MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fraud going down at IS  (Read 36420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2010, 09:40 »
0
The whole problem seems to me similar to the catastrophe at Stockxpert with repeated file payments showing up (still unresolved by the way) . . . I would say  the software running their business needs a few tweaks at least.


« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2010, 09:50 »
0
Imagine you are a supplier of neck ties to a department store on consignment. Someone steals 10 of the ties you placed on their tie racks for sale. Don't you think the department store still needs to pay you as the supplier of the stolen neck ties? After all, it is not your fault they were stolen and it is a business risk the department store takes. So it is up to them to make sure their security controls are strong enough to prevent people from stealing.

It is the same at iStock. Contributors have enough to worry about with the time, effort, and investment it takes just to create those images, upload, keyword, etc. So if they get stolen from the iStock site, I think iStock should and has to be responsible for the cost of the stolen product and cannot deny payment to their suppliers.

Unfortunately, there's no real instant loss to the supplier by a theft of intellectual property, so the analogy isn't accurate.  People who do this were not going to license the content legitimately, so you're not losing out on that money.  The people in Russia they will sell the cds to weren't going to license the content legitimately.

« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2010, 09:53 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1

Just keep an eye on your downloads from IS today.  Someone is rampantly downloading large sized files at a $1 per credit price.


By the way, none of my rampant large sized downloads were at $1 a pop or less. They all averaged around $7-$9, depending on size. Although, the royalties do seem lower than what they normally would be on downloads of the XXL and XXXL file sizes.

« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2010, 09:56 »
0
Imagine you are a supplier of neck ties to a department store on consignment. Someone steals 10 of the ties you placed on their tie racks for sale. Don't you think the department store still needs to pay you as the supplier of the stolen neck ties? After all, it is not your fault they were stolen and it is a business risk the department store takes. So it is up to them to make sure their security controls are strong enough to prevent people from stealing.

It is the same at iStock. Contributors have enough to worry about with the time, effort, and investment it takes just to create those images, upload, keyword, etc. So if they get stolen from the iStock site, I think iStock should and has to be responsible for the cost of the stolen product and cannot deny payment to their suppliers.

Unfortunately, there's no real instant loss to the supplier by a theft of intellectual property, so the analogy isn't accurate.  People who do this were not going to license the content legitimately, so you're not losing out on that money.  The people in Russia they will sell the cds to weren't going to license the content legitimately.

Good points. But I still think it is a question of legal liability on intellectual property. Remember, when we upload images to iStock we are trusting that iStock's servers are fully secure. If our images get stolen from their site then are you are suggesting we cannot hold them liable in any way?

« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2010, 09:59 »
0
Unfortunately, there's no real instant loss to the supplier by a theft of intellectual property, so the analogy isn't accurate.  People who do this were not going to license the content legitimately, so you're not losing out on that money.  The people in Russia they will sell the cds to weren't going to license the content legitimately.

Also, how do we know if a theft is/has occurred that it is a legitimate theft even? We saw the system register a download and place the money in our accounts. If they later claim it was theft and want to take the money back I think they would also need to produce evidence of the theft and how it occurred. Either way though, I think they are still liable.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2010, 10:05 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1

Just keep an eye on your downloads from IS today.  Someone is rampantly downloading large sized files at a $1 per credit price.


By the way, none of my rampant large sized downloads were at $1 a pop or less. They all averaged around $7-$9, depending on size. Although, the royalties do seem lower than what they normally would be on downloads of the XXL and XXXL file sizes.

The price reported was exactly $1 per credit, not per sale.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2010, 10:11 »
0

Good points. But I still think it is a question of legal liability on intellectual property. Remember, when we upload images to iStock we are trusting that iStock's servers are fully secure. If our images get stolen from their site then are you are suggesting we cannot hold them liable in any way?

In the Artists supply agreement, http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php it says:
"10  Indemnity
   1. You agree to indemnify, defend and hold iStockphoto and its affiliates, and their respective directors, officers, employees, shareholders, agents and licensees of Content (collectively, the iStockphoto Parties) harmless from and against any and all claims, liability, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal fees on a solicitor and client basis) incurred by any iStockphoto Party as a result of or in connection with: (i) any use or alleged use of the Site or provision of Content under your Member Name by any person, whether or not authorized by you; (ii) or resulting from any communication made or Content uploaded under your Member Name; (iii) any breach by you of this Agreement; or (iv) any claim threatened or asserted against any iStockphoto Party to the extent such claim is based upon a contention that any of the Content used within the scope of this Agreement infringes any copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, right of privacy or publicity, or other intellectual property rights of any third party. "
That sort of clause tends not to hold much water in Scotland, but I guess it does in the US or Canada.

« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2010, 10:16 »
0
The price reported was exactly $1 per credit, not per sale.

My 12 1st time XXL and XXXL sales from overnight were at $1.45-$1.51, and not the $1 per, like the other day.  So, it looks like they're buying smaller packs of credits now.

eta:  Looks like the credits packs for amounts above 120 have been removed.  Thus the sales at the higher credit prices.  So, who knows which sales are real now...
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 10:20 by sjlocke »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2010, 10:18 »
0
And then there's the question of whether, even if they don't let you keep the $$$, they'd at least let you keep the RCs, which could be very important for some.

« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2010, 10:18 »
0
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1

Just keep an eye on your downloads from IS today.  Someone is rampantly downloading large sized files at a $1 per credit price.


By the way, none of my rampant large sized downloads were at $1 a pop or less. They all averaged around $7-$9, depending on size. Although, the royalties do seem lower than what they normally would be on downloads of the XXL and XXXL file sizes.

The price reported was exactly $1 per credit, not per sale.


You know, when a contributor converts earnings to credits it is exactly $1 each. Perhaps it is a contributor using some of their earnings to purchase images from some of their favorite istock artists.

Could just be someone using up credits for the end of the year.  

« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2010, 10:22 »
0
You know, when a contributor converts earnings to credits it is exactly $1 each. Perhaps it is a contributor using some of their earnings to purchase images from some of their favorite istock artists.

Could just be someone using up credits for the end of the year.  

I don't know any contributor that keeps $60,000 in their account just to suddenly buy images from other contributors.

Note, they are now buying images at higher credit prices, since the credit packs above 120 ($1.46/per) credits have been removed.

« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2010, 10:26 »
0
You know, when a contributor converts earnings to credits it is exactly $1 each. Perhaps it is a contributor using some of their earnings to purchase images from some of their favorite istock artists.

Could just be someone using up credits for the end of the year.  

I don't know any contributor that keeps $60,000 in their account just to suddenly buy images from other contributors.

Note, they are now buying images at higher credit prices, since the credit packs above 120 ($1.46/per) credits have been removed.

oh yeah, good point.

Conspiracy Theory suggests that maybe its just iStock is trying to be sure that the "right people" have enough RCs for the new year.  Seems to be mostly exclusives who are affected, right?  or perhaps someone just trying to be sure that the Kelly's statement about the 50% of all sales coming at the end of the year holds true.  :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2010, 10:33 »
0
Conspiracy Theory suggests that maybe its just iStock is trying to be sure that the "right people" have enough RCs for the new year.  Seems to be mostly exclusives who are affected, right?  or perhaps someone just trying to be sure that the Kelly's statement about the 50% of all sales coming at the end of the year holds true.  :)
Oh, shusssssh! I've been trying to expunge my mind of conspiracy theories.
Maybe it is just a very rich someone stocking up on sale price 'premium content' that hasn't been sold much.
Does no-one have Kelly or JJRD's hotline number? They (or someone, why does RM have to be the only one that can make an announcement?) should be making an announcement, even if, "it's all above board".

« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2010, 10:48 »
0

Maybe it is just a very rich someone stocking up on sale price 'premium content' that hasn't been sold much.

The removal of the higher credit packs seems to suggest otherwise.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2010, 11:14 »
0

Maybe it is just a very rich someone stocking up on sale price 'premium content' that hasn't been sold much.

The removal of the higher credit packs seems to suggest otherwise.
Yup, I hadn't noticed Opla's post in the other thread.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2010, 11:31 »
0
From reading the iStock forum it appears the only ones affected by this are exclusive contributors since they are the only ones reporting these strange sales in the forum. Lisa mentioned yesterday she had some strange sales also so maybe it isn't just exclusives. Has any one else had strange sales that are not exclusive here? I know I haven't.

« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2010, 11:40 »
0
Yet another iStock fiasco!

« Reply #42 on: December 27, 2010, 11:41 »
0
From reading the iStock forum it appears the only ones affected by this are exclusive contributors since they are the only ones reporting these strange sales in the forum. Lisa mentioned yesterday she had some strange sales also so maybe it isn't just exclusives. Has any one else had strange sales that are not exclusive here? I know I haven't.

Nope

« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2010, 12:03 »
0
From reading the iStock forum it appears the only ones affected by this are exclusive contributors since they are the only ones reporting these strange sales in the forum. Lisa mentioned yesterday she had some strange sales also so maybe it isn't just exclusives. Has any one else had strange sales that are not exclusive here? I know I haven't.

Nope

not me.  gee.. had I known the 'iStock fairie" was going to make an appearance to boast RCs for (mostly) exclusives around Christmas, I may have waited to drop my crown.  ha! ;)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #44 on: December 27, 2010, 12:17 »
0
From reading the iStock forum it appears the only ones affected by this are exclusive contributors since they are the only ones reporting these strange sales in the forum. Lisa mentioned yesterday she had some strange sales also so maybe it isn't just exclusives. Has any one else had strange sales that are not exclusive here? I know I haven't.

Nope

not me.  gee.. had I known the 'iStock fairie" was going to make an appearance to boast RCs for (mostly) exclusives around Christmas, I may have waited to drop my crown.  ha! ;)

From the looks of it all it probably would have only given you false hopes then you'd experience great disappointment then overwhelming depression.... :D

No really I feel sorry for the ones that have experienced these sales because I got a feeling from the amount of them over Christmas...the slowest time...they are more than likely bogus.

« Reply #45 on: December 27, 2010, 12:23 »
0
just saw this on iStock's face book page.. maybe this is an isolated incident, or maybe not:
Quote
Katie Bourn posted 12/23/10: Hi iStock - I'm in a bit of a panic to update my website for the New Year, I need to purchase 5 more images. Trouble is, every time I download an image, double the correct number of credits is deducted from my account. I really don't understand why. I only have 8 credits left this month (I have a corporate account) ...so in an effort to be careful, I'm only downloading images worth one or two credits each. However I've just purchased an image worth two credits and my total shrank by four! I purchased an image worth one credit and two disappeared, arrggh! I know that my corporate account total and my own allocation are different, but it's my own figure at the bottom of my screen that keeps shrinking at such an alarming rate. I've no idea how to get all the images I need before 1 Jan :( Can you explain, credit back the credits I've been unfairly deducted please?


and then there's the iStock twitter contest:

Quote
Win iStock Credits on Twitter
Celebrate 12 Days of Vetta and you could win. On each business day from December 1531 (excluding December 24) well be giving away 50 free iStock credits to one lucky winner. To be entered in the draw, simply Tweet or Retweet:

Bring Vetta home for the holidays during iStocks Vetta Sale. Retweet to win iStock credits! http://istockpho.to/vettasale #12daysofvetta

Also, everyone who plays will be entered into a draw for 500 free iStock credits, to be drawn and announced early in the new year.


yeah, 12 days at 50 credits each only amounts to 600 credits going on - so that is not close to the amount reportedly being spent/purchased - but i was just trying to find something to explain the mystery.  maybe there's some weird error going on with purchases and then add that to some people winning credit packs and that may have something to do with it.  maybe... maybe it's a reach.  :)

« Reply #46 on: December 27, 2010, 12:27 »
0
just saw this on iStock's face book page.. maybe this is an isolated incident, or maybe not:
Quote
Katie Bourn posted 12/23/10: Hi iStock - I'm in a bit of a panic to update my website for the New Year, I need to purchase 5 more images. Trouble is, every time I download an image, double the correct number of credits is deducted from my account. I really don't understand why. I only have 8 credits left this month (I have a corporate account) ...so in an effort to be careful, I'm only downloading images worth one or two credits each. However I've just purchased an image worth two credits and my total shrank by four! I purchased an image worth one credit and two disappeared, arrggh! I know that my corporate account total and my own allocation are different, but it's my own figure at the bottom of my screen that keeps shrinking at such an alarming rate. I've no idea how to get all the images I need before 1 Jan :( Can you explain, credit back the credits I've been unfairly deducted please?


Well that person is screwed since everyone is on vacation. How weird. I do wonder if that is happening to anyone else. If it is, I wouldn't be surprised. What a tragic mess that site has become.

Someone needs to let them know that customer service is closed and they should probably just shop at a different site. ;)
« Last Edit: December 27, 2010, 12:41 by caspixel »

« Reply #47 on: December 27, 2010, 12:27 »
0
oh yeah, and dont' forget that iStock is doubling all RC's on vetta images during the Vetta Sale.  So all those exclusives who got these downloads just got a major boost!

« Reply #48 on: December 27, 2010, 12:41 »
0
oh yeah, and dont' forget that iStock is doubling all RC's on vetta images during the Vetta Sale.  So all those exclusives who got these downloads just got a major boost!

The plot thickens... :D

« Reply #49 on: December 27, 2010, 13:12 »
0
oh yeah, and dont' forget that iStock is doubling all RC's on vetta images during the Vetta Sale.  So all those exclusives who got these downloads just got a major boost!

The plot thickens... :D

here is my prediction - it was fraud, nobody gets the money, but they do get the RCs since it mostly benefits the Vetta/agency golden ones. In fact handing out RCs like election year candy will be the new way for IS to try to keep contributors happy while they slowly (or quickly) decrease their percentage.

As they say, predictions are hard, especially about the future.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
12102 Views
Last post December 30, 2010, 08:36
by cathyslife
3 Replies
1573 Views
Last post November 10, 2020, 06:57
by Uncle Pete
16 Replies
1340 Views
Last post November 17, 2021, 14:54
by Ackab
12 Replies
1394 Views
Last post November 29, 2021, 15:55
by Uncle Pete
5 Replies
370 Views
Last post December 02, 2021, 19:13
by Level6

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle