MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Sean Locke Photography on December 26, 2010, 11:27
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1 (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.
-
From what I was reading over there it looks as if the exclusives are the ones reporting these sales.
-
From what I was reading over there it looks as if the exclusives are the ones reporting these sales.
It seems to be Vettas and Agency images that are being targetted, and downloaded at maximum sizes.
Sorry to those who've been affected, and hope the images don't get misused down the line. :-(
-
From what I was reading over there it looks as if the exclusives are the ones reporting these sales.
It seems to be Vettas and Agency images that are being targetted, and downloaded at maximum sizes.
Sorry to those who've been affected, and hope the images don't get misused down the line. :-(
I had a bunch of regular ones as well.
-
That's a big chunk of money either way. It doesn't look right especially since this is over Christmas, usually very few people do business during Christmas.
Hope you guys don't end up with a big bill from iStock after the first of the year.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1[/url])
Just keep an eye on your downloads from IS today. Someone is rampantly downloading large sized files at a $1 per credit price.
Yes, but isn't that what microstock is about?
-
I had an xs for $0,10 today... wonder if its related.... either way 0,10 is a new low. >:(
-
I had a few XL sales for exactly $1/credit. That's unusual enough that I think it may be related. In my case, as an independent, it's just a few dollars I will use if it turns out to be fraud.
Scary for exclusives with Vetta and Agency files, particularly if this is someone collecting them to sell on the black market... :o
It almost seems like some crook thought "when the cat's away the mice will play". I'm relieved to read MichaelJay's post that administration is on this. Looks like Istock has reached the level of success that it may no longer be advisable to announce the entire administrative staff is taking off for the holidays...?
-
I think if I stole someone's credit card numbers, stock photography is the last thing I'd be purchasing. How odd. Poor fotovoyager though. $2000 and counting. That's a heck of a lot of money.
-
Perhaps it's some ambitious guy, in some area of the world that's tough to police, who'd planning on being the new Heroturko and setting up his own "free image" site. Maybe even charging for them.
-
Some people do it just to see if it can be done....maybe it's a disgruntled contributor or buyer who knew they'd be gone, who knows. You know photographers come from every walk of life.
-
Looks like Istock has reached the level of success that it may no longer be advisable to announce the entire administrative staff is taking off for the holidays...?
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that they left a note of the front door saying "Back after the new year, key is under the doormat is you need anything"
-
Lobo...the guarder of the gates is still there, so I guess not everyone got to go on vacation.
He's said they are checking all purchases and downloads within the last 48 hours so maybe they will get it straighten out before the bosses come back... ;)
-
yeah, or maybe it is some new bogus promotion scheme and the discounts are passed along to the contributors as usual.
Still, the .10 XS I got seems even more miserly than normal for IS. I wasn't expecting any of those until next year.
-
could be Santa :)
-
could be Santa :)
If it's Santa, he's very discriminating. I'm showing my same low sales as per usual.
-
From what I was reading over there it looks as if the exclusives are the ones reporting these sales.
It seems to be Vettas and Agency images that are being targetted, and downloaded at maximum sizes.
Sorry to those who've been affected, and hope the images don't get misused down the line. :-(
I had a bunch of regular ones as well.
OK, fair enough.
Seems everyone reporting so far has been exclusive, though, as donding suggests.
-
I've had four, in the last 24 hours, that it could apply to - all largest size available, and all with $1 credits. In my case, with only 4, I am not too worried. I think for the most part it is exclusives who are targeted.
-
I've had four, in the last 24 hours, that it could apply to - all largest size available, and all with $1 credits. In my case, with only 4, I am not too worried. I think for the most part it is exclusives who are targeted.
Sorry, Lisa, I forgot you'd mentioned it on here earlier.
Still, worrying if the pics are going to be sold on.
Maybe it's a weatlhy company in the Middle East not affected by the current general holiday season. Hopefully, for all concerned.
(But if so, that would be obvious and Lobo could have reported it.)
-
I had one XXXL for $5 and an XXL for $4 (non-exlusive).
Hey, maybe it's not fraud, maybe it's a software bug or... a feature :)
The software was re-designed to boost the profits, maybe that's what it does when it's left on autopilot:)
It downloads stuff and boosts the profits ;) (at least temporarily, that is for 2010)
-
I had one XXXL for $5 and an XXL for $4 (non-exlusive).
Hey, maybe it's not fraud, maybe it's a software bug or... a feature :)
The software was re-designed to boost the profits, maybe that's what it does when it's left on autopilot:)
It downloads stuff and boosts the profits ;) (at least temporarily, that is for 2010)
It wouldn't be the first time a company artificially boosted sales that way.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1[/url])
Just keep an eye on your downloads from IS today. Someone is rampantly downloading large sized files at a $1 per credit price.
Yes, but isn't that what microstock is about?
No. The point is that it is easy to spot the sales because the credits are valued at $1 each. Not $1.50 or $.95. Which indicates a credit pack of 5000 sold, or a contributor changing of $1 for 1 credit.
-
I had one XXXL for $5 and an XXL for $4 (non-exlusive).
Hey, maybe it's not fraud, maybe it's a software bug or... a feature :)
The software was re-designed to boost the profits, maybe that's what it does when it's left on autopilot:)
It downloads stuff and boosts the profits ;) (at least temporarily, that is for 2010)
It wouldn't be the first time a company artificially boosted sales that way.
If it was, boy oh boy, they'd be hitting an all time new low. I find it hard to believe, but anything is possible. :D
-
Still no word from HQ (that has been posted on the forums anyway.)
But then again, personally, I wouldn't necessarily believe whatever explanation they give. If it's actually fraud, they aren't going to say. Someone has already thrown out the "class action suit against IS" notion in another thread started here.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/alarming-number-of-big-downloads-on-istock/msg176812/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/alarming-number-of-big-downloads-on-istock/msg176812/?topicseen#new)
If it's legit, why wouldn't that have been reported already to put people's minds at ease? Sure, everyone's away. But most everyone has a smartphone/ipad/laptop/netbook or something that could be used to work remotely. I am certain everyone's Facebook page is going to be up to date, I find it hard to believe that there isn't ANYONE who can verify whether a company bought a zillion credits for $1 and is now using them.
That this kind of company (IS) would shut down for this long of a vacation, I find incredible.
edited to explain myself better
-
If this does turn out to be theft resulting from iStock not securing their system well enough to prevent hacking, then I don't see how iStock would have the right to take the money back from the contributors. If someone downloaded a file illegally from iStock, but has the opportunity to use it, then I think the contributors still deserve to be paid by iStock, even if iStock was robbed.
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.
I think they know this though, and if it does turn out to be a case of image theft, they will probably bite the bullet and leave the earnings already placed in the accounts of the contributors who were paid for these downloaded images. On the other hand, if these images start showing up in pirated collections of digital stock imagery being sold around the world, then the liability issue for iStock could be much greater.
Let's hope for the best, that the sales all occurred legitimately, and that within a few days this mounting worry is put to rest. Cheers to all.
(grammatical errors corrected)
-
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.
-
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.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1[/url])
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1[/url])
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yet another iStock fiasco!
-
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
-
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 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.
-
just saw this on iStock's face book page.. maybe this is an isolated incident, or maybe not:
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:
Win iStock Credits on Twitter
Celebrate 12 Days of Vetta and you could win. On each business day from December 15–31 (excluding December 24) we’ll 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 iStock’s Vetta Sale. Retweet to win iStock credits! [url]http://istockpho.to/vettasale[/url] ([url]http://istockpho.to/vettasale[/url]) #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. :)
-
just saw this on iStock's face book page.. maybe this is an isolated incident, or maybe not:
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. ;)
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
I agree. But many agencies seem to consider our work worthless in these cases. The fact is, of course, that the potential loss to us is far greater than the sale value of the image, since one download could lead to dozens of lost sales if it is resold or given away elsewhere.
I lost $1,200 in commissions at Alamy when they simply cancelled a transaction with the note "credit card fraud". I don't know how has those photos or what they did with them.
I'm pretty sure iS will feel able to cancel any fraudulent sale if it wants to, claiming that there is no material loss (which may well be untrue).
-
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.
I STRONGLY doubt anyone would get the RC's for these false downloads.
-
no one has yet said they are false. seems too good to be true, yes, but until there is confirmation from iStock one way or the other, these are sales that have been made and credited to contributors' accounts.
-
no one has yet said they are false. seems too good to be true, yes, but until there is confirmation from iStock one way or the other, these are sales that have been made and credited to contributors' accounts.
Making it so that the maximum credit bundle you can buy ATM is 120 indicates that, at the least, they're regarding events as 'suspicious'. Also if it were clear that there isn't a problem, they could easily say so. Or ask MichaelJay to say so, at least.
-
no one has yet said they are false. seems too good to be true, yes, but until there is confirmation from iStock one way or the other, these are sales that have been made and credited to contributors' accounts.
Making it so that the maximum credit bundle you can buy ATM is 120 indicates that, at the least, they're regarding events as 'suspicious'. Also if it were clear that there isn't a problem, they could easily say so. Or ask MichaelJay to say so, at least.
indeed. good point.
-
Everything looks very fishy indeed, and I am so insignificant that I didn't get any of these sales! :D
Anyway, my credit card never gave me any feedback on what might have happened when I had my card cloned out, if there was any suspicious store or service that I should avoid. I didn't have to pay for expenses I signaled as not being mine, they gave me a new card and this was all. And I didn't even use to pay an insurance for the card, so if there was any chance they could charge me, they probably would, but it must have been some flaw in their system, the verification or whatever. I think companies never disclose what they did wrong. All transactions were signed by then, so they could not charge me for something with a fake signature. Probably today, with so many electronic transactions and having to give our security code in any online purchase, I'm not sure we are that protected.
-
Credit card fraud online is absolutely rife, and I'm just not sure who swallows the cost. In the last two years on two different credit cards (both pin and chip - they are no more secure than the ordinary old swipe ones) we've had about 15000$Aus fraudulently charged to various international online stores (avoid using credit cards with Sydney cab drivers, especially if they claim the first card doesn't work and then want to swipe another one and no transactions turn up for the cab fare in the next couple of days - hindsight is a wonderful thing!). We got the money back so I don't know if the bank or the retailers ended up out of pocket.
-
Part of the very high percentage rate on interest charged on credit cards is used to cover for fraud.
Obviously if banks etc can reduce the amount of fraud they make more money by keeping more of this extra money they charge. So in essence the cost of fraud is averaged across all customers who pay interest on their card.
If the banks didn't cover the card holder for most of these fraud cases, people would stop using them and the banks would miss out people using money at a very lucrative interest rate (up to 25%)
personally Istock is taking more than 80% commission, I think they should cover the theft and they should have processes in place to minimise the losses.
Surely there should be someone manning a 24/7 business turning over hundreds of million dollars a year all the time for such issues.
-
I don't know if this is related, but it sure feels like the site has been hacked to me.
I have been deactivating my low sellers for a couple of months now. I go to the image page, under Administration, type my reason for deactivating, then hit Deactivate. To get back to my port, I hit the back button twice, and I am back to the page where I was in my port.
Just now, I did those exact same steps that I have been doing for months, except now, when I get back to the port page where I was, all the thumbnails are missing. I just deleted 26 images on Dec. 23 and all worked ok. So this is something new. Plus, the images that I did deactivate on Dec. 23 are still showing in my port. It was only taking a day or two for them to disappear. So does that mean that since everyone is gone, the database doesn't get updated every so often? Someone has to actually be there to have the updates done?
Or is everything on "hold" because of this latest fiasco? ::)
-
It certainly seems to be a bit of a mess. If it is fraud I hope that IS lets people keep their sales. When CC fraud happens to any retailer they have to eat the cost and they just pass it along to the consumer not the supplier.
I had three sales today (a good day for me) that were for more than $1.00 per credit. I hope I get to keep my $8.80.
-
Here is another example of how it works in the real world.
If the buyer puts in all the correct cc information, plus the cvc code, then its hard to detect any fraudulent buying at the credit card processing step. It's only until the seller/merchant gets a notice from paypal that the buyer requested a chargeback (often weeks later when the real credit card holder notices the weird charge on his card), that the merchant/seller has the money removed from their merchant account and gets levied a 10$ chargeback fee.
Digital goods (intangible) sold on the internet don't provide a lot of protections for the sellers. The biggiest issue is the seller can't prove delivery like you can do in the physical world via a signature or delivery confirmation.
https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=security/chargeback_guide
-
^^ Can a merchant get some kind of insurance against this kind of CC fraud or is just a write-off? Just curious.
-
I always dreamt of stock agency that would have Shutterstock's number of downloads , review times of CanStock, immediate on line support of GLO, Veer's keywording possibilities, possibility of Zoonar's own picture shop, Dreamstime's Level System etc. I wasn't sure about i Stock but now I know - iStock's Christmas Holidays sales - no other agency is even close. And not to forget... their human approach to their employees - two weeks of holidays probably as a reward for excellent work done on newly relaunched site. Nice to see that money don't rule this world. ::)
-
Whenever there has been fraud or a return by the buyer IS has always deducted the royalty amount from the contributor. It happened to me a few years. It's common, though controversial, practice amoung most of the micro sites.
-
This isn't fraud, just everyone needing to spend credits before the 1st. Makes sense to me.
-
Whenever there has been fraud or a return by the buyer IS has always deducted the royalty amount from the contributor. It happened to me a few years. It's common, though controversial, practice amoung most of the micro sites.
No they don't. IS has always eaten the cost of credit card misuse, as opposed to other sites.
-
This isn't fraud, just everyone needing to spend credits before the 1st. Makes sense to me.
Obviously you haven't read any of the posts on the buying patterns. Besides, businesses who needed to spend their credits before the 1st (why would they need to do that?), would not spend them in the wee hours of the morning on the day after (a Sunday, even) Christmas.
-
They have always sent me an email stating that the money would be deducted and why. I've had both "suspicious transaction" and "returned file". This was back when I was exclusive.
-
I do think IS site is hacked.
I don't think the hacker hacked a credit card account or some real money transaction thingy.
The hacker should have hacked into the system of IS, and increase his credits to perhaps a million, and quickly use those credits to download all the Vettas.
Like some other forumers said, with a collection of Vettas, he can easily print CDs with those and sell at China for $10 a piece.
Or maybe upload to Hotfile.
-
I do think IS site is hacked.
I don't think the hacker hacked a credit card account or some real money transaction thingy.
The hacker should have hacked into the system of IS, and increase his credits to perhaps a million, and quickly use those credits to download all the Vettas.
Like some other forumers said, with a collection of Vettas, he can easily print CDs with those and sell at China for $10 a piece.
Or maybe upload to Hotfile.
this makes the most sense to me. I was thinking the same thing.. they just hacked in and gave themselves unlimited credits.
-
New update on the site from Joyze:
"In the past 6 days we have received a large amount of fraudulent purchases and downloads. We are working fervently to add new security measures to our purchasing process to prevent this from continuing or happening again. The implementations are happening as we speak.
While we don't normally correct royalties on fraudulent downloads, in this case, we will need to make an exception. We'll notify you next week of the royalty amount that will be adjusted from your account before we do so. Redeemed credits will also be corrected."
Six days???
-
really... I didn't realize it had been hitting the site for 6 days. wow. so it started prior to the closing of the office for the holidays, but seemed to have peaked right after christmas.
thankfully my downloads were slow/normal for this time of year so I doubt I have any that will be charge-backs, but even if it were, they would be minor.
wonder how far back this will set things with getting a final year-end tally for everyone's RCs. Not that mine matter since I know I'm at the bottom of the rung anyway.
-
I don't know how you exclusives are ever going to be able to figure out how much money you are supposed to be getting, with all of the notifications, adjustments, fixes, etc. etc. that have been happening the past months.
I'm one of those conspiracy theorists who think it has all been purposeful confusion. :o
-
Wait, admin just checked in...
(http://www.lugaluda.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/the_three_stooges_in_19381.jpeg)
-
LOL, Cathy! That's harsh!
I would not be surprised if there is a hold on being able to make payout requests until this is sorted out. As Sean pointed out in the IS thread, it will be way too confusing if people are requesting this money, getting paid, and then having hundreds or thousands of dollars in negative balances in their accounts once the fraud sales are deducted. Makes more sense to hold off on payouts.
Of course that would suck big time, though. Hopefully they are able to identify and deduct the fraudulent charges before the Jan 3 deadline to request payouts.
I'm not surprised Istock is not going to eat this one. It is probably hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fraudulent sales. No company is likely to take such a loss by paying out those royalties.
I certainly do hope they aggressively prosecute anyone who tries to distribute all those pictures, if they possibly can.
Mostly this seems to serve as a wake-up call that Istock can't shut down over the holidays anymore.
-
Of course that would suck big time, though. Hopefully they are able to identify and deduct the fraudulent charges before the Jan 3 deadline to request payouts.
The fact that they didn't even catch the fraud for six days and until a contributor pointed it out doesn't inspire confidence that they will get it sorted out in less than a week. That and look how long it took them to fix the EL bonus "bug".
-
Whenever there has been fraud or a return by the buyer IS has always deducted the royalty amount from the contributor. It happened to me a few years. It's common, though controversial, practice amoung most of the micro sites.
No they don't. IS has always eaten the cost of credit card misuse, as opposed to other sites.
True. I have been for years at IS, with a great volume of sales, and never had a single deduction for any kind of fraud.
-
I do think IS site is hacked.
I don't think the hacker hacked a credit card account or some real money transaction thingy.
The hacker should have hacked into the system of IS, and increase his credits to perhaps a million, and quickly use those credits to download all the Vettas.
Like some other forumers said, with a collection of Vettas, he can easily print CDs with those and sell at China for $10 a piece.
Or maybe upload to Hotfile.
this makes the most sense to me. I was thinking the same thing.. they just hacked in and gave themselves unlimited credits.
I don't thik is so big. I just had about 3% of my Vetta/Agency file dowloaded these days and after all that's less than my normal pattern, so maybe some sales are legit. Or maybe my files weren't good enough for these thieves...
-
i wouldnt be surprised if the culprit was somehow involved in microstock. maybe a contributor or an exclusive really upset over the sep announcement
-
i wouldnt be surprised if the culprit was somehow involved in microstock. maybe a contributor or an exclusive really upset over the sep announcement
Nothing would surprise me at this point...
ETA: It occurs to me this is something that could happen at other sites too. Hope they are watching this situation and taking proper precautions to avoid similar theft of images.
-
Here we go again ..... as you say nothing should surprise us over there but dont panic yet Guys perhaps it's IS's own latest reward scheme for some Contributers to aid reaching those crazy credit targets ;) :o
-
i wouldnt be surprised if the culprit was somehow involved in microstock. maybe a contributor or an exclusive really upset over the sep announcement
Nothing would surprise me at this point...
ETA: It occurs to me this is something that could happen at other sites too. Hope they are watching this situation and taking proper precautions to avoid similar theft of images.
Every site on the net is pretty much vulnerable to a hack and/or fraud, but I think the whole F5! launch has been a disaster waiting to happen...and it has.
-
Kelly has been on (not before time) with an explanation (stolen credit cards).
-
Finally a response - direct from Kelly Thompson:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742)
it was credit card fraud and they knew it several days ago and have had a skeleton crew working on it. still a big wow that someone was able to do this much damage.
-
Finally a response - direct from Kelly Thompson:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url])
it was credit card fraud and they knew it several days ago and have had a skeleton crew working on it. still a big wow that someone was able to do this much damage.
The spin is making me dizzy.
Again with the "you should feel indebted to us because we caught it". No, THAT'S YOUR JOB! YOU GET PAID FOR IT. A HEFTY SUM!
I'm pretty sure he actually meant to say, "thanks to all you contributors for making this a great year for all of us at Getty/IS. If it weren't for your hard work, I wouldn't be living the life of luxury."
-
Whenever there has been fraud or a return by the buyer IS has always deducted the royalty amount from the contributor. It happened to me a few years. It's common, though controversial, practice amoung most of the micro sites.
No they don't. IS has always eaten the cost of credit card misuse, as opposed to other sites.
True. I have been for years at IS, with a great volume of sales, and never had a single deduction for any kind of fraud.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, and this is true for me too...until now. I think this one is one we're eating...they've as much as said so.
-
Finally a response - direct from Kelly Thompson:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url])
it was credit card fraud and they knew it several days ago and have had a skeleton crew working on it. still a big wow that someone was able to do this much damage.
The spin is making me dizzy.
Again with the "you should feel indebted to us because we caught it". No, THAT'S YOUR JOB! YOU GET PAID FOR IT. A HEFTY SUM!
I'm pretty sure he actually meant to say, "thanks to all you contributors for making this a great year for all of us at Getty/IS. If it weren't for your hard work, I wouldn't be living the life of luxury."
Wow. Just wow. Can they even get any ruder there? Maybe if everyone hadn't had the luxury of a week off on the contributors dime, this would have been caught faster!
And to think. It's been going on since early 2009, with a real increase the second half of 2010, culminating with this most brazen theft. That's a heck of a lot of fraud. I wonder if Amazon suffers from the same amount and what type of person/group is doing this. As I said before, I'd hardly be downloading a bunch of photos if I had someone CC information (no offense intended).
-
^ that's an awful lot of adding things up. the example provided is not necessarily connected. could be entirely unrelated. this situation sucks enough without magnifying it using unproven information that is two years old. frankly, this screams of pissed off istock employee to me or someone else connected to istock. but that is pure speculation. it just seems very mean-spirited. or maybe it's just some hack stealing our stuff. either way, not much we can do except not sell our images on istock. that is truly the limitation of any control we have and obviously not selling my images on istock is not an option as far as I'm concerned. so, I have to accept they are dealing with it.
-
^ that's an awful lot of adding things up. the example provided is not necessarily connected. could be entirely unrelated. this situation sucks enough without magnifying it using unproven information that is two years old.
I'm not saying they are related. But iStock seems to be a real target for fraud. So who knows. Maybe the thieves responsible for this latest round were monitoring how easy it was to perpetrate fraud at iStock. Or maybe they've been doing it for a long time.
-
^ I think any site as large as iStock is a target for hacking. especially since we're talking about digital commodities that can easily be transported globally within minutes. that's why it is so important that they handle this situation properly. to establish the correct precedents. particularly in terms of our trust as contributors.
-
^ I think any site as large as iStock is a target for hacking. especially since we're talking about digital commodities that can easily be transported globally within minutes. that's why it is so important that they handle this situation properly. to establish the correct precedents. particularly in terms of our trust as contributors.
I agree.
-
But iStock seems to be a real target for fraud. So who knows. Maybe the thieves responsible for this latest round were monitoring how easy it was to perpetrate fraud at iStock. Or maybe they've been doing it for a long time.
From what we've seen recently the Istockphoto site is evidently soooooo full of bugs and 'unintended consequences' that it must be an absolute magnet for those intent on fraud and theft. More holes than a sieve it would seem. My guess is we haven't seen the last of this __ not by a long way (it might just be the start). Maybe, when they all get back off their extended vacations, they could trouble themselves to check things out a bit. But I doubt it.
-
^ I think any site as large as iStock is a target for hacking. especially since we're talking about digital commodities that can easily be transported globally within minutes. that's why it is so important that they handle this situation properly. to establish the correct precedents. particularly in terms of our trust as contributors.
Well, this is the "new" iStock we're talking about, so I feel fairly comfortable in saying they won't handle it properly. :D
-
well, I don't agree. but I don't disagree....today anyways. what a mess.
-
well, I don't agree. but I don't disagree....today anyways. what a mess.
If the credit card companies *are* on the hook for the amount, wouldn't iStock get to keep that money? And yet they are going to adjust *YOUR* royalites? You just got stolen from. Twice. That's about as criminal as the regular fraud. If I was a contributor, I'd be furious.
Bet you anything they'll never 'fess up to whether or not they keep that money, but what a way to boost their profits! Well on their way to 50% I'd say.
-
Well, this is the "new" iStock we're talking about, so I feel fairly comfortable in saying they won't handle it properly. :D
You can say that again. They appear to be imploding at every level.
KT's bizarre response tonight was another "I want my life back __ and my Christmas and New Year vacation too" moment.
-
Well, this is the "new" iStock we're talking about, so I feel fairly comfortable in saying they won't handle it properly. :D
You can say that again. They appear to be imploding at every level.
KT's bizarre response tonight was another "I want my life back __ and my Christmas and New Year vacation too" moment.
No joke! :D
-
well, I don't agree. but I don't disagree....today anyways. what a mess.
If the credit card companies *are* on the hook for the amount, wouldn't iStock get to keep that money? And yet they are going to adjust *YOUR* royalites? You just got stolen from. Twice. That's about as criminal as the regular fraud. If I was a contributor, I'd be furious.
Bet you anything they'll never 'fess up to whether or not they keep that money, but what a way to boost their profits! Well on their way to 50% I'd say.
I don't believe they would treat my income fraudulently that way. that isn't one of my concerns. I think there's more to this that we'll never know. it wasn't money I ever had (if indeed any of my sales were among the fraudulent sales). if nothing else, the sales should give my files a little boost in the best match. there's a little salve for the sting. to be honest, I'd consider it slimy if we were allowed to keep the royalties without it being the result of some legitimate transaction.
-
well, I don't agree. but I don't disagree....today anyways. what a mess.
If the credit card companies *are* on the hook for the amount, wouldn't iStock get to keep that money? And yet they are going to adjust *YOUR* royalites? You just got stolen from. Twice. That's about as criminal as the regular fraud. If I was a contributor, I'd be furious.
Bet you anything they'll never 'fess up to whether or not they keep that money, but what a way to boost their profits! Well on their way to 50% I'd say.
I don't believe they would treat my income fraudulently that way. that isn't one of my concerns. I think there's more to this that we'll never know. it wasn't money I ever had (if indeed any of my sales were among the fraudulent sales). if nothing else, the sales should give my files a little boost in the best match. there's a little salve for the sting. to be honest, I'd consider it slimy if we were allowed to keep the royalties without it being the result of some legitimate transaction.
How can you say that? Someone downloaded your file, no? And if iStock retrieved all the necessary pieces of information and followed all of the rules and regulations the credit card company would bear the liability for the fraud. So if iStock gets to keep the money, why shouldn't you get your cut? I'm sure iStock won't feel any such guilt pangs in keeping the cash.
-
if it is that simple, sure I would want to keep my royalties. I would like it to be treated like past fraudulent purchases. but seeing this is very public and seemingly widespread, I think it would be a PR nightmare to allow contributors to keep the royalties. it gives the appearance that there is a contributor benefit to gaming the system. even though, of course, those of us affected have nothing to do with the 'game'. add to that the complexity of the RC targets and the unfairness of those sales bumping some contributors but not all contributors falsely.
these aren't legitimate sales. and I think the situation seems to be far more complicated than they are letting on. I don't believe a situation involving widespread fraud should be seen to benefit contributors. as for iStock pocketing money from the credit card company but screwing contributors...not likely.
-
I don't believe they would treat my income fraudulently that way. that isn't one of my concerns.
Having 'grandfathered' your next precious little canister ... and then pulled the commission rug from under you just as you were actually approaching the download level ... why do you believe you have any reason whatsoever to trust them? Wasn't that about the most cynical kick in the c*** they could possibly have given you?
What commission level do you reckon you will be on in 2012 as an exclusive (and why do you believe that?)
-
as for iStock pocketing money from the credit card company but screwing contributors...not likely.
Why not? They are happily screwing contributors a bunch of other ways. I don't doubt I will be saying "told you so" sometime in the near future.
I also love how they have locked the thread now (generally means that the speculation is correct :D). $100 says that is the last you will hear of it. And that they will pocket the money.
-
as for iStock pocketing money from the credit card company but screwing contributors...not likely.
Why not? They are happily screwing contributors a bunch of other ways. I don't doubt I will be saying "told you so" sometime in the near future.
I also love how they have locked the thread now (generally means that the speculation is correct :D). $100 says that is the last you will hear of it. And that they will pocket the money.
... is the correct answer!
-
they change the rules to suit their objectives. agreed. I don't extrapolate on that to include stealing my income through illegitimate means. that isn't meant to convince you. I'm not trying to. I'm just answering your question(s).
-
cclapper just posted this in another thread but thought I'd post it here since it deals with the fraud. Interesting read indeed
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/credit-card-fraud-not-something-new-to-is/msg177017/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/credit-card-fraud-not-something-new-to-is/msg177017/?topicseen#new)
« on: Today at 20:51 »
I think you all might want to take a look here:
http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062/4 (http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062/4)
This was just posted in the IS forum in this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=16 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=16)
edited to add:
maybe totally unrelated, maybe not. The latest post is by someone from 12 hours ago."
These people talk about contacting iStock and getting the money back from iStock...not the credit card company. My husbands business just recently had some fraudulent charges. The credit card company said the business would keep the money and that was what the insurance was for....so I don't personally know if iStock will be refunding it or the credit card company is responsible. That website says iStock is refunding it, but then my husbands business says it's the credit card companies responsibility.
-
go back a few pages, we've already discussed that....;-)
-
go back a few pages, we've already discussed that....;-)
Whoops sorry must have missed it. I even looked...
EDIT: I still don't see reference to the 800notes.com website. That has to do with the customers who's cards were charged by iStock. Sorry if I'm still blind.
-
that reference was in regard to a forum almost two years old. it was discussed on istock and referenced in this thread twice. I don't know if anyone used the precise 800notes link.
-
they change the rules to suit their objectives. agreed. I don't extrapolate on that to include stealing my income through illegitimate means. that isn't meant to convince you. I'm not trying to. I'm just answering your question(s).
I'd suggest that the wording of their 'agreement' allows them basically to do literally whatever it pleases them (and their profits) to do with any 'legitimacy' they choose to attach to it. By 'grandfathering' your canister they clearly entered an 'agreement' with you but, just a few months later, then they chose not to honour the benefits that said canister had inherently bestowed. All 'legit' apparently.
-
that reference was in regard to a forum almost two years old. it was discussed on istock and referenced in this thread twice. I don't know if anyone used the precise 800notes link.
You are mis-characterizing. Yes, the first post on the forum was almost two years ago, but, over FOUR PAGES it chronicles multiple instances of fraud at iStock, with a drastic increase in the second second half of this year, and the latest entry was a mere 12 hours ago.
-
that reference was in regard to a forum almost two years old. it was discussed on istock and referenced in this thread twice. I don't know if anyone used the precise 800notes link.
You are mis-characterizing. Yes, the first post on the forum was almost two years ago, but, over FOUR PAGES it chronicles multiple instances of fraud at iStock, with a drastic increase in the second second half of this year, and the latest entry was a mere 12 hours ago.
Thank you caspixel.. ;)
-
I'm not characterizing anything. I'm suggesting this was a link provided by a contributor that may or may not be relevant. presenting it as evidence is out of context. for all we know, this kind of fraud happens every week on a smaller scale at iStock. in any case, even if it is completely relevant, it proves what they've already told us - that credit card fraud has been committed, resulting in sales that have affected a number of contributors. so what's the point of making a fuss out of the posts on some forum on a do-not-call list's website?
the questions are: what should they do about it? and how should affected contributors be treated? not whether or not fraud has occurred. fraud against a site as large as iStock certainly isn't news in itself. this just happens to have hit a number of contributors all at once.
-
Well, this is the "new" iStock we're talking about, so I feel fairly comfortable in saying they won't handle it properly. :D
You can say that again. They appear to be imploding at every level.
KT's bizarre response tonight was another "I want my life back __ and my Christmas and New Year vacation too" moment.
I think what you meant to say was 'woo-yay Kelly I really want to thank you for taking the time to reply to these ridiculous concerns raised by troublesome contributors who do nothing for Istock. Have a great Christmas and New Year and enjoy your bonus.'
Or perhaps not.
-
Kelly's post tonight was salt in the wound. I didn't appreciate being admonished for expressing concern. I'm tired of watching contributors getting their wrists slapped for reacting to poor communication. It is OUR work that fuels their business.
-
^^^
Thank you SNP, succinct and on point!
-
Kelly's post tonight was salt in the wound. I didn't appreciate being admonished for expressing concern. I'm tired of watching contributors getting their wrists slapped for reacting to poor communication. It is OUR work that fuels their business.
These little slips should tell you something about how they feel about you. That is why I can't understand why you keep naively trusting them. Contributors are the PITAs that supply the content to the site. They'd be so happy if they didn't have to deal with them and just had all Agency files on the site. Just like they hate dealing with PITA buyers. iStock mistakenly thinks they exist only for themselves.
-
as for iStock pocketing money from the credit card company but screwing contributors...not likely.
Why not? They are happily screwing contributors a bunch of other ways. I don't doubt I will be saying "told you so" sometime in the near future.
I also love how they have locked the thread now (generally means that the speculation is correct :D). $100 says that is the last you will hear of it. And that they will pocket the money.
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that would be a flagrant case of fraud and iStock likes to rip us off by legal means, rather than risk having KT languishing in the penal system.
-
^^^
Thank you SNP, succinct and on point!
yeah well, there's a flip side to that. unfortunately so much abuse gets hurled around in istock threads towards admins and other contributors that it results in admonishing remarks. you know, at the end of the day, we're all just people and everyone gets tired of being yelled at/insulted or accused. as much as Kelly's comments annoyed me tonight, and as much as I felt they were out of line...it amazes me that contributors don't seem to hold themselves to the same standards of communication they expect from admins.
-
it amazes me that contributors don't seem to hold themselves to the same standards of communication they expect from admins.
[/quote]
I'm not sure that's true. I think the anger comes from the way they ignore us. Look at the long september threads. How many sensible and important questions were asked and just ignored, and still remain unanswered? The silence creates a strong impression of contempt and when you are openly arrogant and contemptuous of people, showing no interest in valid concerns about the way you are treating them, you have to expect that they will react negatively.
-
Maybe this has already been discussed and I missed it or it was just subtle and I didn't get it.
Why would someone steal credit cards and buy stock photos??? They did 4 of mine of a crashed truck but how are they going to turn all that theft into money in their pockets? I think I remember reading about someone saying putting all the images on discs and selling them on the streets of China but how is that worth it? All this effort for what?
-
They could try uploading on fake accounts to other sites (might explain why exclusive content seems to be the target, it won't clash with existing files outside iS), they could launch a free downloads website, aimed at getting click-through income from advertising, I don't know what else but you can bet they have a plan for this stuff they didn't take it for no reason.
-
They could try uploading on fake accounts to other sites (might explain why exclusive content seems to be the target, it won't clash with existing files outside iS), they could launch a free downloads website, aimed at getting click-through income from advertising, I don't know what else but you can bet they have a plan for this stuff they didn't take it for no reason.
Maybe they just want to make some nice placemats and tell their friends that they took the pictures :)
-
To be honest, I'd consider it slimy if we were allowed to keep the royalties without it being the result of some legitimate transaction.
I'm not affected, but if iStock is getting to keep the money (by insurance or by the cc company) it should be shared among those who stand to lose by having their pics put up for sale elsewhere. I had a rueful smile when I read someone say he'd only be happy if he saw a certificate of destruction. Why would you believe a CoD from a credit card thief?
There are plenty of charities who could do with your 'slimy' money far more than KKT or JK.
-
To be honest, I'd consider it slimy if we were allowed to keep the royalties without it being the result of some legitimate transaction.
I'm not affected, but if iStock is getting to keep the money (by insurance or by the cc company) it should be shared among those who stand to lose by having their pics put up for sale elsewhere. I had a rueful smile when I read someone say he'd only be happy if he saw a certificate of destruction. Why would you believe a CoD from a credit card thief?
There are plenty of charities who could do with your 'slimy' money far more than KKT or JK.
-
To be honest, I'd consider it slimy if we were allowed to keep the royalties without it being the result of some legitimate transaction.
I'm not affected, but if iStock is getting to keep the money (by insurance or by the cc company) it should be shared among those who stand to lose by having their pics put up for sale elsewhere. I had a rueful smile when I read someone say he'd only be happy if he saw a certificate of destruction. Why would you believe a CoD from a credit card thief?
There are plenty of charities who could do with your 'slimy' money far more than KKT or JK.
Contributors not getting money back from IS/credit card company/insurance is only half of the loss involved. As has been already mentioned, the contributor had his/her files downloaded. That means you are going to be losing income immediately, because chances are that file is going to be given away/put on torrents/put on free websites/put on websites to make money. Most definitely contributors should be compensated for loss, and I don't see it at slimy at all to accept that money. Your files were stolen and they are worth something!
-
Seems from that site Cathy linked to on the other site:
http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062/4 (http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062/4)
that iStock is paying back money to scammed cardholders who contact them.
I'm sure it will take a while for all of the cardholders to find out - I for one don't do any sort of internet banking.
Some card companies are better than others: my card company phoned me because by chance I registered two websites with the same (American) host within a week (I'm in the UK) and they wanted to be sure it was genuine: and that only totalled about £110.
-
Why not? They are happily screwing contributors a bunch of other ways. I don't doubt I will be saying "told you so" sometime in the near future.
I also love how they have locked the thread now (generally means that the speculation is correct :D). $100 says that is the last you will hear of it. And that they will pocket the money.
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that would be a flagrant case of fraud and iStock likes to rip us off by legal means, rather than risk having KT languishing in the penal system.
Maybe so, but it wouldn't be the first time we've seen a legitimate business eventually use illegitimate means to boost their profits as they got greedier and greedier.
-
I think that story about stolen or misused credit cards is more acceptable for iS than to admit that someone hacked their site. Yes - world changes but idea that someone planned very carefully how to make money by distributing images paid by misused cards seems to be to crazy for me but anything is possible.
Anyway, I'm paranoid android and simply don't trust anybody who needs so long time to explain the situation.
-
Maybe this has already been discussed and I missed it or it was just subtle and I didn't get it.
Why would someone steal credit cards and buy stock photos??? They did 4 of mine of a crashed truck but how are they going to turn all that theft into money in their pockets? I think I remember reading about someone saying putting all the images on discs and selling them on the streets of China but how is that worth it? All this effort for what?
I saw a bunch of posts made in Twitter just after Christmas recruiting for people to, among other things, "clone iStockphoto" -- I tried to follow the link, but it went to a freelance programming project site and said it was private and by invitation only. Might be someone just creating a site with a look and feel like iStock's, and it's not the first time -- but it makes me wonder.
-
Seems I am late to this discussion, but I just have to agree that Kelly's admonishing contributors for not being thankful enough was pretty disgusting. Gostwyck nailed it by comparing it to Tony Hayward's "I just want my life back" remark. Also reminiscent of Kelly's other "Money isn't going to be what makes you happy" quip. Really, this guy should use some of the additional royalties Istock will be keeping to hire a PR person to proofread his posts.
I realize that 800notes thread was old, but it seems to have taken on new life in Nov. 2010. And the amounts went from smaller numbers like $175 to very large numbers in the $1500 - $2200 range. Seems to me it could be connected...
I don't know who will eat this loss - Istock or the credit card company. What I do know is that this is not the contributors' fault and they should not have to bear the financial brunt of this.
-
it amazes me that contributors don't seem to hold themselves to the same standards of communication they expect from admins.
I'm not sure that's true. I think the anger comes from the way they ignore us. Look at the long september threads. How many sensible and important questions were asked and just ignored, and still remain unanswered? The silence creates a strong impression of contempt and when you are openly arrogant and contemptuous of people, showing no interest in valid concerns about the way you are treating them, you have to expect that they will react negatively.
Exactly!
-
I don't know who will eat this loss - Istock or the credit card company.
Apart from the cost of administration, time etc is there actually a loss to eat ? Otherwise are these not just sales which never happened ?
Contributors lose out if a picture gets used without a licensing fee being paid. But suppose a whole bunch of content from iStockphoto ends up at one of the mega-download sites or on a torrent - is that likely to affect sales ? Are the sorts of people who would use stolen content ever likely to have paid a licensing fee in the first place ?
-
I don't know who will eat this loss - Istock or the credit card company.
Apart from the cost of administration, time etc is there actually a loss to eat ? Otherwise are these not just sales which never happened ?
The only way to say there was no loss is if you think intellectual property has no value. As people who make some or all of our living licensing our IP, I don't see how many of us on this board would be making that argument... ???
-
Seems I am late to this discussion, but I just have to agree that Kelly's admonishing contributors for not being thankful enough was pretty disgusting. Gostwyck nailed it by comparing it to Tony Hayward's "I just want my life back" remark. Also reminiscent of Kelly's other "Money isn't going to be what makes you happy" quip. Really, this guy should use some of the additional royalties Istock will be keeping to hire a PR person to proofread his posts.
I really don't think we want a PR spin. There's enough smoke and mirrors over there as it is. We're as well to know who we're dealing with.
-
The only way to say there was no loss is if you think intellectual property has no value. As people who make some or all of our living licensing our IP, I don't see how many of us on this board would be making that argument... ???
Only if you believe that this is going to result in significantly fewer licensing sales. Do many buyers really look for pirated images ?
We're in the business of licensing images via iStockphoto. It's the licenses to use the images which we sell via iStockphoto, not the images themselves.
I'm not saying that this is not serious. Credit card fraud is serious. From our points of view though it is not really a theft (from any of us) unless the image ends up getting used without a licensing fee being paid.
-
The only way to say there was no loss is if you think intellectual property has no value. As people who make some or all of our living licensing our IP, I don't see how many of us on this board would be making that argument... ???
Only if you believe that this is going to result in significantly fewer licensing sales. Do many buyers really look for pirated images ?
We're in the business of licensing images via iStockphoto. It's the licenses to use the images which we sell via iStockphoto, not the images themselves.
I'm not saying that this is not serious. Credit card fraud is serious. From our points of view though it is not really a theft (from any of us) unless the image ends up getting used without a licensing fee being paid.
From your point of view, obviously. Sure not from mine. It is theft of all the peoples images who got downloaded with the bogus cc. On top of any losses in sales they incur by having the file floating all over the net.
-
Cathy, you and I are on the same page. IP has value, and it's theft is still theft. We don't really know how damaging this will be financially to the artists because we don't know where these images will end up. But IMO there is the potential to damage sales of Istock's high end collections.
@Sue, good point about not needing any more PR spin from Istock. I just don't appreciate reading such condescending BS from the person who is ultimately in charge and responsible for these disasters on the site.
-
Cathy, you and I are on the same page. IP has value, and it's theft is still theft. We don't really know how damaging this will be financially to the artists because we don't know where these images will end up. But IMO there is the potential to damage sales of Istock's high end collections.
I think that in general terms it also damages the value of IP as a whole too when it ends up on free download sites or cheap CD's. If the images were not easily available to use via access to stolen goods then some of those using them might just go to the legitimate sites and realize that you have to pay (sometimes dearly) for good content. I'm sure that there are users out there that will look for the least expensive option and not realize that the least expensive means is because they are accessing stolen goods. But it also puts it in their mind that they should not have to pay for that type of content when it's available cheaply or free, creating a devaluation of the overall marketplace.
-
Cathy, you and I are on the same page. IP has value, and it's theft is still theft. We don't really know how damaging this will be financially to the artists because we don't know where these images will end up. But IMO there is the potential to damage sales of Istock's high end collections.
I think that in general terms it also damages the value of IP as a whole too when it ends up on free download sites or cheap CD's. If the images were not easily available to use via access to stolen goods then some of those using them might just go to the legitimate sites and realize that you have to pay (sometimes dearly) for good content. I'm sure that there are users out there that will look for the least expensive option and not realize that the least expensive means is because they are accessing stolen goods. But it also puts it in their mind that they should not have to pay for that type of content when it's available cheaply or free, creating a devaluation of the overall marketplace.
And the images may not be available for free. The thieves could very well charge for the images, in which case the person paying would have no clue whatsoever that they are stolen!
-
I agree with what others have said about Kelly's statement.
He sounded as though he was talking down to a bunch of unruly five-year olds, rather than giving reassurance to hard-working artists whose livelihoods depend on a well-functioning and secure sales portal.
-
Finally a response - direct from Kelly Thompson:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url])
it was credit card fraud and they knew it several days ago and have had a skeleton crew working on it. still a big wow that someone was able to do this much damage.
The spin is making me dizzy.
Again with the "you should feel indebted to us because we caught it". No, THAT'S YOUR JOB! YOU GET PAID FOR IT. A HEFTY SUM!
I'm pretty sure he actually meant to say, "thanks to all you contributors for making this a great year for all of us at Getty/IS. If it weren't for your hard work, I wouldn't be living the life of luxury."
I posted this earlier, but I think it needs reposting.
-
Finally a response - direct from Kelly Thompson:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url])
it was credit card fraud and they knew it several days ago and have had a skeleton crew working on it. still a big wow that someone was able to do this much damage.
The spin is making me dizzy.
Again with the "you should feel indebted to us because we caught it". No, THAT'S YOUR JOB! YOU GET PAID FOR IT. A HEFTY SUM!
I'm pretty sure he actually meant to say, "thanks to all you contributors for making this a great year for all of us at Getty/IS. If it weren't for your hard work, I wouldn't be living the life of luxury."
I posted this earlier, but I think it needs reposting.
He should also have said "thanks to some very diligent contributors for bringing it to our attention". His claims that they were aware of it are highly suspect. If they were aware of it, it should NEVER have gotten as bad as it did or gone on for as long.
-
Oh well said Cathy!
You too Cas.
-
Just read KK's response as i was out last night; it ticks me off, to put it VERY polite and understated...
I know, and am made very clear too, that we contributors are annoying, whining PoS's ...but we're not imbeciles.
Of course this is theft, its not because its nothing physical that was taken it makes it different, they have stolen the biggest versions of the most valuable collections on istock (and most likely dont have bonafide plans with it either) which is worth $1000's and $1000's of dollars to the contributor AND istock. Saying this isnt really theft beats me...
I console myself with the thought that while i keep bending for them, they've collected so much bad karma 2011 will be a disaster year for them...one fail after another, contributors and buyers banging the doors and windows while they desperately keep sticking fingers and toes in every crack of the bursting dam. While KK is watching from his luxury million penthouse of course...
-
Hi All,
I had a 27.54 dollar extended license today and it was posted before yesterdays sales were. It seems to have sold for the correct amount though. Are you seeing the larger items sold for less than they are supposed to? Thanks for the feedback. I'm not exclusive.
Best,
Jonathan
-
@Jonathan, no this doesn't appear to have anything to do with ELs. The issue here is that some person or persons has downloaded many thousands of dollars worth of largest-available-size images, mainly from Vetta and Agency collections, using stolen credit cards. A read through this thread and the Istock one should tell you what you need to know :)
@Cathy, well stated on what KK should have said. But that would have required some humility, which is sadly lacking.
-
it was posted before yesterdays sales were.
EL sales always appear virtually immediately in the stats graph, well before normal sales are shown.
-
it amazes me that contributors don't seem to hold themselves to the same standards of communication they expect from admins.
I'm not sure that's true. I think the anger comes from the way they ignore us. Look at the long september threads. How many sensible and important questions were asked and just ignored, and still remain unanswered? The silence creates a strong impression of contempt and when you are openly arrogant and contemptuous of people, showing no interest in valid concerns about the way you are treating them, you have to expect that they will react negatively.
Exactly!
Exactamundo.
And matters in general (to say nothing of communication) are only made worse when the captain of the ship logs on to flog us in the forums over worthy concern and outrage. Frankly, I think people are pretty self-censored with regard to iStock and all the many issues, at this point. I know I bite my tongue to the point of blood spatter, when I do post. Both here and over there. Because, in the end, iStock is still my exclusive agent (though soon too be just one of many agents of mine) and therefore I genuinely want them to get their effing sh*t together to best/better sell my work.
-
The only way to say there was no loss is if you think intellectual property has no value. As people who make some or all of our living licensing our IP, I don't see how many of us on this board would be making that argument... ???
Only if you believe that this is going to result in significantly fewer licensing sales. Do many buyers really look for pirated images ?
We're in the business of licensing images via iStockphoto. It's the licenses to use the images which we sell via iStockphoto, not the images themselves.
I'm not saying that this is not serious. Credit card fraud is serious. From our points of view though it is not really a theft (from any of us) unless the image ends up getting used without a licensing fee being paid.
I agree.
-
I thought KK's response was condescending, rude, immature and just a bit snotty. He may be under stress, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I think ( as previously mentioned) he could could use a PR person.
The only good thing I can say about his response is at least it did not sound like it came from a robot spewing canned responses, as most of the admin postings often sound, but like a pissed-off human being, who "wants his like back".
I like IS, and make a lot more money from them than any other site, but I am sorry, the place is a mess right now.
-
Hey There,
Thanks for the help all. I appreciate it.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi All,
If this is a scam and images have been purchased by illegal funds in the past it is always been the photographer that pays the price along with the agency. No sale is reported after the problems are fixed and those sales are removed from your revenue. I hope this won't be the case in microstock, I see this as a great chance for Istock to step up for their contributors who have been feeling a bit let down by the company as of late, I hope it ends up that way. My two cents.
Best,
Jonathan
-
@Jonathan, no this doesn't appear to have anything to do with ELs. The issue here is that some person or persons has downloaded many thousands of dollars worth of largest-available-size images, mainly from Vetta and Agency collections, using stolen credit cards. A read through this thread and the Istock one should tell you what you need to know :)
@Cathy, well stated on what KK should have said. But that would have required some humility, which is sadly lacking.
i dont have any image in vetta or exclusiveplus but i have also many sells. i think they bought mostly populer files.
Do you know that when they started to download? i just checked 1credit=1$ downloads in biggest size and i found they started in 17th Dec. and its contuniued till 26th.
Their description was very unfortunate.
-
Hi All,
If this is a scam and images have been purchased by illegal funds in the past it is always been the photographer that pays the price along with the agency. No sale is reported after the problems are fixed and those sales are removed from your revenue. I hope this won't be the case in microstock, I see this as a great chance for Istock to step up for their contributors who have been feeling a bit let down by the company as of late, I hope it ends up that way. My two cents.
Best,
Jonathan
You are way behind the curve ...
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=11 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=11)
Posted By joyze:
In the past 6 days we have received a large amount of fraudulent purchases and downloads. We are working fervently to add new security measures to our purchasing process to prevent this from continuing or happening again. The implementations are happening as we speak.
While we don't normally correct royalties on fraudulent downloads, in this case, we will need to make an exception. We'll notify you next week of the royalty amount that will be adjusted from your account before we do so. Redeemed credits will also be corrected.
-
I thought KK's response was condescending, rude, immature and just a bit snotty. He may be under stress, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I think ( as previously mentioned) he could could use a PR person.
His official Spin Doctor is 'Roger Mexico', so I take all RM's half-informative posts with a big pinch of salt; but he's out of the building as he announced with great noise. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=285392&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=285392&page=1)
Maybe he was surreptitiously giving advanced notice of the strife which was to come.
-
I hate this BS. This is something that has always bothered me about DT too.
We pay them a huge percentage to take care of the distribution of our work, but when they f*ck up on their security guess who gets the bill?
This is hardly going to encourage the agencies to take the protection of our work seriously is it?
You do wonder if they have any responsibilities at all in the business relationship we're supposed to have with each other.
-
I thought KK's response was condescending, rude, immature and just a bit snotty. He may be under stress, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I think ( as previously mentioned) he could could use a PR person.
His official Spin Doctor is 'Roger Mexico', so I take all RM's half-informative posts with a big pinch of salt; but he's out of the building as he announced with great noise. [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=285392&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=285392&page=1[/url])
Maybe he was surreptitiously giving advanced notice of the strife which was to come.
Another person making light of the whole situation. Yeppers, merry ho-ho, and Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Holidays and all the rest of it. The new tagline for istock.
-
I hate this BS. This is something that has always bothered me about DT too.
We pay them a huge percentage to take care of the distribution of our work, but when they f*ck up on their security guess who gets the bill?
This is hardly going to encourage the agencies to take the protection of our work seriously is it?
You do wonder if they have any responsibilities at all in the business relationship we're supposed to have with each other.
That would be a big fat no.
-
When i checked the iS forums this morning there was a thread made by a contributor (whiteway) who also had 'fraudulent transactions'. He posted that when he googled his name today he got A LOT more hits than usual, all leading to what google calls 'attack sites' (if i recall the post correct).
Wanted to see the replies but there's no sign of the thread anymore... Ho ho ho indeed.
-
You do wonder if they have any responsibilities at all in the business relationship we're supposed to have with each other.
no, No, NO - you clearly don't get it.
We have all the restrictive responsibilities, especially if exclusive, they have only rights.
We signed up to it in the artists' supply agreement http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php) or http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php) whereupon they exempt themselves of any repsonsibilies or liabilities, which may or may not hold water in Canada.
But note 16.4 says, "If all or part of any provision of this Agreement is wholly or partially unenforceable, the parties or, in the event the parties are unable to agree, a court of competent jurisdiction, shall put in place of such whole or part provision an enforceable provision or provisions, that as nearly as possible reflects the terms of the unenforceable whole or part provision."
Again another piece of bad writing. What on earth is "the parties or, in the event the parties are" meant to signify?
I wish, and have said it so often, that they'd pay the Plain English Society to rewrite all their legal stuff and all their announcements.
-
When i checked the iS forums this morning there was a thread made by a contributor (whiteway) who also had 'fraudulent transactions'. He posted that when he googled his name today he got A LOT more hits than usual, all leading to what google calls 'attack sites' (if i recall the post correct).
Wanted to see the replies but there's no sign of the thread anymore... Ho ho ho indeed.
The thread is http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287042&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287042&page=1)
-
When i checked the iS forums this morning there was a thread made by a contributor (whiteway) who also had 'fraudulent transactions'. He posted that when he googled his name today he got A LOT more hits than usual, all leading to what google calls 'attack sites' (if i recall the post correct).
Wanted to see the replies but there's no sign of the thread anymore... Ho ho ho indeed.
I've had that since not long after I joined, on many sites, with the same surrounding text in several. It's probably done by a harvesting bot. I previously got it from Usenet and/or my personal website. I'm even down as having written user testimonials on things I've never even heard of, at least twice with my name and istockphoto underneath (randomly harvested, nothing to do with photography).
-
Ah they moved the thread.
I have that too ShadySue, more with SS than others...my sleepy brain misinterpreted the post; i read this popped up after that attacks :-\
-
Ah they moved the thread.
I have that too ShadySue, more with SS than others...my sleepy brain misinterpreted the post; i read this popped up after that attacks :-\
Yes, to the off-topic section where no one will see it, as Sirimo says it doesn't directly involve istockphoto. ???
-
Hi All,
If this is a scam and images have been purchased by illegal funds in the past it is always been the photographer that pays the price along with the agency. No sale is reported after the problems are fixed and those sales are removed from your revenue. I hope this won't be the case in microstock, I see this as a great chance for Istock to step up for their contributors who have been feeling a bit let down by the company as of late, I hope it ends up that way. My two cents.
Best,
Jonathan
my prediction: not gonna happen.
-
i dont have any image in vetta or exclusiveplus but i have also many sells. i think they bought mostly populer files.
Do you know that when they started to download? i just checked 1credit=1$ downloads in biggest size and i found they started in 17th Dec. and its contuniued till 26th.
Their description was very unfortunate.
I got a few questionable XXL sales during that time period too, but for the most part it still appears that Vetta and Agency were the most targeted.
-
Kelly's post tonight was salt in the wound. I didn't appreciate being admonished for expressing concern. I'm tired of watching contributors getting their wrists slapped for reacting to poor communication. It is OUR work that fuels their business.
I agree with this 100%.
I'm tired of being addressed like ungrateful children. Kelly seems to have a pretty strong us vs. them mentality and it doesn't give me any hope that iStock will actually attempt to improve communication with contributors.
-
^ unfortunately we have some real winners communicating on behalf of 'all' contributors too...so frankly I think effective communication in the forums is unrealistic. I'd say many of us of with serious concerns go straight to one another to discuss, or straight to HQ with questions. I certainly don't look for any real answers in the forums these days. I just get the general idea of what's happening in the forums.
-
So it appears, according to this thread: http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/odd-sales-pattern-here-too/msg177476/?topicseen#new, (http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/odd-sales-pattern-here-too/msg177476/?topicseen#new,) that there are some suspicious sales on another site. However, they seem to be catching the fraudulent activity almost immediately. Makes iStock look even more pathetically incompetent. And they are the biggest player in the microstock game!
-
So it appears, according to this thread: [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/odd-sales-pattern-here-too/msg177476/?topicseen#new,[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/odd-sales-pattern-here-too/msg177476/?topicseen#new,[/url]) that there are some suspicious sales on another site. However, they seem to be catching the fraudulent activity almost immediately. Makes iStock look even more pathetically incompetent. And they are the biggest player in the microstock game!
that is exactly what I was thinking. heavy sigh.
-
So it appears, according to this thread: [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/odd-sales-pattern-here-too/msg177476/?topicseen#new,[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/odd-sales-pattern-here-too/msg177476/?topicseen#new,[/url]) that there are some suspicious sales on another site. However, they seem to be catching the fraudulent activity almost immediately. Makes iStock look even more pathetically incompetent. And they are the biggest player in the microstock game!
that is exactly what I was thinking. heavy sigh.
Even MORE embarrassing to iStock is to see how BigStock has acted quickly to put a lid on the fraud and had people WORKING THROUGH THE HOLIDAYS to fix it. And how quickly they have shown their face right here on MSG to reassure worried contributors.
And just highlights even further the total arrogance of those at iStock, with their snippy retorts to contributors' concerns on the forums. And they wonder why people are freaking out on them. Duh!
-
These days, Istock look more like a chicken running with no head. It bangs from one wall to another...