Author Topic: Fraud going down at IS (Read 46055 times)

caspixel · « **Reply #75 on:** December 28, 2010, 13:35 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 28, 2010, 12:58

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".

loop · « **Reply #76 on:** December 28, 2010, 14:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 28, 2010, 10:12

Quote from: azurelaroux on December 28, 2010, 09:48
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.

loop · « **Reply #77 on:** December 28, 2010, 14:25 »

Quote from: jamirae on December 28, 2010, 11:51

Quote from: leremy on December 28, 2010, 11:42
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...

VB inc · « **Reply #78 on:** December 28, 2010, 17:12 »

i wouldnt be surprised if the culprit was somehow involved in microstock. maybe a contributor or an exclusive really upset over the sep announcement

lisafx · « **Reply #79 on:** December 28, 2010, 17:32 »

Quote from: VB inc on December 28, 2010, 17:12

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.

iclick · « **Reply #80 on:** December 28, 2010, 17:55 »

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

cathyslife · « **Reply #81 on:** December 28, 2010, 17:57 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 28, 2010, 17:32

Quote from: VB inc on December 28, 2010, 17:12
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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #82 on:** December 28, 2010, 19:17 »

Kelly has been on (not before time) with an explanation (stolen credit cards).

jamirae · « **Reply #83 on:** December 28, 2010, 19:19 »

Finally a response - direct from Kelly Thompson:

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #84 on:** December 28, 2010, 19:41 »

Quote from: jamirae on December 28, 2010, 19:19

Finally a response - direct from Kelly Thompson:

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.

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."

SNP · « **Reply #85 on:** December 28, 2010, 20:44 »

Quote from: loop on December 28, 2010, 14:18

Quote from: sjlocke on December 28, 2010, 10:12
Quote from: azurelaroux on December 28, 2010, 09:48
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.

caspixel · « **Reply #86 on:** December 28, 2010, 20:50 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 28, 2010, 19:41

Quote from: jamirae on December 28, 2010, 19:19
Finally a response - direct from Kelly Thompson:

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.

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).

SNP · « **Reply #87 on:** December 28, 2010, 20:54 »

^ 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.

caspixel · « **Reply #88 on:** December 28, 2010, 20:58 »

Quote from: SNP on December 28, 2010, 20:54

^ 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.

SNP · « **Reply #89 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:09 »

^ 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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #90 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:15 »

Quote from: SNP on December 28, 2010, 21:09

^ 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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #91 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:17 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 28, 2010, 20:58

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.

caspixel · « **Reply #92 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:21 »

Quote from: SNP on December 28, 2010, 21:09

^ 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.

SNP · « **Reply #93 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:23 »

well, I don't agree. but I don't disagree....today anyways. what a mess.

caspixel · « **Reply #94 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:27 »

Quote from: SNP on December 28, 2010, 21:23

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #95 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:32 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 28, 2010, 21:21

Well, this is the "new" iStock we're talking about, so I feel fairly comfortable in saying they won't handle it properly.

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.

caspixel · « **Reply #96 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:33 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 28, 2010, 21:32

Quote from: caspixel on December 28, 2010, 21:21
Well, this is the "new" iStock we're talking about, so I feel fairly comfortable in saying they won't handle it properly.

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!

SNP · « **Reply #97 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:35 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 28, 2010, 21:27

Quote from: SNP on December 28, 2010, 21:23
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.

caspixel · « **Reply #98 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:43 »

Quote from: SNP on December 28, 2010, 21:35

Quote from: caspixel on December 28, 2010, 21:27
Quote from: SNP on December 28, 2010, 21:23
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.

SNP · « **Reply #99 on:** December 28, 2010, 21:49 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fraud going down at IS (Read 46055 times)

caspixel

loop

loop

VB inc

lisafx

iclick

cathyslife

ShadySue

jamirae

cathyslife

SNP

caspixel

SNP

caspixel

SNP

cathyslife

gostwyck

caspixel

SNP

caspixel

gostwyck

caspixel

SNP

caspixel

SNP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors