Author Topic: Going over Kelly's head: an iStock contributorship call to action (Read 18152 times)

OhGoAway! · « **on:** April 15, 2011, 18:33 »

Friends and fellow contributors:

As we continue to identify and struggle with site troubles, bugs, and other legacy issues in addition to the changes from last fall, our frustrations seem to mount ever higher. Our eroding faith in and dissatisfaction with iStock has many contributors discussing the idea of a third-party audit and, potentially, a class-action lawsuit. Rather than abandon our relationship with the company completely, however, many of us have discussed other avenues toward ameliorating the problems and addressing our myriad concerns. To this end, a few of us have taken a preliminary step in this direction; we have written the following general letter, addressed to Hellman & Friedman, in hopes that they will act so that we, the contributors, do not have to take these additional and potentially irrevocable steps ourselves. It is our hope that, in its role as investors/owners, Hellman & Friedman will take our concerns to heart by reviewing and resolving said issues. However, in order to get Hellman & Friedman to do this, you must do your part by making your wishes known. That is why we are asking you to print, sign, and snail mail the following letter directly to Hellman & Friedman. Adapt it as you wish, but do send it along if, like us, you are tired of voicing your concerns to iStockphoto directly and getting unsatisfactory answers or results.

Please post your letters to Mr. Andy Ballard and Mr. Brian Powers. Both are Managing Directors of Hellman & Friedman and Directors at Getty Images, Inc. The address is:

Hellman & Friedman LLC
390 Park Avenue
21st Floor
New York, NY 10022

Thank you.

----------------------------------

Dear Hellman & Friedman,

As one of your current holdings under the Getty family of companies, the present discord at iStockphoto LP between contributors and management should be of the utmost concern to you. Perhaps you are unaware and do not follow the forums on iStockphoto or Microstock Group forum (and perhaps then, you should) but without touching on the myriad problems at present, I will simply highlight one - failure to pay contributors what they are owed.

Per the fraudulent purchases from December onward, thousands (if not millions) of dollars were clawed back from contributing artists. Our intellectual property was indisputably stolen and is now in the hands of persons or entities unknown, being sold or distributed around the world without our consent or compensation for an unknown stretch of time into the future. This represents an affront on many levels, and at the very least, it is my belief, and that of many of my fellow contributing artists, that we should be compensated for the "sale" of the files initially purchased, fraudulent sale or not. In essence, we believe it is only right and fair that the money taken from us by iStockphoto LP for these fraudulent sales should be returned to us immediately. This in no way addresses the potential losses incurred by the artist resulting from fewer sales over the life of the photo (because of its black market distribution), but this solution would go far toward reassuring contributors that iStock recognizes their culpability in not protecting our intellectual property, as an agent should do.

Beyond that, details of the fraudulent sales are difficult to determine. iStockphoto has, in many instances, simply refused to give specifics to the contributors, and, when it has, those details have often not matched up with contributor account information. It would seem, given the breadth and depth of site and policy issues currently plaguing iStockphoto LP, a third-party audit is in order. Trust in iStockphoto and its management team has largely been lost and with a single look at either of the two forums mentioned, one discovers a wealth of threads detailing contributors' anger and frustration.

So before the company loses more exclusive content and contributors as artists begin to drop their exclusive commitment to iStockphoto LP, it may be prudent to act and straighten out the mess that iStockphoto has become. The most valuable piece of the Getty family of companies, iStockphoto can still be a key investment for Hellman if in good shape. And wouldn't that be the goal if you are, ultimately, to sell the company in future?

As it seems clear that Getty itself has no interest or authority in addressing these matters, I implore you to uphold the esteemed values that you have outlined for Hellman & Friedman's investment approach in order to set right iStockphoto LP:

"... the most important assets are the intangibles: the people, their business practices and intellectual capital, and their customer relationships. H&F has developed considerable experience addressing the complex issues often presented by investments in businesses of this type, including the importance of structuring appropriate incentive compensations plans and management retention programs."

If it seems that iStockphoto LP or Getty does not value its contributors or their intellectual capital, its relationship with us, or aboveboard business practices, I have confidence that - in contrast - Hellman & Friedman does value and properly understand these points and their merits.

I thank you for your time and look forward to the swift handling of these matters in lieu of what we contributors have been talking about - seeking out legal counsel and looking into a class-action lawsuit, based on the findings of an independent third-party audit.

Sincerely,

[Sign your name here]

nruboc · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2011, 18:57 »

Nicely put

caspixel · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2011, 19:22 »

Great letter. Go get 'em. And keep us posted on the progress.

Risamay · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2011, 19:24 »

Thumbs up! Printing, signing, and snail mailing ...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2011, 19:42 »

Quote

Friends and fellow contributors:

I don't know that. How about letting in on your name and all, if you're going to get all legal and business-ish like this?

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2011, 20:12 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 15, 2011, 19:42

Quote
Friends and fellow contributors:

I don't know that. How about letting in on your name and all, if you're going to get all legal and business-ish like this?

How about not. Trust that I am a fellow contributor, as are the others involved in the drafting of this letter. Whether we're friends or not, depends on those of us you address individually. Regardless, I have no intention of being bated into using my contributor name, when there is absolutely no transparency evident that assures me -- without question -- that individuals cannot be penalized for outside statements. I still have posting privileges on iStock, and, despite my distrust of their policies, I do enjoy my earnings (what little there are of them these days) and intend to keep it this way.

If you feel so maligned by my address of "friends and fellow contributors," then please feel free to disregard the "friend" part.

nruboc · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2011, 20:17 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 15, 2011, 19:42

Quote
Friends and fellow contributors:

I don't know that. How about letting in on your name and all, if you're going to get all legal and business-ish like this?

Strange that you would think he should give his name when posting a letter like this, but have nothing to say when anonymous exclusives who do nothing but defend IStock at every turn, bash on people....well ok, if you can't see the distinction

nruboc · « **Reply #7 on:** April 15, 2011, 20:19 »

Quote from: OhGoAway! on April 15, 2011, 20:12

Quote from: sjlocke on April 15, 2011, 19:42
Quote
Friends and fellow contributors:

I don't know that. How about letting in on your name and all, if you're going to get all legal and business-ish like this?

How about not. Trust that I am a fellow contributor, as are the others involved in the drafting of this letter. Whether we're friends or not, depends on those of us you address individually. Regardless, I have no intention of being bated into using my contributor name, when there is absolutely no transparency evident that assures me -- without question -- that individuals cannot be penalized for outside statements. I still have posting privileges on iStock, and, despite my distrust of their policies, I do enjoy my earnings (what little there are of them these days) and intend to keep it this way.

If you feel so maligned by my address of "friends and fellow contributors," then please feel free to disregard the "friend" part.

Thought that would be obvious, but guess not.....

SNP · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2011, 20:23 »

Quote from: OhGoAway! on April 15, 2011, 20:12

Quote from: sjlocke on April 15, 2011, 19:42
Quote
Friends and fellow contributors:

I don't know that. How about letting in on your name and all, if you're going to get all legal and business-ish like this?

How about not. Trust that I am a fellow contributor, as are the others involved in the drafting of this letter. Whether we're friends or not, depends on those of us you address individually. Regardless, I have no intention of being bated into using my contributor name, when there is absolutely no transparency evident that assures me -- without question -- that individuals cannot be penalized for outside statements. I still have posting privileges on iStock, and, despite my distrust of their policies, I do enjoy my earnings (what little there are of them these days) and intend to keep it this way.

If you feel so maligned by my address of "friends and fellow contributors," then please feel free to disregard the "friend" part.

and yet presumably your real name is going on the letter you've sent to H&F. or did you send that anonymously also? why would anyone, who takes their business seriously, consider mailing this?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2011, 20:31 »

Quote from: nruboc on April 15, 2011, 20:17

Strange that you would think he should give his name when posting a letter like this, but have nothing to say when anonymous exclusives who do nothing but defend IStock at every turn, bash on people....well ok, if you can't see the distinction

Whatever.

Look, that letter is awfully wordy, and it took me a while to find what you actually were asking for. You want the money back that IS took back due to the fraud that occurred. Ain't gonna happen. Not only is it months gone by now and people have moved on, but contractually they don't owe it to us:
"In all cases, payment of fees to the Supplier will be net of: .... (ii) bad debts or other uncollectible sums; "

Not that I wouldn't like it or don't feel it would be justified - I lost over $9000 or so. I just don't see it happening. There won't be any audit - there's no facility in the agreement to ask for one, like there is on Getty. No one is going to make a class action lawsuit either.

So, you can print and mail the letter. I just think you have better things you could be addressing, with a better chance of success.

Risamay · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2011, 21:50 »

Quote from: SNP on April 15, 2011, 20:23

and yet presumably your real name is going on the letter you've sent to H&F. or did you send that anonymously also? why would anyone, who takes their business seriously, consider mailing this?

I think we all take this seriously or we wouldn't be here. We'd be off doing other things. But thanks for letting me know you don't consider me to be someone who takes my stock photo side-business seriously

Personally, I'm happy for a form letter that I can now personalize as I like. Plus, seems to me it'd have a greater possibility of effecting change if we're all mailing in similar letters covering basic issues. Isn't that the way most letter-writing campaigns and such work?

I'm not holding my breath where results are concerned, but if we don't kick the issues up higher, how can we possibly hope for change? To keep complaining or raising issues to iStock - about iStock - is to continue banging our heads on a brick wall and (continue to) get nowhere fast. To say nothing of a continually worsening, raging migraine!

ETA: The bigger a company gets, the less its owners actually know what the heck is going on at ground-level. Management and oversight only gets more cumbersome to do well as a business grows and does better. So for all we know, H&F knows nothing of what's *really* going on at IS and might well be happy that someone brought the brouhaha(s) to its attention. You just never know. Long story short, I once had exceptionally disappointing service at a major chain restaurant in college. My friend and I asked to speak with the manager. The manager was even more rude and colorful than our waitress. As the manager was spewing madness, I opened my purse and started taking notes. The manager watched me do this, and kept going. I even went so far as to tell her I intended to contact her superiors and she was like, "Go right the eff ahead." And I did. And she was fired as a result, as was the waitress. The entire staff at that location received a week-long customer service training, and I was given my money back and several vouchers for meals on the house. But all of that happened *only* because I spoke up [for myself].

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #11 on:** April 15, 2011, 22:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 15, 2011, 20:31

Quote from: nruboc on April 15, 2011, 20:17
Strange that you would think he should give his name when posting a letter like this, but have nothing to say when anonymous exclusives who do nothing but defend IStock at every turn, bash on people....well ok, if you can't see the distinction

Whatever.

Look, that letter is awfully wordy, and it took me a while to find what you actually were asking for. You want the money back that IS took back due to the fraud that occurred. Ain't gonna happen. Not only is it months gone by now and people have moved on, but contractually they don't owe it to us:
"In all cases, payment of fees to the Supplier will be net of: .... (ii) bad debts or other uncollectible sums; "

Not that I wouldn't like it or don't feel it would be justified - I lost over $9000 or so. I just don't see it happening. There won't be any audit - there's no facility in the agreement to ask for one, like there is on Getty. No one is going to make a class action lawsuit either.

So, you can print and mail the letter. I just think you have better things you could be addressing, with a better chance of success.

So far, I don't see any leadership stepping up from among the ranks. Personally, I'd welcome your insight -- or the insight of any number of bigger players than myself -- but outside NicoBlue, I don't anticipate much. This was an idea that was proposed by a fellow contributor and we collectively felt we could pursue on our budget (i.e., nothing). I'm happy to support other member-driven initiatives -- if only I could find some.

lagereek · « **Reply #12 on:** April 16, 2011, 00:09 »

With due respect but this is the wrong way to go about anything. Sorry.

sharpshot · « **Reply #13 on:** April 16, 2011, 02:01 »

I think things have become much worse with istock since Hellman & Friedman bought Getty. It just looks like they don't have any interest in contributors, they are focused on making as much money as possible from their asset. Good luck with this but I think the only weapon contributors have is their portfolios. I don't think they will become contributor friendly unless they realize that their business could be financially damaged by their contributors. I don't see istock improving until new buyers come along that are more interested in a long term investment.

gclk · « **Reply #14 on:** April 16, 2011, 03:20 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 16, 2011, 00:09

With due respect but this is the wrong way to go about anything. Sorry.

Do you mean writing to H&F is the wrong way to go about it, or you don't agree with what was said in the letter itself?

For me, I agree with Sean - although it stinks, the issue of the fraud money already returned is not something they're going to do anything about.

But I don't think that writing to H&F to outline concerns is a bad idea, and I don't think it's out of order to do so. Many of us could legitimately say that we've done our best to raise concerns directly to iStockphoto, and had no success: forum threads have been locked or deleted; support messages have had no response, and sitemails/emails to management have been ignored. Back in September/October when I got zero response from Support or KKT, I considered writing a letter to iStock & GI CEO Jonathan Klein and Getty Images Chairman Mark Getty, but decided against it at that time.

It's perfectly possible that management at H&F have little or no idea about the level of misgivings among iStock contributors. Presumably there's some kind of reporting system for iStock to feed high level information up the reporting structure. Perhaps if it's a weekly update, maybe they'd say:
- Sales turnover this week: $X.XX million
- Commission taken this week: $X.XX million
- Cumulative commission taken this financial year: $XX.XX million
- XXX new customers signed up
- Customers have purchased $X.XX million worth of credits
- $XXXX worth of expired credits
- XX referrals from iStock subscriptions to Thinkstock resulting in new Thinkstock accounts
- Staffing update: X resignations this week, X new starts; Currently advertising for 9 positions in Calgary, 5 in Europe, 2 in Brazil
- Press articles: no significant news
- etc...

But I doubt if iStock management would include:
- Contributor complaints at a very high level, approaching Sept 2010's record level. Support received XXX messages of concern or complaint.
- Most issues raised have been about iStock management failing to honour commitments posted on the site
- XX contributor threads were locked because they contained complaints that we don't want anybody to discuss
- X contributors threads were deleted because they contained complaints that we don't want anybody to see
- X contributors have removed their portfolios entirely from iStockphoto
- XX exclusive contributors have requested to drop their exclusivity and will be uploading their content to competitor sites in approximately 30 days.
- We had a conference call with concerned vector artists and had them sign a NDA. They won't be discussing any details until we release an update at a time of our choosing.
- etc

Regarding the identity of those writing to H&F - imho not wanting to reveal identities here is fine, but if organising a campaign to write to H&F in numbers, real identities need to be used for those letters to be taken seriously. For many reasons, but one of them being that if twenty anonymous iStock contributors write to H&F to raise concerns, how would know that all the letters didn't all come from one person?

cobalt · « **Reply #15 on:** April 16, 2011, 04:59 »

...or even from a competitor...its a business classic...

Don't mean to say that the OP doesn't have genuine concerns and that many istockers have reasons to be upset.

I agree with Sean the fraud issue is over and done with and it is certainly one, that management is aware of. They lost a lot more money than the contributors, Istock had to give their part back as well (which they probably already used for ongoing payments, wages, marketing)

If you are going to write, you definetly need to put your real name and business adress.

I believe that there are other ways of dealing with all the agencies, but I am not against writing to management if necessary.

Again, it is a normal part of business and I wouldnt be surprised if at every event or tunr someone already is writing to them. With over 70 000 contributors, they must be getting their share in the mail.

michealo · « **Reply #16 on:** April 16, 2011, 05:26 »

I think it's an excellent idea - shareholder or stakeholder activism is very powerful.

lagereek · « **Reply #17 on:** April 16, 2011, 05:49 »

Quote from: gclk on April 16, 2011, 03:20

Quote from: lagereek on April 16, 2011, 00:09
With due respect but this is the wrong way to go about anything. Sorry.

Do you mean writing to H&F is the wrong way to go about it, or you don't agree with what was said in the letter itself?

For me, I agree with Sean - although it stinks, the issue of the fraud money already returned is not something they're going to do anything about.

But I don't think that writing to H&F to outline concerns is a bad idea, and I don't think it's out of order to do so. Many of us could legitimately say that we've done our best to raise concerns directly to iStockphoto, and had no success: forum threads have been locked or deleted; support messages have had no response, and sitemails/emails to management have been ignored. Back in September/October when I got zero response from Support or KKT, I considered writing a letter to iStock & GI CEO Jonathan Klein and Getty Images Chairman Mark Getty, but decided against it at that time.

It's perfectly possible that management at H&F have little or no idea about the level of misgivings among iStock contributors. Presumably there's some kind of reporting system for iStock to feed high level information up the reporting structure. Perhaps if it's a weekly update, maybe they'd say:
- Sales turnover this week: $X.XX million
- Commission taken this week: $X.XX million
- Cumulative commission taken this financial year: $XX.XX million
- XXX new customers signed up
- Customers have purchased $X.XX million worth of credits
- $XXXX worth of expired credits
- XX referrals from iStock subscriptions to Thinkstock resulting in new Thinkstock accounts
- Staffing update: X resignations this week, X new starts; Currently advertising for 9 positions in Calgary, 5 in Europe, 2 in Brazil
- Press articles: no significant news
- etc...

But I doubt if iStock management would include:
- Contributor complaints at a very high level, approaching Sept 2010's record level. Support received XXX messages of concern or complaint.
- Most issues raised have been about iStock management failing to honour commitments posted on the site
- XX contributor threads were locked because they contained complaints that we don't want anybody to discuss
- X contributors threads were deleted because they contained complaints that we don't want anybody to see
- X contributors have removed their portfolios entirely from iStockphoto
- XX exclusive contributors have requested to drop their exclusivity and will be uploading their content to competitor sites in approximately 30 days.
- We had a conference call with concerned vector artists and had them sign a NDA. They won't be discussing any details until we release an update at a time of our choosing.
- etc

Regarding the identity of those writing to H&F - imho not wanting to reveal identities here is fine, but if organising a campaign to write to H&F in numbers, real identities need to be used for those letters to be taken seriously. For many reasons, but one of them being that if twenty anonymous iStock contributors write to H&F to raise concerns, how would know that all the letters didn't all come from one person?

H&F. dont give a * !! its probably them who are putting the thumbscrews on Getty who are putting the screws on IS, who are putting the screws on us!

Remember the old saying! crap always runs downhill.

RT · « **Reply #18 on:** April 16, 2011, 06:07 »

Quote from: OhGoAway! on April 15, 2011, 18:33

......but without touching on the myriad problems at present, I will simply highlight one - failure to pay contributors what they are owed.

Umm...they do pay contributors what they are owed, but assuming you're referring to the clawbacks from the credit card fraud instances we are not entitled to be paid for fraudulent transactions.

Quote from: OhGoAway! on April 15, 2011, 18:33

I thank you for your time and look forward to the swift handling of these matters in lieu of what we contributors have been talking about - seeking out legal counsel and looking into a class-action lawsuit, based on the findings of an independent third-party audit.

And you want to sue them for what exactly, acting within the law and the contract you signed with them! Good luck with that.

Quote from: OhGoAway! on April 15, 2011, 18:33

In essence, we believe it is only right and fair that the money taken from us by iStockphoto LP for these fraudulent sales should be returned to us immediately. This in no way addresses the potential losses incurred by the artist resulting from fewer sales over the life of the photo (because of its black market distribution), but this solution would go far toward reassuring contributors that iStock recognizes their culpability in not protecting our intellectual property, as an agent should do.

So you're saying that iStockphoto has benefitted from these fraudulent transactions - I hope you don't sign your name to this letter, or if you do I presume you can prove your statement because you are accusing them of an illegal act.

You like many of us are quite rightly very angry about the whole fraud thing, and this letter shows your anger. But your letter will be read by H+F and then thrown in the bin, they're a business and as annoying as it is you need to learn to understand that and forget your emotions. You also need to learn what exactly happened and what you're entitled to ask for because this letter shows you don't.

The best advice you can have is to get over it and move on.

cathyslife · « **Reply #19 on:** April 16, 2011, 07:21 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 16, 2011, 02:01

I think things have become much worse with istock since Hellman & Friedman bought Getty. It just looks like they don't have any interest in contributors, they are focused on making as much money as possible from their asset. Good luck with this but I think the only weapon contributors have is their portfolios. I don't think they will become contributor friendly unless they realize that their business could be financially damaged by their contributors. I don't see istock improving until new buyers come along that are more interested in a long term investment.

I agree with that statement.

I hope that this letter writing has some sort of effect, but the business really needs to be hit where it hurts...in the pocket. And that would take more than letter writing. That would take a whole bunch of contributors dropping exclusivity, stopping uploads or removing portfolios altogether. But again, that is the hard choice, and most contributors are happy with whatever little they are getting and aren't going to be willing to give up their income.

But I believe that doing something is better than doing nothing, so I hope your campaign helps.

SNP · « **Reply #20 on:** April 16, 2011, 10:26 »

Quote from: RT on April 16, 2011, 06:07

Quote from: OhGoAway! on April 15, 2011, 18:33
......but without touching on the myriad problems at present, I will simply highlight one - failure to pay contributors what they are owed.

Umm...they do pay contributors what they are owed, but assuming you're referring to the clawbacks from the credit card fraud instances we are not entitled to be paid for fraudulent transactions.

Quote from: OhGoAway! on April 15, 2011, 18:33
I thank you for your time and look forward to the swift handling of these matters in lieu of what we contributors have been talking about - seeking out legal counsel and looking into a class-action lawsuit, based on the findings of an independent third-party audit.

And you want to sue them for what exactly, acting within the law and the contract you signed with them! Good luck with that.

Quote from: OhGoAway! on April 15, 2011, 18:33
In essence, we believe it is only right and fair that the money taken from us by iStockphoto LP for these fraudulent sales should be returned to us immediately. This in no way addresses the potential losses incurred by the artist resulting from fewer sales over the life of the photo (because of its black market distribution), but this solution would go far toward reassuring contributors that iStock recognizes their culpability in not protecting our intellectual property, as an agent should do.

So you're saying that iStockphoto has benefitted from these fraudulent transactions - I hope you don't sign your name to this letter, or if you do I presume you can prove your statement because you are accusing them of an illegal act.

You like many of us are quite rightly very angry about the whole fraud thing, and this letter shows your anger. But your letter will be read by H+F and then thrown in the bin, they're a business and as annoying as it is you need to learn to understand that and forget your emotions. You also need to learn what exactly happened and what you're entitled to ask for because this letter shows you don't.

The best advice you can have is to get over it and move on.

the power we have is in our portfolios. so much has been happening over the last year. I think it's important to separate emotion from the fray and take a more objective approach. like cobalt said, they probably get letters like this on a regular basis. the greatest issue between me and iStock as an exclusive is the farming out of our work across partner sites and the gradual lowering of our royalties. the second-greatest issue for me is the flexible exclusivity that some contributors have, not to mention the massive influx of Getty collections into the iStock database.

I'm concerned that a partner program opt in will be compulsory at some point. not based on anything except watching where things are headed. I'm also most concerned about the distance that has grown between the community and operations. I fault contributors partly for this, who kicked up fuss after fuss in the iStock forums since the opt out badge campaign. not to negate concerns. now contributors are trying to publicly flame iStock/Getty and it all just seems like emotional ranting...even though it may be based on very legitimate concerns, the message is lost in the delivery. not to mention it's at the hands of people with far less to lose than heavy hitters who're sitting tight in general or going through proper channels.

I think the best thing contributors can do, no matter how upset, is take a step back and take an objective, realistic look at the situation.

stockastic · « **Reply #21 on:** April 16, 2011, 10:27 »

A noble attempt, and I applaud it, but don't hold your breath waiting for anything but a canned response from someone in their legal department. You're aiming 2 corporate tiers up from the point where the problem occurred and the decision was made. These at H&F see IStock itself as the "product" and what goes on inside IS day-to-day is of little interest to them.

jen · « **Reply #22 on:** April 16, 2011, 10:30 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 15, 2011, 20:31

Quote from: nruboc on April 15, 2011, 20:17
Strange that you would think he should give his name when posting a letter like this, but have nothing to say when anonymous exclusives who do nothing but defend IStock at every turn, bash on people....well ok, if you can't see the distinction

Whatever.

Look, that letter is awfully wordy, and it took me a while to find what you actually were asking for. You want the money back that IS took back due to the fraud that occurred. Ain't gonna happen. Not only is it months gone by now and people have moved on, but contractually they don't owe it to us:
"In all cases, payment of fees to the Supplier will be net of: .... (ii) bad debts or other uncollectible sums; "

Not that I wouldn't like it or don't feel it would be justified - I lost over $9000 or so. I just don't see it happening. There won't be any audit - there's no facility in the agreement to ask for one, like there is on Getty. No one is going to make a class action lawsuit either.

So, you can print and mail the letter. I just think you have better things you could be addressing, with a better chance of success.

I agree with Sean.

I also think you need to do more research. Your letter is obviously very angry, but a lot of it is also factually incorrect. (Like the part about iStock owing us the fraud money - as Sean pointed out, contractually they don't.) This letter would probably serve your interests better if you took a different approach (such as focusing on the "negligence" aspect of the fraud rather than the "iStock should give us the money as a gesture of goodwill" approach).

gostwyck · « **Reply #23 on:** April 16, 2011, 10:55 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 16, 2011, 07:21

I hope that this letter writing has some sort of effect, but the business really needs to be hit where it hurts...in the pocket. And that would take more than letter writing. That would take a whole bunch of contributors dropping exclusivity, stopping uploads or removing portfolios altogether. But again, that is the hard choice, and most contributors are happy with whatever little they are getting and aren't going to be willing to give up their income.

But I believe that doing something is better than doing nothing, so I hope your campaign helps.

I agree with Cathy. Although the letter is flawed in some respects it is good to see action being taken as well as thoughts expressed.

What I find so frustrating and galling about the situation with Istock (and FT too) is that in reality we the contributors really do have all the power if only we could organise ourselves sufficiently to express it into unified action. Istock's partial climbdown over the PP rates is a perfect example in which enough contributors refused to play and therefore left the PP with insufficient content to compete effectively against SS. I still hope that more independent contributors will have the sense to withdraw their images from the PP. We don't need SS forced into a competitive price war against TS which is what could ultimately happen.

If enough contributors refused to upload to Istock until the 'grandfathered canisters' compromise and the prevailing commission rates were restored how long would it take before Istock caved in? Contributors, both exclusive and independent, have far more to gain in the long run than they have to lose in the short term.

cthoman · « **Reply #24 on:** April 16, 2011, 11:01 »

I'd say if you feel strongly about this, then go ahead with it. There's nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. For me, the fraud was pretty low on my complaint list recently. I was lucky to only have a couple fraudulent sales.

stockastic · « **Reply #25 on:** April 16, 2011, 11:10 »

The clawbacks may have been quite legal, but they could at least have made token payments to the contributors, who were in fact damaged in some sense, because their intellectual property was taken and it can be easily resold. However, it would probably be impossible to prove actual damages in a court of law.

cthoman · « **Reply #26 on:** April 16, 2011, 11:19 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 16, 2011, 11:10

The clawbacks may have been quite legal, but they could at least have made token payments to the contributors, who were in fact damaged in some sense, because their intellectual property was taken and it can be easily resold. However, it would probably be impossible to prove actual damages in a court of law.

I don't know if you download your images at these warez sites, most of them still have the agency ID numbers where they got them from. I sent a support ticket about one of them that came from IS and never heard back. Also, I sent a complaint to Google and never heard back from them either. It's a sad part of the business. Maybe, legal action is the best way to get results?

stockastic · « **Reply #27 on:** April 16, 2011, 11:29 »

Quote from: cthoman on April 16, 2011, 11:19

Quote from: stockastic on April 16, 2011, 11:10
The clawbacks may have been quite legal, but they could at least have made token payments to the contributors, who were in fact damaged in some sense, because their intellectual property was taken and it can be easily resold. However, it would probably be impossible to prove actual damages in a court of law.

I don't know if you download your images at these warez sites, most of them still have the agency ID numbers where they got them from. I sent a support ticket about one of them that came from IS and never heard back. Also, I sent a complaint to Google and never heard back from them either. It's a sad part of the business. Maybe, legal action is the best way to get results?

We are really starting to see the dark side of doing business on the Internet, with companies like Google and IStock. They promise great things but when problems occur and the chips are down, they don't know your name and won't even answer an email. In the end we're just a bunch of entries in their database, not people with whom they have some sort of business relationship.

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #28 on:** April 16, 2011, 11:41 »

Okay, a couple points of clarification:

Of course I'm signing my name to the letter. (That's why it says, "YOUR NAME." I guess I thought that went without saying.) There's a big difference, it seems to me, of signing my name to a letter sent to H&F and having it listed here.

Second, the fraud is one issue. It's the issue that we chose to address as only one of the major affronts to contributors, because it bespeaks a general lack of good housekeeping and bookkeeping on iStock's part. I printed out the laundry list of recent contributor complaints (compiled by another contributor) and attached that list (sans Contributor name) to my letter. As stated, this is a FORM LETTER -- contributors should feel free to adapt it as they see fit, addressing other issues. Hell, if you really want, write your own letter and send it to the same people.

I don't disagree that there is good power shown through our portfolios. So far I hear a lot of people talking about that, talking about leaving, etc., and guess what?? A lot of you are still exclusive, so I guess that says a lot indeed.

No, the fraud money may not technically be owed us. I think you'll note that we didn't state it *was*. What we stated was that those fraud clawbacks would have reassured us that iStock recognized their responsibility in our losses and felt that they were worth something, if for no other reason that to keep contributors happy (as other companies dealing with fraud have done). Nothing more, nothing less.

This letter may not accomplish much, in fact, I would like to bet money on it going nowhere. But I've taken all the other remedies that I can at this point. When other outlets are viable, my portfolio will be taken away from iStock completely. As it is, I (me personally, I can't speak for the rest of the writers) no longer upload there, rarely go to the forums there (except to keep abreast of new problems). But as long as I've been on iStock, I do feel (as the letter states) that this is a business relationship that is worth trying to sort out.

sam100 · « **Reply #29 on:** April 16, 2011, 12:00 »

The idea of this letter is based on the fact that Helmond etc know what is going on on the lower level.. but do they.?.

Corporate umbrellas... left hand doesn't know what right hand does.... .?.
Deeper... as if they care....... it's business.

Patrick.

ps : i've made my statement, deleted my portfolio.. who else.?...

jen · « **Reply #30 on:** April 16, 2011, 12:02 »

Quote from: OhGoAway! on April 16, 2011, 11:41

No, the fraud money may not technically be owed us. I think you'll note that we didn't state it *was*.

You said:

"...without touching on the myriad problems at present, I will simply highlight one - failure to pay contributors what they are owed."

cathyslife · « **Reply #31 on:** April 16, 2011, 12:12 »

Quote from: patrick1958 on April 16, 2011, 12:00

The idea of this letter is based on the fact that Helmond etc know what is going on on the lower level.. but do they.?.

Corporate umbrellas... left hand doesn't know what right hand does.... .?.
Deeper... as if they care....... it's business.

Patrick.

ps : i've made my statement, deleted my portfolio.. who else.?...

Me.

sam100 · « **Reply #32 on:** April 16, 2011, 12:22 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 16, 2011, 12:12

Quote from: patrick1958 on April 16, 2011, 12:00
The idea of this letter is based on the fact that Helmond etc know what is going on on the lower level.. but do they.?.

Corporate umbrellas... left hand doesn't know what right hand does.... .?.
Deeper... as if they care....... it's business.

Patrick.

ps : i've made my statement, deleted my portfolio.. who else.?...

Me.
Chapeau...

Risamay · « **Reply #33 on:** April 16, 2011, 13:33 »

Quote from: jen on April 16, 2011, 12:02

Quote from: OhGoAway! on April 16, 2011, 11:41
No, the fraud money may not technically be owed us. I think you'll note that we didn't state it *was*.
You said:

"...without touching on the myriad problems at present, I will simply highlight one - failure to pay contributors what they are owed."

So if you want to send the letter in but don't want to word it that strongly, change it to "what they may be owed." Problem solved.

Heck. Change the whole focus of the letter to "negligence" as someone else pointed out.

It's a form letter, folks. I get form letters all the time from the ASPCA, Humane Society, and tons of other online action groups that I'm either a member of or the friends forward to me. The letters can always be edited in whole or in part, as you like.

And obviously, to make it count, you have to sign and address a letter like this with your true identity. Otherwise, it's truly a waste of your time.

lightscribe · « **Reply #34 on:** April 16, 2011, 14:41 »

Thank you for taking the time to draft this letter, despite all the negative-nancy comments which is to be expected and ignored (they are mostly exclusive contributors.) I think it is always important for the upper level folks to hear from the lower level folks. There is no harm in doing this. I have had numerous positions in management and it is true that I never really knew what was going on down at the retail employee level. I always appreciated hearing directly from those employees rather than the overly filtered reports from lower and middle management who only have the interest of covering their asses and recieving their quarterly bonuses in mind. Thank you for being pro active. Complaints like this never get ignored out of fear of not wanting employees to unionize or bring lawsuits. Send this letter to the Better Business Bureau as well. I have had the best success in getting matters resolved by going through the BBB. I actually had 2 years of back pay given to employees of a company simply by filing a five minute claim with the BBB. They are really great at resolving issues.

anonymous · « **Reply #35 on:** April 16, 2011, 16:15 »

the letters would need to be written to a representing attorney, who in turn files a class-action. Whether or not it had teeth would be less relevant than the fact that a pending suit was leveled against them. If they are indeed positioning to sell their troubled site to the highest bidder, pending litigation is a HUGE turn-off to a potential buyer...
2 cents...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #36 on:** April 16, 2011, 16:35 »

Quote from: lightscribe on April 16, 2011, 14:41

Thank you for taking the time to draft this letter, despite all the negative-nancy comments which is to be expected and ignored (they are mostly exclusive contributors.) I think it is always important for the upper level folks to hear from the lower level folks. There is no harm in doing this. I have had numerous positions in management and it is true that I never really knew what was going on down at the retail employee level.

That would speak more to your management abilities than to the effectiveness of the letter.

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #37 on:** April 16, 2011, 16:55 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 16, 2011, 16:35

Quote from: lightscribe on April 16, 2011, 14:41
Thank you for taking the time to draft this letter, despite all the negative-nancy comments which is to be expected and ignored (they are mostly exclusive contributors.) I think it is always important for the upper level folks to hear from the lower level folks. There is no harm in doing this. I have had numerous positions in management and it is true that I never really knew what was going on down at the retail employee level.

That would speak more to your management abilities than to the effectiveness of the letter.

Sorry, that's just rude, given that we know zilch about the size or geographical locales of said pieces of the operation.

raclro · « **Reply #38 on:** April 16, 2011, 18:13 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 16, 2011, 10:27

A noble attempt, and I applaud it, but don't hold your breath waiting for anything but a canned response from someone in their legal department. You're aiming 2 corporate tiers up from the point where the problem occurred and the decision was made. These at H&F see IStock itself as the "product" and what goes on inside IS day-to-day is of little interest to them.

My feelings as well. It is standard business practice to simply discard anonymous letters unless they contain threats. They are opened, shredded and not even read completely by the mail room clerk. Perhaps if hundreds came in, some attention would be garnered. H&F are in my opinion, the ones doing any screw turning, afterall that is their job. Not only their job, but they have a fiduciary legal responsibility to the company to do so ( yes I know about the shareholder/ stakeholder side of this debate). Of course we hope they are aware of issues at our level, I suspect they are.
Reasoned positive venting, as in your letter, can be good for us emotionally, but I think the value to issues at hand, is very little.

RT · « **Reply #39 on:** April 16, 2011, 18:26 »

Quote from: lightscribe on April 16, 2011, 14:41

I think it is always important for the upper level folks to hear from the lower level folks. There is no harm in doing this.

I have had numerous positions in management and it is true that I never really knew what was going on down at the retail employee level.

I always appreciated hearing directly from those employees rather than the overly filtered reports from lower and middle management who only have the interest of covering their asses and recieving their quarterly bonuses in mind.

So you appreciated and thought it important to hear from the lower level folks but having done so you had no idea what was happening!! Maybe you could take over from KT

donding · « **Reply #40 on:** April 16, 2011, 23:26 »

Quote from: RT on April 16, 2011, 18:26

Quote from: lightscribe on April 16, 2011, 14:41
I think it is always important for the upper level folks to hear from the lower level folks. There is no harm in doing this.

I have had numerous positions in management and it is true that I never really knew what was going on down at the retail employee level.

I always appreciated hearing directly from those employees rather than the overly filtered reports from lower and middle management who only have the interest of covering their asses and recieving their quarterly bonuses in mind.

So you appreciated and thought it important to hear from the lower level folks but having done so you had no idea what was happening!! Maybe you could take over from KT

I think what he is trying to say is that being in upper management that you don't always know what's going on down the line, but if an employee comes to you personally with concerns that you wouldn't have heard otherwise, then that makes you more aware of the problem which may not be reported through the chain of command. Someone in upper management gets their information through the management below them...that's why they are there.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #41 on:** April 17, 2011, 00:00 »

While I think this is a good start, I don't think it addresses a lot of the broader issues having to do with search, broken functionality, etc. specifically enough. I also agree that it's a bit wordy and could be shortened a bit. That said, I also agree with the point that higher ups are often out of touch with what's going on in the trenches. If they're made aware of the day-to-day mess that Kelly and his crew are making of iStock and all the shortcomings that have come to light within the last year or so, hopefully that will do some good.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #42 on:** April 17, 2011, 01:37 »

You've chosen the wrong issue. Instead of telling them that you have lost out and want them to give you money, you should tell them that they are losing money because iStock policies are driving customers away.

The letter would probably still end up in the bin, but they would think slightly longer about their potential losses than about yours.

Microbius · « **Reply #43 on:** April 17, 2011, 01:42 »

I think that writing to H&F is a very good idea. The more of a PITA we can make ourselves the more likely something is to be done.

I would have chosen a different issue and drafted the letter differently, but I would definitely encourage everyone to write in about whatever issues they have with IStock.

It will at least put across to the bosses that there is a high level of perceived mismanagement at the site.

michealo · « **Reply #44 on:** April 17, 2011, 05:34 »

Quote from: raclro on April 16, 2011, 18:13

Quote from: stockastic on April 16, 2011, 10:27
A noble attempt, and I applaud it, but don't hold your breath waiting for anything but a canned response from someone in their legal department. You're aiming 2 corporate tiers up from the point where the problem occurred and the decision was made. These at H&F see IStock itself as the "product" and what goes on inside IS day-to-day is of little interest to them.
My feelings as well. It is standard business practice to simply discard anonymous letters unless they contain threats. They are opened, shredded and not even read completely by the mail room clerk. Perhaps if hundreds came in, some attention would be garnered. H&F are in my opinion, the ones doing any screw turning, afterall that is their job. Not only their job, but they have a fiduciary legal responsibility to the company to do so ( yes I know about the shareholder/ stakeholder side of this debate). Of course we hope they are aware of issues at our level, I suspect they are.
Reasoned positive venting, as in your letter, can be good for us emotionally, but I think the value to issues at hand, is very little.

Don't know what business world you operate in my a lot of companies have executive response teams specifically to deal with customers forwarded to executives and their remit includes looking at issues raised anonymously ...

BImages · « **Reply #45 on:** April 17, 2011, 06:22 »

If thousands of contributors were to send registered letters to the same H&F director, warning him of the lack of seriousness and competence of the Istock administration, it would surely have some effect..

...at least, it would make us laugh a bit... just to think, he have to sign for everyone of them !

Mantis · « **Reply #46 on:** April 17, 2011, 09:20 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 17, 2011, 01:37

You've chosen the wrong issue. Instead of telling them that you have lost out and want them to give you money, you should tell them that they are losing money because iStock policies are driving customers away.

The letter would probably still end up in the bin, but they would think slightly longer about their potential losses than about yours.

Exactly. Tell them what they are losing, not what you are losing...or at lease weight the two properly. However, back to the signing of the letter....there were two harassment issues at my work and both were clearly ligitimate. When the persons filed complaints through the proper ethics channels the issue was ignored.....as often happens in big companies. So both wrote signed letters and sent them to our parent companies ethics and legal department. What do you think happened?

Both issues were simply sent back to the division HR department to handle, then HR sent them back to the original managers who ignored the issue and nothing was done at all.....except both complainees are no longer with the company.

So given istocks retaliatory reputation I would be careful what you do unless you are willing to lose your account.

Phil · « **Reply #47 on:** April 17, 2011, 18:45 »

It reads to me anger over the fraud and I think it will just get binned as a contributor disgruntled over the one issue.
I'd work on listing all the problems (possibly even just in dot form) with more focus customers and revenue lost.
I would definetly expect to (and be surprised if you didnt) lose your account.

Finally I doubt if they care, it was a short term purchase designed so that could borrow heavily from it and strip out as much cash as possible, why should they care about contributors (or staff) or the long term future?

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #48 on:** April 19, 2011, 21:20 »

respectfully snipped:

Quote from: sjlocke on April 15, 2011, 20:31

There won't be any audit - there's no facility in the agreement to ask for one, like there is on Getty.

Are you sure about that? I think Revenue Canada might like to know what corrections were needed/made...

JamesGdesign · « **Reply #49 on:** April 20, 2011, 06:23 »

Quote from: anonymous on April 16, 2011, 16:15

the letters would need to be written to a representing attorney, who in turn files a class-action. Whether or not it had teeth would be less relevant than the fact that a pending suit was leveled against them. If they are indeed positioning to sell their troubled site to the highest bidder, pending litigation is a HUGE turn-off to a potential buyer...
2 cents...

ding ding ding ding ding!

caspixel · « **Reply #50 on:** April 20, 2011, 09:01 »

Wow. This is just crazy:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=3

Looks like Getty will need an audit too.

Starbucks · « **Reply #51 on:** April 20, 2011, 10:18 »

This letter is painful to read.

Risamay · « **Reply #52 on:** April 20, 2011, 12:24 »

Quote from: caspixel on April 20, 2011, 09:01

Wow. This is just crazy:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=3

Looks like Getty will need an audit too.

Just when you think these two companies couldn't be any less trustworthy, they demonstrate for you that they may well be! Gah.

lthn · « **Reply #53 on:** April 21, 2011, 05:44 »

Its very likely that are being treated like that partially because of H&F. Istock is a pie chart, or a slice in it for them. They probably gatherd some essential information, which includes that the contributors have little to no ability to fight for their interests, and gave the orders to squeeze more juice out you.

"Per the fraudulent purchases from December onward, thousands (if not millions) of dollars were clawed back from contributing artists."

When they read this, they will probably say: Good job! Did they manage to do anything against it? No? Do it again!

ShadySue · « **Reply #54 on:** April 21, 2011, 07:33 »

Quote from: Microbius on April 17, 2011, 01:42

I think that writing to H&F is a very good idea. The more of a PITA we can make ourselves the more likely something is to be done.

I would have chosen a different issue and drafted the letter differently, but I would definitely encourage everyone to write in about whatever issues they have with IStock.

It will at least put across to the bosses that there is a high level of perceived mismanagement at the site.

And if Management are simply dancing to H&F's tune, where will that get us?

Risamay · « **Reply #55 on:** May 04, 2011, 12:25 »

Memos and "a veiled threat of legal action" against Getty. Interesting reading!

Quote

The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency.

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml

donding · « **Reply #56 on:** May 04, 2011, 13:44 »

Quote from: Risamay on May 04, 2011, 12:25

Memos and "a veiled threat of legal action" against Getty. Interesting reading!

Quote
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency.

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml

If legal action is brought against Getty...maybe iStock will think twice about it's treatment of contributors.

jamirae · « **Reply #57 on:** May 04, 2011, 14:29 »

Quote from: donding on May 04, 2011, 13:44

Quote from: Risamay on May 04, 2011, 12:25
Memos and "a veiled threat of legal action" against Getty. Interesting reading!

Quote
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency.

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml

If legal action is brought against Getty...maybe iStock will think twice about it's treatment of contributors.

great article. it pretty much sums up the current state of istock - well getty and istock are now essentially one in the same. from the article:

APA said in a press release distributed on April 27 that the contract modifications "clearly signal that Getty Images' top priority is expanding its own market share by whatever means necessary, irrespective of the damage it causes to the rights and interests of contributing photographers and image partners."

donding · « **Reply #58 on:** May 04, 2011, 16:23 »

I'm going to start a new thread about this.

Quote from: Risamay on May 04, 2011, 12:25

Memos and "a veiled threat of legal action" against Getty. Interesting reading!

Quote
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency.

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Going over Kelly's head: an iStock contributorship call to action (Read 18152 times)

nruboc

nruboc

nruboc

lagereek

michealo

lagereek

Microbius

michealo

Pixel-Pizzazz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors