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?)

Quote from: SNP on December 28, 2010, 21:49

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 ). $100 says that is the last you will hear of it. And that they will pocket the money.

... is the correct answer!

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

� 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

This was just posted in the IS forum in this thread:

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....;-)

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.

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.

Quote from: SNP on December 28, 2010, 22:48

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..

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.

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.

^^^
Thank you SNP, succinct and on point!

Quote from: SNP on December 28, 2010, 21:49

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 ). $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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!