MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: ShadySue on February 02, 2011, 18:03
-
I thought we'd maybe reached the bottom at iStock. I had one download yesterday and two today. This is grim beyond belief for weekdays.
However, my total just dropped $16.50.
In the absence of an email (so far) I hopped onto the forum, and it turns out they're clawing back the money that was fraudulently taken from us.
I didn't even think any of my downloads fitted any of the profiles suggested, so I'd expect some will be losing much, much more. I'm sorry for me, but much more sorry for those of you who are suffering huge losses.
Don't worry. They're letting us keep the RCs.
According to RM, "Due to the nature of our online business, all of our credit transactions are what's known as 'card not present transactions'. When fraud is reported in this kind of transaction, iStock – not Visa/Amex/MasterCard - is responsible for returning the money to the credit card owner."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222&page=1)
Sorry again to those who will suffer huge losses.
-
OMG, I've just seen some of the huge losses some people are suffering. It's much worse than I imagined.
Sean - I can only imagine how you must be feeling, and I'm probably not coming close.
-
I just had $25.40 removed from my december sales. Sucks. Hope there isn't more of this ahead...
-
Hi,
I got this email from istock saying that recently of images on istock have been purchased from peopel with unauthorized card numbers etc...Okay they removed 2 royalties, whatever that mean from one of my file that I take was purchased.
This is the first that that ever happened to me.
Is that normal?
-
I got one. $24.50 removed my already sucky december sales. Grrrrrrrr!
-
from IS it is my first but have a few from FT and DT..
don´t get it once I don´t believe agencies will send the money to the bank.. they cover all fraudulent actions
-
OMG Sean, my heart is breaking for you, I just read the amount. I hope to god that's the lump total and they are not going to keep coming back for more.
-
Hi,
I got this email from istock saying that recently of images on istock have been purchased from peopel with unauthorized card numbers etc...Okay they removed 2 royalties, whatever that mean from one of my file that I take was purchased.
This is the first that that ever happened to me.
Is that normal?
I had the same. 2 is $2 or at least that is what I received for the download they said was fraudulent.
-
I just got one moments ago. One image for about $2.90. I deactivated all but 5 of my images. I cashed out and had a balance of $.23. So now I owe IS about $2.77. Ha!
Hopefully, they put ALL of the bogus purchases in this one email and I won't continue to keep getting emails from them. Just incredible. Didn't someone say they wouldn't be taking back the royalties? Guess what, they have to pay that new guy they just hired somehow.
-
yep, $10 removed
-
Got the same just some Minutes ago. As someone said in December when this fraud happend: "My images seems even not worth to be stolen *snief*".
Okay, so i can say I'm in the club and some of my Images seemes to be worth to be stolen :-)
-
we now have a few threads on this.. but this one seems to be the original..
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/image-thieves-targetting-is-again (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/image-thieves-targetting-is-again)!!/
-
For me, more than $50 removed! Argh.
-
the more ridiculous is that the person who did this has the picture (tons of picture actually) and won´t send it back LOL
-
OMG Sean, my heart is breaking for you, I just read the amount. I hope to god that's the lump total and they are not going to keep coming back for more.
Reading the e-mail, it's clear that is the lump total (until today, of course):
"Veuillez noter que nous pourrons réitérer cette action si d’autres téléchargement frauduleux venaient à se produire dans le futur."
-
If you can't get back the files, why should you take the money back? Maybe, all this money they are stealing back should actually go to something useful like fraud prevention or shutting down the pirate site that is now stocked full of everyone's images.
-
I am tremendously flattered to have just received an email from IStock informing me that one of my photos was selected for theft! And that the commission will be removed from my account.
If I, the smallest fish in the IS pond, am among the victims, these guys must have really cleaned out the IS shop. The image of mine which they stole has been downloaded only 128 times - not exactly a big seller in the IS world. Obviously this thief has good taste.
Now I can look forward to my (formerly) best selling image appearing on scam sites and 'free' collections all over the world.
-
Also got money deducted.
Sean, did you get to keep your Vetta commissions? I'm curious to see if there are any "exceptions" for exclusives ::)
-
If you can't get back the files, why should you take the money back? Maybe, all this money they are stealing back should actually go to something useful like fraud prevention or shutting down the pirate site that is now stocked full of everyone's images.
I got an email as well, $17.50 deducted, and I totally agree with you. Why should we give back the pittance we were paid when someone now has free use of our images. Disgusted >:(
-
Yes, just a few minutes ago - in English, French and German
$2.00 removed
-
Anyway it's an interesting idea to take back the money from the constributors. They take 84% of the salesincome for taking care of the whole businessexecution....if someone robs my bank, the bank wouldn't come to the idea to cut my money from the savings.
-
Yes, just a few minutes ago - in English, French and German
$2.00 removed
Yes, but according to a post in That Thread, e.g. the Spanish speakers had to 'make do' with these three languages. Guess it was too near office closing time to get it translated into the other community languages, just to increase the total lack of respect they show to their drones.
-
For people still submitting to IS.. how much further do they have to bend you over till you touch your toes?
On their end (IS) what are they losing money wise? You as the contributor lost not only the money you saw in your account but also the images that were dl'ed. Do you now lose any respect left for IS?
and before a conspiracy theorist comes out with it...hehehe.. Maybe Getty needed money and is shrugging off blame to CC Fraud.
-
I lost $9, that was annoying until I looked at the thread in the istock forum and see some have lost hundreds and even thousands of dollars. I wonder how the thief is going to use all these images? They must of spent thousands, so I presume it was lots of stolen credit cards? Was it a gang doing this? Seems like a lot of work for one person downloading so many images.
-
Yes, just a few minutes ago - in English, French and German
$2.00 removed
Yes, but according to a post in That Thread, e.g. the Spanish speakers had to 'make do' with these three languages. Guess it was too near office closing time to get it translated into the other community languages, just to increase the total lack of respect they show to their drones.
Yes, but when we receive an unexpected email from an agency we can stay assured that it's bad news, they could even write it in Chinese only ;D
-
I lost $9, that was annoying until I looked at the thread in the istock forum and see some have lots hundreds and even thousands of dollars. I wonder how the thief is going to use all these images? They must of spent thousands, so I presume it was lots of stolen credit cards? Was it a gang doing this? Seems like a lot of work for one person downloading so many images.
Cathy posted this link in December:
http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062/4 (http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062/4)
-
I really do not get it. They are supposed to sell images for us and collect the money. They sold the image but did not collect the money. They in effect gave the image away. Get the image back and then take back our money. Of course they can not get the image back and of course they should not take our money back. Their incompetence means they are giving images away for free. If the customer did not pay then they should. We trust them to manage not be incompetent and give away images.
-
oh sorry I was forgetting. I would only lose 16% of the sale price. They lost 84%. No wonder they are upset. Maybe they should take back more than the royalty they paid us. Things are tough for them financially.
-
Anyway it's an interesting idea to take back the money from the constributors. They take 84% of the salesincome for taking care of the whole businessexecution....if someone robs my bank, the bank wouldn't come to the idea to cut my money from the savings.
Now there's an interesting idea. Shouldn't they have insurance to protect them from theft/fraud like a bank would so that we don't have to pay?
-
Their incompetence means they are giving images away for free. If the customer did not pay then they should. We trust them to manage not be incompetent and give away images.
Oh, and just imagine what they'd do to exclusives if we gave away an image, which is totally forbidden, even it it's a snapshot that would never meet iS standards.
But it's Big Business and all the cards are stacked in their favour.
-
I was having a crapy day, and got that...
Okay, 2 credits or whatever they call it is no problem..but I must say when I eyeballed some
email from nowhwere addresssing me by my nickname not real name and with that message...
There is so much phishing scams on the internet, you never know when you get some weird emails.
-
I think they're going to have to re-start the "How was your January thread" now.
-
I think they're going to have to re-start the "How was your January thread" now.
Images were stolen on December.
-
For people still submitting to IS.. how much further do they have to bend you over till you touch your toes?
On their end (IS) what are they losing money wise? You as the contributor lost not only the money you saw in your account but also the images that were dl'ed. Do you now lose any respect left for IS?
and before a conspiracy theorist comes out with it...hehehe.. Maybe Getty needed money and is shrugging off blame to CC Fraud.
Well, I do think it's pretty funny on the exact same day they announce the hiring of a new vice president (and I'm pretty sure he's going to be making a pretty penny) they send out notices of the taking back of money. They probably deducted from contributors today the guy's first year's salary. Coincidence...or stupidity?
-
If J-Lo can insure her Butt Cheeks against damage.. then IS sure as heck can have some type of insurance in place for this....but...why do that if they have all these people who they can just take the money back from the next month.
-
If J-Lo can insure her Butt Cheeks against damage.. then IS sure as heck can have some type of insurance in place for this....but...why do that if they have all these people who they can just take the money back from the next month.
I'll just reiterate my hypothesis that iStock is one big experiment to see how much people can be shafted but still come back for more.
Whoops, that'll be me: who, having uploaded almost nothing for weeks, suddenly took a notion today.
-
I didn't suffer a massive loss but I'm hopping mad about the new windfall iStock gets month on month on top of the royalty cuts. Fecking crazy.
-
One last thing then I will stop. I read so far the 20 pages on IS Forums... 2 things I noticed.
1. Istock has shown no proof of CC fraud... report.. anything.
2. I did not see anyone ask for proof of it (I could be wrong and someone asked but I missed it.)
If I had over $500 taken from me... I would be calling up for some type of proof. Even at the least to let then know I was checking... just in case they might get the itch to say in the future.. "They dont check on us.. we can just call it CC Fraud"
-
One last thing then I will stop. I read so far the 20 pages on IS Forums... 2 things I noticed.
1. Istock has shown no proof of CC fraud... report.. anything.
2. I did not see anyone ask for proof of it (I could be wrong and someone asked but I missed it.)
If I had over $500 taken from me... I would be calling up for some type of proof. Even at the least to let then know I was checking... just in case they might get the itch to say in the future.. "They dont check on us.. we can just call it CC Fraud"
The email they sent us said, inter alia:
"Please know that we take these issues very seriously and we have been working hard to identify and stop these fraudulent downloads. We have involved the appropriate authorities, whose investigations are ongoing and we are not able to provide further details at this time."
-
$171 removed,if that can make anyone feel better....
-
Wow! This totally sucks. I'm sorry for all the people who've taken a big hit. Wonder how much Yuri lost
These are the types of things that lead to class action lawsuits.
I would also say that regardless of how other micro's dealt with this in the past, this establishes a new benchmark for the industry... :-(
PS is it possible to lock a couple of these threads? I think there are 3 discussing it now.
-
and got that too
-
I am still trying to get my head around this whole thing. Forgetting about the money that was taken back from my account isn't:
1 iStock liable for the security for any intellectual property we place with them?
2 this like saying it is risky to sell your images on iStock and it is dangerous to put your images on their server because they can't be trusted to keep them safe?
3 there a risk now that some of my top images will no longer be sellable in the future, either on iStock or anywhere else if they are eventually offered free somewhere on the Internet, which never would have happened if iStock had better security defenses in place?
4 there a way iStock can be held legally liable for any future misuse of my photos, considering the images would never have gotten in the hands of thieves if I never entrusted them to iStock in the first place?
5 iStock thinking, since they get up to 85% of the income on an image sale, that they should take more responsibility for other people's property entrusted to them to be kept safely?
If I ask to borrow something from a friend and I lose it, I break it, or it gets stolen from me, then I owe my friend the full value of that item.
Instead I think I should be sending iStock a bill for how much future revenue I might lose over the life of those pictures stolen from my portfolio for illegal future use of those images.
They way I see it, istock owes me many times more than what they deducted from my account for their negligence, no?
Also, does it say upload at your own risk on the iStock site and that there is a risk your images could be stolen, misused, or possibly even distributed for free?
-
I believe the biggest number was sjlocke who had $3,400 removed
The thread on iStock has ballooned as contributors are furious that there's a spread of several weeks over which the chargebacks have happened - only for December. There were some worries about January sales so it's not clear it's over yet.
Given that the fraudulent purchaser was permitted to download the content by iStock - through their incompetence - it seems to me that they should bear the burden of the fraud unless they can get the files back (which I doubt they ever will). They did belatedly offer a payment plan for anyone who wanted to contact contributor relations.
The money went from accounts before the e-mail showed up - really a low blow not to do the e-mail first.
Not to mention some contributors are reporting that the file numbers listed weren't downloaded on the days the IS e-mail said. Given how badly they handled the backpayments on the missing 10% EL bonus (they calculated the amounts incorrectly) and how subscription payments are being delayed, and subscription download amounts are being rounded incorrectly for certain royalty levels, I don't know why anyone would trust that their accounting of this mess is even correct.
So they're taking legitimate money from the current week out of accounts to repay money they claim (no documentation of any sort other than the e-mail) was incorrectly credited back in December. They're also saying they jumped on it, but (a) it was a contributor in the forum who first brought it up - Kelly said on December 28th ". iStock’s fraud detection systems (and client relations--thanks Joy!) picked it up when it started happening last week, and we jumped on it." and (b) it kept on going after that because whatever they were doing wasn't working to prevent the problem.
-
I just got the word also - 17.2 royalties. I assume that's dollars.
Wasn't December over a month ago?
I am flattered that someone would commit a crime for my images. But I am surprised that IStock is taking back their royalty payments. If I sold an item to Walmart and that item was shoplifted would Walmart demand back the money they paid me? Just curious.
-
You are missing the big point. All you exclusives aren't so exclusive now are you? We got shafted too. Total equality at last!
-
You are missing the big point. All you exclusives aren't so exclusive now are you? We got shafted too. Total equality at last!
------------------
Are you referring to me? If so, I'm not an exclusive.
-
I am referring to everybody now that we're all so equally screwed now.
-
What brings us back to the question: why Istock and others abuse the horse they're riding on?
-
any lawyers out there? class action lawsuit?
-
And they may not be done taking money from your account.
Quote from the email: "Please note that it may be necessary for us to remove royalties attributable to fraudulent downloads again in the future."
-
Did anyone see the posts about one of the fraudulent purchases being an EL? Why would a thief buy an EL? Something very fishy is going on over there. Also reports of images that don't even exist being downloaded fraudulently.
-
Boy, today is my BDE at iStock, including an EL. The fraud thing is a matter of past, right? I hope nobody is reporting fraud today.
-
Did anyone see the posts about one of the fraudulent purchases being an EL? Why would a thief buy an EL? Something very fishy is going on over there. Also reports of images that don't even exist being downloaded fraudulently.
One of the site bugs was that for a while all Vetta sales were ELs (after they bundled the legal guarantee when they doubled the prices). A couple of contributors confirmed that their ELs were for Vetta files and regular sales.
-
I am also one of the affected and also surprised at istock taking funds from my account without any notice.
The current thread on the istock forums is full of people angry about the conduct of istock lately, trying to milk the artists, cutting their commissions and just plain treating them like a cheap prostitute.
When, in that same thread, i mentioned posts were being deleted, for example one of mine where i state "Istock will do what they always do, let us rant for 3000 posts untill we grow tired of it and resume our sweatshop uploading to make them more (loads more) money"...
After which i received a rather blunt and intimidating sitemail from a known moderator stating if i wanted a ban i could get one real quick.
I replied with kindness and understanding but also stating i value my right to freedom of speech which resulted in an instant ban.
It seems iStock is quickly turning into a dictatorship where artists have to swallow just about anything they feel like stuffing in their throats and the ones that dare speak up are quickly silenced. Ironically kindof the same scenario is all over the news in Egypt right now... funny that.
Anyway, i feel they are taking this too far and they should value their artists by not treating them this way.
I don't know where this will end but i things are looking dim right now.
Kind regards, Kurt
-
Yikes. I didn't lose much - just 105.65, but this is not good news. First of all, it means that the thief spent about 550 dollars just on my images (my percentage being 19). Keeping in mind how many people report deductions and that some of them are way higher than mine, we are talking about some mysterious "thief" spending tens of thousands of dollars on their "unauthorized" credit card. Why on earth someone would even need that many ... images?? Ok maybe there were several people doing that, but still - why would you want to steal images that way? They are not iphones or laptops or wallets. If you want some free images you can easily find them in many places on the internet, including ones that are supposed to be for sale.
This is very fishy.
-
It was fishy when Big Stock did it also. Where is the proof? After ten years why haven't these companies figured it out. These things don't just happen. They are allowed to happen by the stock companies. I did not loose much at all but why would I want to give them more responsibility for my work if they allow these things to happen. Maybe it's time to verify buyers better.
-
As I said in another thread, this is very fishy. First of all, the scale of it. If it was a stolen credit card or few, why would a person go online and buy images?? Thousands of them?? You can get them for free on the internet without any credit cards. Second of all, aren't credit companies ensured against this kind of thing? If someone lifted your card and bought a TV with it, and then you reported that card stolen, the credit card doesn't go to the TV store and demand it's money back. It a loss that they are insured against.
I would understand if Istock's software was doing some double counting and they were overcharging people - that would make sense. But CC fraud with buying images on this scale just doesn't!
-
I am also one of the affected and also surprised at istock taking funds from my account without any notice.
It's not without notice. This is what they said they would do. I'm not sure why people are getting worked up about it now after it was announced weeks ago (though, of course, many people won't have read the forum thread, they should have e-mailed at the time).
-
.
-
I believe the biggest number was sjlocke who had $3,400 removed
Just thought of this... we're all paying taxes on receiving this income in 2010, and then the income is taken away in 2011. Not that the taxes on my small-ish batch will kill me, but what do you think, Sean? Your damages are pretty significant. Are we getting screwed here, or what?
Seems like we're taking two serious hits here... iStock basically handed thousands of our images to criminals who are almost certainly going to somehow profit off of them, AND we are paying taxes on the "sale" of these images while the income is later taken away. Am I missing something here? I'm getting more furious the more I think about this.
-
IMAGINE> If it was a shop and goods the shop bought from a manufacturer. Would the shop not pay the manufacturer for the goods it sold to a credit card thief. NO. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer which in this case is us.
-
IMAGINE> If it was a shop and goods the shop bought from a manufacturer. Would the shop not pay the manufacturer for the goods it sold to a credit card thief. NO. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer which in this case is us.
-
IMAGINE> If it was a shop and goods the shop bought from a manufacturer. Would the shop not pay the manufacturer for the goods it sold to a credit card thief. NO. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer which in this case is us.
And picture this scenario which is even closer to what happened to us. Imagine that Apple finds that 30,000 iTunes downloads of Lady Gaga's songs were made with fraudulent credit cards. Would it remove those royalties from Lady Gaga's future sales? Hell no. Apple screwed up and would take a major hit to its credibility in admitting the problem to Gaga and her label. It would be a slap to her face to tell her they're going to tap her future royalties to make up for the crime. But iStock has no problem slapping us after their security lapse. We're no Lady Gagas, I guess.
-
I am also one of the affected and also surprised at istock taking funds from my account without any notice.
It's not without notice. This is what they said they would do. I'm not sure why people are getting worked up about it now after it was announced weeks ago (though, of course, many people won't have read the forum thread, they should have e-mailed at the time).
I think the fact that so much time went by with no word and no deductions...
Also the fact that the money just disappeared and then e-mails (poorly worded) slowly followed...
Add to that the magnitude of the reversals with no talk of gradual deductions (after the fact they said to contact CR if you wanted to work something out)...
Add to that the complete lack of documentation of the basis for such a vast amount of refunds...
And the wording in the e-mail that says they'll do it again in the future...
And the icing on the cake is that we've been complaining for over a week trying to get payment for subscription sales that are still "delayed" and can't even get an update from them on when they're going to pay. They can't do that, but they can get money back from contributors.
-
I am tremendously flattered to have just received an email from IStock informing me that one of my photos was selected for theft! And that the commission will be removed from my account.
If I, the smallest fish in the IS pond, am among the victims, these guys must have really cleaned out the IS shop. The image of mine which they stole has been downloaded only 128 times - not exactly a big seller in the IS world. Obviously this thief has good taste.
Now I can look forward to my (formerly) best selling image appearing on scam sites and 'free' collections all over the world.
+ + +
-
Got the email too. Fishy stuff. Haven't had a zero download day for two years, but the deduction equals the amount earned that day.
-
$4.56 removed :(
-
Man 83 dollars removed.
-
I just merged the two threads about the email.
-
Can anyone beat Sjlocke's $3400 ... ouch
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222&messageid=5756512 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222&messageid=5756512)
-
Can anyone beat Sjlocke's $3400 ... ouch
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222&messageid=5756512[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222&messageid=5756512[/url])
I would trade places with him any day!
-43$ for me
:(
I hate IS.
-
I didn't receive any email or site mail. I can only hope I'm left out of this. It's hard to imagine they can not prevent this, maybe limiting what a new buyer can do until the CC is cleared.
Is it still the same fraud discussed earlier around Christmas?
-
I didn't receive any email or site mail. I can only hope I'm left out of this. It's hard to imagine they can not prevent this, maybe limiting what a new buyer can do until the CC is cleared.
Is it still the same fraud discussed earlier around Christmas?
Yes, the same one.
-
I have 3 fraud downloads. I consider myself lucky. Some people lost lots of money, some lots of images. Think about stolen Vetta's..
IMHO IS has screwed up again. They are not even in a position to distinguish between a fake/stolen credit card and a safe one.
-
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?
-
This is such a big fraud, I really do wonder what they will do with all those images? Is there going to be an illegal site selling our images? Will they try selling them on CD's? They must of planned something, to spend all that time downloading thousands of images, using lots of stolen credit card information. I just hope they get caught.
As they're all RF, how can we ever tell if an image has been purchased legally or illegally? At least with RM, we can see some information about each sale and can query if we see our images being used by people that don't seem to of purchased a license from us.
I really do think all the microstock sites now need to do something about this. If buyers want to download thousands of images, they need to make sure the money isn't coming from a stolen credit card.
-
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.
-
After Istock was acquired by Hellman & Friedman it is heading from one of my favourite sites to the worst. Greedy, insecure, conservative stock very unfriendly to contributors. Again... I feel like a slave :-( Was not the slavery forbidden in the middle of 19th century???
-
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?
-
I was the victim of something similar in Germany, some pretentious Ad-agency phoned me and wanted as many Port-industrial shots as possible, they had a really impressive site, page, etc, and made me busy for over a month. This was 4 years back and one didnt know what to look out for-
Long story short, I began to see my shots just about everywhere throughout Europe, even in the massive port of Hamburg. The CEO In Hamburg told me that we had all been conned, that was it.
The Ad-agency was gone, so was their elaborate home-page, the lot. We all had to bite in the sour apple, period.
-
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 .
-
6$ removed.
-
$9 deducted from my sales.
-
I had 4 fraud downloads. $12.10 removed.
-
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?
-
It would be very interesting what will happen to those contributors that was just over some redeemed credits target. Will these fraudulent purchased be removed from last years redeemed credits?
-
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?
-
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 and I've often responded to the DT emails to express my disagreement with the policy (which always go nowhere, of course).
This is just another despicable practice of microstock companies to screw us out of every last penny they can. They know we can't/won't do anything about this, and just accept the loss. These companies figured out a long time ago that they can get away with anything in a business that is so crowded with contributors willing to work under these conditions, and now they're really using that to their advantage in every way possible.
-
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.
-
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.
Oh, they considered it OK, but didn't want to eat into their huge profits by insuring against it.
From the SpinDoctor's OP:
"Since early December, we've seen an increase in downloads of images using fraudulently purchased credits. We have been working hard on identifying and stopping these fraudulent downloads and have involved necessary authorities, whose investigations are ongoing. So, we are limited in the details we can share.
Ordinarily, iStock does not take back royalties after verifying a fraudulent download."
So it's clearly happened before, albeit on smaller scale. They took a risk, and we lost.
From the thread below, we can read of credit card crime at iStock since at least Feb 2009. (sic)
http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062 (http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062)
-
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).
-
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.
It doesn't take a genius to know that any serious business owner has to have insurance for their operation. I wonder what iStock actually insured but it sure wasn't our content that we allow them to distribute.
Since they are the ones handling the transactions, they need to have the insurance in case something goes wrong.
-
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... ;)
-
I am also one of the affected and also surprised at istock taking funds from my account without any notice.
It's not without notice. This is what they said they would do. I'm not sure why people are getting worked up about it now after it was announced weeks ago (though, of course, many people won't have read the forum thread, they should have e-mailed at the time).
I guess it was announced, if you define "announcement" as "an admin posting on a double digit page of a forum thread that was locked shortly thereafter".
-
If they keep this up things will become unsustainable again.. oh no! :-X
-
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...
And don't forget that this was a paid holiday for everyone at HQ. A week before the royalty cuts were scheduled to begin, they can afford to shut down the shop.
And now the company is apparently on a hiring binge. Lots of new opportunities in IT and marketing, and of course the new VP is coming on board now. As far as I know, that masseuse is still on call at HQ for back rubs at your desk.
And now we get to foot the bill for the lack of adequate security.
All this from a company that wants us to believe that they are hurting financially and had no choice but to cut our rates.
Disgusting.
-
It seems like almost everyone was affected by this. Was there a final total on how much was stolen?
-
Much like every other promotional offer, discounted credits and freebies we end up footing the bill. Must be nice to take up to 85% of sales for marketing and administration then pass on the costs to the suppliers.
-
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.
-
I keep expecting some p*ssed off anonymous contributor/employee to step up and take credit for this. The timing of the event was a perfect coincidence wasn't it? Total discourse among the artists. Closed for the holidays. Focussed attack on the crown jewel (Vetta) with the rest of us collateral damage?
In my fantasy world, of course he will state "don't worry, I just did it to piss them off. I've destroyed your files already".
-
So sorry to hear about the size and spread of losses :o
What concerns me more than the immediate financial loss is where and how these stolen Images will be used
Can IS really now guarantee that certain Images are Exclusive to them? they could turn up anywhere
Contributers and Customers confidence will both be hit by this
-
From the thread below, we can read of credit card crime at iStock since at least Feb 2009. (sic)
[url]http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062[/url] ([url]http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062[/url])
I note that 3 posters on that thread are complaining about multiple deductions of $1540; two people had 5 deductions of that amount and one had 10 deductions.
I am staggered at both the scale and apparent crude nature of this scam ... but even more that Istockphoto's systems weren't able to detect it (it was us who told them), block it or even halt it in a reasonable timescale. The scammers seem to have found Istockphoto's security particularly simple to crack and fill their pockets.
Judging by the reports from contributors on the amounts of their deductions the total value of the goods stolen must have been well over $100K. Sean's deduction alone for example actually represented goods to the value of $8500. More likely the scam was for $250K+++.
Truly unbelievable.
-
My sympathy to those who had major losses. I had only a single file affected and one part of me was thinking, woohoo some pirate out there thinks that my file is valuable!
(edit - I didn't notice my balance going down by the amount stated in the email however)
My main regret is that IS appeared to be somewhat slow to recognize the fraud, and then responded to the attack with ill-considered countermeasures.
Speaking of ill-considered site changes, am I mistaken or is the sidebar containing "My Uploads" and other links coming and going from the contributor page randomly from day to day?
-
What I don't understand is why anyone would need that many images. You can't legally resell them. Sooner than later this things get found out.
So what then - are they making a giant collage?...
We sure need more information on this. Was it one person or several? Credit cards to have limits on them, and it seems like A LOT of money has been "fraudulently" spent.
Without the information, I might as well assume that iStock is just collecting money from us for the year-end bonuses to it's executives.
But then, I am prone to conspiracy theories:)
-
Right on Elena! Why would someone –or a gang as suggested earlier- steal so many images and what for? To try to resell them at their local pawnshop (to buy crack probably) or from the back of a truck in New York City? Publishing these photos or using them to start a new stock agency would be the fastest way for “them” to get caught, and that’s about the only thing these photos are good for. There’s something else going on here: revenge by a disgruntled former employee? Alien startup microstock agency on planet Melmac?
It’s just plain bizarre. It doesn’t make sense…
-
I am not getting this. How this is different from other fraudulent transactions? Stolen credit card used to buy goods. When card company gets notified it usually refund money to owner of the card. So this side is settled. Then they issue charge back to store. Big stores usually give them money back but they do not ask supplier of the goods to give them money back. Maybe if suppliers are not getting money immediately store can somehow subtract losses from from their to-be paid money. I guess the only way to avoid this by supplier is to walk away from the store who does it too often which mean they do not have proper security measures in place.
-
What I don't understand is why anyone would need that many images. You can't legally resell them. Sooner than later this things get found out.
So what then - are they making a giant collage?...
We sure need more information on this. Was it one person or several? Credit cards to have limits on them, and it seems like A LOT of money has been "fraudulently" spent.
Without the information, I might as well assume that iStock is just collecting money from us for the year-end bonuses to it's executives.
But then, I am prone to conspiracy theories:)
I think this is pretty much a no-brainer:
Either one person or a group of scammers who had access to stolen credit card information is behind this. I'm quite sure it was one coordinated attack.
They downloaded somewhat randomly various image sizes and even ELs to stay under the radar for as long as possible.
To me it appears to be an attack on iStock itself and not to actually get the images.
Although, there is the high likeliness of these (mine included) popping up on various file sharing sites sooner or later (depending on the ethics of the scammers).
Just the fact that they also downloaded ELs and random sizes it doesn't look like that they want the content to be redistributed somewhere else. It looks more like a distinct attack against iStock, whether it's the ethics of iStock they're not agreeing with or other reasons.
Someone majorly pulled iStock's pants down with this one. All their bragging about how much money they pay out on a weekly basis and all the goals that they achieved and surpassed were not enough to take a fraction and insure the very heart of the operation. Not to mention to feel the responsibility for their exclusive contributors whom they owe additional attention and protection of copyright.
I cannot believe, a company run by such a bunch of monkeys getting so incredibly successful. Can't wrap my head around that...
-
...Someone majorly pulled iStock's pants down with this one...
This implies that istock generally wears pants. Lately, they seem more like the oblivious old man who stands in the front window of his house naked waving at the neighbors, blissfully unaware of what they are actually doing.
-
Someone majorly pulled iStock's pants down with this one. All their bragging about how much money they pay out on a weekly basis and all the goals that they achieved and surpassed were not enough to take a fraction and insure the very heart of the operation. Not to mention to feel the responsibility for their exclusive contributors whom they owe additional attention and protection of copyright.
I cannot believe, a company run by such a bunch of monkeys getting so incredibly successful. Can't wrap my head around that...
The phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats" comes to mind. I wouldn't be so certain of Istock's future success now that the market appears to have peaked.
It used to be said that the average 'lifespan' of a business was about 40 years __ before complacency, arrogance, greed, technology or stupidity eventually kills off a once-successful model. In the internet age it would be surprising if that average lifespan did not contract significantly.
-
To me it appears to be an attack on iStock itself and not to actually get the images.
Well ya since it's hard to imagine why would someone need thousands of random sized images given they have an authorized use of credit card(s) with very high credit limits. Why these people didn't go and spend these money on something they can actually re-sell? Like TVs or computers or crap like that.
So It HAS to be something else. Attack on iStock? - but then I don't understand what Istock really lost here. They deducted money from us automatically even before notifying us by their strangely written email. Us bitching and moaning on the forums they don't care about, never did.
If this was an attack, all it achieved was a little bit of extra work for iStock employees writing those emails and tracking fraudulent purchases... which I am sure is automated.
-
ya me too
Im just wondering about the people who got paid (and the check or paypal) cleared already, does is try to get $$$ back from them some how?
i dont upload to is any longer (and have not for quite a long time)
just waiting to get paid out
hopefully some day soon
-
So It HAS to be something else. Attack on iStock? - but then I don't understand what Istock really lost here.
This has always been my guess, given the high numbers involved, and at least from the first reports apparently targetting more the Vetta images and exclusives (unless I am wrong). If they're paying back the people whose cards were cloned, they are losing their share of sales, and above all all this turmoil harmed their credibility (if any remained) among contributors.
It is surprising that such a high volume of transactions passes unnoticed.
-
.
Although, there is the high likeliness of these (mine included) popping up on various file sharing sites sooner or later (depending on the ethics of the scammers).
Depending on the ethics of the scammers? That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks!!
-
.
Although, there is the high likeliness of these (mine included) popping up on various file sharing sites sooner or later (depending on the ethics of the scammers).
Depending on the ethics of the scammers? That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks!!
Darn, I didn't even try to be funny. Maybe that's why it was so funny - maybe I'm just ignorant.
What I mean is that old school hackers would find security holes but not cause damage. If there was intent to hurt iStock (reputation-wise) they obviously did that successfully.
However, since it's not the contributor's fault that iStock is handling CC transactions so loosely the "honest" hacker might as well delete the images.
I think by now I have everyone laughing at this... :D
Like I said, let's keep an eye on the file sharing sites and see when Vetta images show up.
-
Uh oh! According to one of our own - this doesn't look good at all!
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222&messageid=5831392 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222&messageid=5831392)
"I just received a CR reply to a ticket I opened (on or around 1/12) questioning a weird per credit price on a bunch of images I suspected were fraudulent. The reply said that they were on one of the fraudulent accounts, so I would suspect there will be another email coming."
-
any lawyers out there? class action lawsuit?
Do you recall paragraphs 13a, 14b, and 15c and d of the agreement you signed when you joined up?
Didn't think so