So, iStock takes no responsibility for the theft, neither financially or legally. Meanwhile, the theft is 100% their fault based upon their negligence and poor site security. They haven't compensated us, they haven't attempted to offer us any assurances that it won't happen again, in fact they haven't even formerly apologized. Furthermore, iStock does not guarantee the safety of our intellectual property once we place it on consignment for sale with them. How can iStock assume no responsibility at all when in fact our images would have never gotten stolen in the first place if we hadn't uploaded them to their site? Did we sign a disclaimer somewhere saying that we upload at our own risk? I don't think so. And if I see one of my images used on a billboard or being freely distributed on a web site which was stolen from my portfolio on the iStock site, does this mean iStock assumes no liability at all for this? Something is really wrong here. If we can't hold them responsible for the theft, when the theft occurred when the property was in their hands, then who can we make a claim against? This just seems surreal. In the old days of stock photography, when you placed your film with stock agencies, if they lost it, or a client stole it or damaged it, they would pay you for it. So how is what happened any different? In fact, I assume iStock could even let people download our files for free and simply again claim no liability if they wanted to. There is really nothing stopping them from whatever they choose to do with our images once they are placed on their server. They are not safe, they are not protected, and there is no liability at all. Is this the real world?

I'm seriously beginning to wonder what we pay them 60 to 85% of our sales for.

They are failing to run the 'store front' properly, buyers complain that they can't find images - to the point that they're leaving; thieves are free to help themselves and sell our images elsewhere with no recompense to us; contributors are complaining that they haven't been paid for past sales; some say that reported sales figures don't add up - and so it goes on.

It seems we're paying this huge amount of commission to them simply to market our work and to make them available for sale if we're lucky enough to have a buyer with the patience and persistence of Sherlock Holmes.  

Sadly, I've come to expect 'another day another disaster' with this agency.  However, that posting regarding the cut they expect if we win a self-funded case is just unbelievable.  I have no words to describe how incredulous I am over that.  

My only hope is that this will be some sort of watershed, and that the agencies will take seriously the fact that they too will lose out substantially if our work is available illegally from competing sources.  It really is time for insurance to be in place on this issue, at ALL the agencies.

In some ways, I have a little bit of sympathy for istock with this.  They have been hit by a big credit card scam.  What I would really like to know is, what are istock and all the other sites doing to make sure this doesn't carry on happening?

Does anyone really believe that having the moral right is enough to make things move ? Unless we create some kind of acting union and file for legal action we have no leverage whatsoever . Some venting and bitter talk and the next day we continue supplying our work like nothing happened .

$9 deducted from my sales.

Have we just stumbled upon the achilles heal of online microstock? 

Just over $10 lost hear (not really complaining) - but based on the un-encouraging tone of the e-mail, I will not be surprised to get another.  I just hope they don't send me a bill and tell me I am going to owe them more this year than I can possibly make.  Wouldn't that be great?

You know, this really is fishy.  I went and looked at the file that was fraudulently downloaded.  It was a very simple image.  I am not sure why someone would need to steal it.  I am starting to think someone did this on purpose with the intent to hurt iS - and the contributors.  The timing after the announcement of decreased royalty rates seems somewhat conincidental.

Has this ever happened at iS before on such a large scale?

Previously taking 80% of non-exclusives to run an "unsustainable business", I would have expected iStock to be so smart to get an insurance for such cases.

We, the contributors, are not protected whatsoever by the largest image supplier on this planet as it appears that they didn't even consider becoming a victim of online crime.

That's a disgrace.

At this point I'm getting curious what mess they're getting into next.

To be fair, let's remember that istock isn't alone in this policy of passing fraudulent charges on to the contributor. DT has always done this.

It's a disgusting practice, I've never understood how these companies get away with it ...

I think FT was the first company to do this, and I seem to recall in one case that the reversal was for a sale 4 months earlier. I just didn't see how it could take that long to figure out that something wasn't right. And as you say, protests at the  time that no other agency did this (which I think at the time they didn't) went nowhere.

What distinguishes IS in this case is how many cases over such a short time span for such large sums and how they handled it (complicated by the fact that they shut down over the Christmas break).

I think FT was the first company to do this, and I seem to recall in one case that the reversal was for a sale 4 months earlier. I just didn't see how it could take that long to figure out that something wasn't right. And as you say, protests at the  time that no other agency did this (which I think at the time they didn't) went nowhere.

I had one reversed at FT 11 months after the original sale. I remember reading in the forums from other contributors about cases where it was more than 18 months.

Luckily I am not affected this time at IS - maybe it was a good idea to deactivate my portfolio before year end...  

If they keep this up things will become unsustainable again.. oh no! 

It seems like almost everyone was affected by this. Was there a final total on how much was stolen?

There is so much wrong in this scenario.
The biggest Microstock image supplier in the industry happily announces to leave the office during christmas holidays.
Hellooooo, there are people on this planet that don't celebrate christmas and do business as usual. Unbelievable to leave such a big company on auto-pilot. And I don't even know if they learned from this mistake.

I wrote to them and suggested they hire some militant atheists who wouldn't mind working over the holiday period. Seems incredibly obvious. I don't think it could be advertised as such in the UK, but maybe other places? But I guess you could phrase the job advert to indicate that working over Christmas and/or Easter would be required.