's happening to your files once they're 'out there'.
If you know a file has been refunded, you can be on the lookout for 'dubious' uses.

(Misquoting corrected)

Zeremski · « **Reply #26 on:** January 31, 2013, 07:36 »

I still think that is a problem with "10 free credits".
When someone try to make customer account from several different computer and for every account he get 10 credits.Then he may collect hundreds credits and may purchase" legally" our images.He can make acc from internet caffe,friend computer,every public place....

EmberMike · « **Reply #27 on:** January 31, 2013, 08:36 »

It's sad, really. For so long, one of the strongest arguments for exclusivity was that you knew where all of your images were licensed from that istock pledged to better support exclusive artists in the event of fraud or theft. Obviously that's not the case anymore.

They you've the perk of being able to opt-in to Getty and partner programs but, oh, wait, doing that now puts you at greater risk of seeing your work go into these Google-like deals.

So, why are people still exclusive?

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** January 31, 2013, 08:46 »

Quote from: EmberMike on January 31, 2013, 08:36

It's sad, really. For so long, one of the strongest arguments for exclusivity was that you knew where all of your images were licensed from that istock pledged to better support exclusive artists in the event of fraud or theft. Obviously that's not the case anymore.

I'm not sure how strong that promise ever was. IME, they seem to email perps once and if they don't take it down, tough.
Look how they don't seem to be able to take down that scam site.
Pinterest: I contact them directly and the images are taken down within hours. Contact istock and you get 'Pinterest is one of our partners'.

EASA:
10b: "iStockphoto reserves the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and in such case, you agree to cooperate with iStockphoto's defense of such claim. "
10c "The Supplier agrees that iStockphoto shall have the right to determine whether and to what extent to proceed against a licensee or other third party (an "Infringer") for any violation of a license agreement or alleged infringement of other rights of the Supplier."
and
In the event iStockphoto elects not to proceed against an Infringer, the Supplier shall have the right to proceed against such Infringer for such license violation or infringing action. The Supplier hereby agrees that any monetary recovery it receives as a result of any legal action taken against any such Infringer, to the extent such monies are intended to compensate the Supplier for lost licensing fees or include statutory damages, shall, after deduction of all costs and expenses incurred in gaining such recovery (including, without limitation, reasonable counsel and experts' fees and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis), be divided between the Supplier and iStockphoto pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation section above. - so even if iStock don't take on a case but you do, you still have to divvy the compensation with them.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #29 on:** January 31, 2013, 09:21 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 31, 2013, 08:46

Quote from: EmberMike on January 31, 2013, 08:36

It's sad, really. For so long, one of the strongest arguments for exclusivity was that you knew where all of your images were licensed from that istock pledged to better support exclusive artists in the event of fraud or theft. Obviously that's not the case anymore.

I'm not sure how strong that promise ever was. IME, they seem to email perps once and if they don't take it down, tough.
Look how they don't seem to be [/i]able to take down that scam site.
Pinterest: I contact them directly and the images are taken down within hours. Contact istock and you get 'Pinterest is one of our partners'.

EASA:
10b: "iStockphoto reserves the right, at your expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you, and in such case, you agree to cooperate with iStockphoto's defense of such claim. "
10c "The Supplier agrees that iStockphoto shall have the right to determine whether and to what extent to proceed against a licensee or other third party (an "Infringer") for any violation of a license agreement or alleged infringement of other rights of the Supplier."
and
In the event iStockphoto elects not to proceed against an Infringer, the Supplier shall have the right to proceed against such Infringer for such license violation or infringing action. The Supplier hereby agrees that any monetary recovery it receives as a result of any legal action taken against any such Infringer, to the extent such monies are intended to compensate the Supplier for lost licensing fees or include statutory damages, shall, after deduction of all costs and expenses incurred in gaining such recovery (including, without limitation, reasonable counsel and experts' fees and disbursements on a solicitor and client basis), be divided between the Supplier and iStockphoto pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation section above. - so even if iStock don't take on a case but you do, you still have to divvy the compensation with them.

Yeah, that's pretty sick, isn't it? If they sue someone for you and lose because of incompetence then you pay the full legal bill; if you sue someone because they won't and you win, they collect up to 85% of the damages.

I always knew that part of the contract stank, but I had forgotten about it.

Poncke · « **Reply #30 on:** January 31, 2013, 15:07 »

What the heck, I am speechless. I have no words for what is happening to the OP, the response of IS and the bit Sue posted on legal costs.... Its a nightmare.

4Ever Young · « **Reply #31 on:** January 31, 2013, 16:09 »

I'm so glad I said a polite "no thanks" to their stupid crown. Seems to me it was nothing but a convenient way for them to steal your work, give it away for free, and generally screw you over. I still have files on IS, making a tiny check every few months, but my best stuff goes to SS. Not that they wouldn't screw me over too, if it profited them, but at least they might not be so proud of it. I wish somebody would develop an artist-owned type of agency, that gave us a fair cut of the profits, and actually protected our work. I'd bet the IS's and SS's would go out of business sooner rather than later.

sshaw · « **Reply #32 on:** January 31, 2013, 21:43 »

I got to speak to someone back in Jan after a rash of refunds also. I called and asked for CR and was told there were no phone calls to them. So i just started asking the person I was talking to the questions. She confirmed that the refunds were all fraud, and when I questioned it, the response was well I guess someone really likes your car pictures. I hung up and cancelled exclusivity immediately. 2 more days until I can turn my old SS portfolio back on!

iStop · « **Reply #33 on:** February 01, 2013, 15:32 »

Which one of the ninnies was it that once promised us about 2 years ago, I think around the time the RC system was introduced, that there would be no more chargebacks to contributors for fraud?

Of course that was just obviously another of the many broken and unfulfilled iStock promises.

And if they ever setup the Live Chat they promised, another failed iStock brain fart, then we could at least inform them of fraud when we see it happening in real time and possibly reduce the total amount of the fleecing.

I think I must have had a total of over 80 refunds throughout the year last year. So much for promises.

Never mind, as long as I have enough left over to buy a new lens cap I'm good.

I truly pity the OP and I feel your pain. Hang in there. Wait until your anger dies down, and you are thinking straight again, and then decide what you want to do to make it right.

Equus · « **Reply #34 on:** February 01, 2013, 16:56 »

Quote from: iStop on February 01, 2013, 15:32

Which one of the ninnies was it that once promised us about 2 years ago, I think around the time the RC system was introduced, that there would be no more chargebacks to contributors for fraud?

Of course that was just obviously another of the many broken and unfulfilled iStock promises.

And if they ever setup the Live Chat they promised, another failed iStock brain fart, then we could at least inform them of fraud when we see it happening in real time and possibly reduce the total amount of the fleecing.

I think I must have had a total of over 80 refunds throughout the year last year. So much for promises.

Never mind, as long as I have enough left over to buy a new lens cap I'm good.

I truly pity the OP and I feel your pain. Hang in there. Wait until your anger dies down, and you are thinking straight again, and then decide what you want to do to make it right.

What they said, if I remember rightly, was that they wouldn't be doing refunds in the same way in future. In other words, they took a lump sum then, whereas now they take individual amounts.

I was suspicious at the time. Always got to be carefully watch their wording

Blammo · « **Reply #35 on:** February 01, 2013, 17:27 »

Last year i had 43 refunds at Istock and none at the 9 other sites I am on except a single video on Shutterstock.

ARTPUPPY · « **Reply #36 on:** February 01, 2013, 21:19 »

Mbug: Yes, I think that was unprofessional what happened to you in the forums. I believe earlier last year they mentioned that they were not going to allow contributors to post happenings of fraud/refunds anymore so maybe they they are making an example out of you. Here is what I suggest you do if you considering dropping the crown. Write a registered letter to the Carlyle group and speak to the new owners about what has happened to you. How long you have been an exclusive, how many files you have, your total earnings and how much istock has made from your work. Explain how you discovered a large amount of refunds and when you tried to post it for answers to your questions you were accused of lying and banned by the moderator. Include the posts/messages and inform them that because of that unprofessional action you're giving up your exclusivity, pulling your illustrations from istock and going to another company. Give a rough estimate of the future total earnings that istock/getty will be loosing from you leaving. At the very least it might give them something to think about when it comes time to renew somebody's "contract".

James H. Hance, Jr.
Operating Executive
Carlyle Group 520 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
United States

Unfortunately, it seems the ghosts of Nixon and his crew are alive and well at the istock forums...