Author Topic: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties" (Read 99029 times)

Ploink · « **Reply #575 on:** February 27, 2014, 08:25 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 27, 2014, 08:15

I'm getting mostly cars in best match (almost 100%, other than car key, car loan, car insurance, skid marks, which are at least vaguely connected); far fewer (but still >50%) in 'newest', as is normal nowadays as keywords aren't being checked on upload, for a reason I can't even begin to imagine.
Must be the 'geographically relevant' bias in best match.

It works if you enter 'car' and click on 'search', it doesn't work if you select 'car' from the dropdown menu, at least it doesn't work for me.

If you use the dropdown menu it searches for [object Object] which makes me think someone f*cked up their javascript programming...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #576 on:** February 27, 2014, 08:28 »

Quote from: Ron on February 27, 2014, 08:00

Not if its an honest mistake

It's not really up to the consumer at the register to determine if something is an "honest" mistake.

ShadySue · « **Reply #577 on:** February 27, 2014, 08:36 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 27, 2014, 08:28

Quote from: Ron on February 27, 2014, 08:00
Not if its an honest mistake

It's not really up to the consumer at the register to determine if something is an "honest" mistake.

Remember, the whole world doesn't operate under US law.
In the UK, it used to be different, the price on the item was the price you had to pay (but the shopkeeper could refuse to sell it).
Nowadays, if you get to the till and the price is higher, you can always decline to buy.

Trouble with the old system was, what was to stop you switching labels or shelf prices so that your pal could then come in and get them at the lower price?
In actual fact, I seem to have been lucky in-shop, and the only 'difference' I've had has always been in M&S, and it's always been to my favour (i.e. the price at the till is lower than the price on the item).
Don't get me started on travel companies, however ...

ShadySue · « **Reply #578 on:** February 27, 2014, 08:40 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 27, 2014, 08:28

Quote from: Ron on February 27, 2014, 08:00
Not if its an honest mistake

It's not really up to the consumer at the register to determine if something is an "honest" mistake.

There have also been examples of when someone has accidentally keyed in a wrong very low value for goods on a company's website. Of course, whoever finds it tells their friends, and soon a lot are sold, which obviously tips someone off. In at least some of these cases, the company has honoured the mistaken price (and probably fired the unfortunate key-inner, but I don't know for sure) and frozen sales from discovery of the mistake.

topol · « **Reply #579 on:** February 27, 2014, 08:43 »

Quote from: Ron on February 27, 2014, 08:00

Quote from: topol on February 27, 2014, 07:58
Quote from: Beppe Grillo on February 27, 2014, 07:46
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 27, 2014, 06:13
Quote from: Ron on February 27, 2014, 03:50
When items in a store are priced differently, you pay the register price, even when its more expensive

Actually, not in some places. They're only supposed to charge you the displayed price. Some states have laws about that:
https://www.google.com/search?q=register+has+wrong+price

It is like this in most of the countries that I know.
I am surprised if it is different in Ireland because I thought that it was the same for the whole European Union.

Charging something different than a displayed price is basically scamming the customer, and should be punishable by law. They used to do this frequently to tourists in some establishments in commie and ex-commie countries, they got instantly blacklisted by embassies and consulates +threats of political sanctions if it keeps happening... it all disappeared very quickly
Not if its an honest mistake

Well, then you pay for your occasional mistake, or choose to be scammer.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #580 on:** February 27, 2014, 09:09 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 27, 2014, 08:40

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 27, 2014, 08:28
Quote from: Ron on February 27, 2014, 08:00
Not if its an honest mistake

It's not really up to the consumer at the register to determine if something is an "honest" mistake.

There have also been examples of when someone has accidentally keyed in a wrong very low value for goods on a company's website. Of course, whoever finds it tells their friends, and soon a lot are sold, which obviously tips someone off. In at least some of these cases, the company has honoured the mistaken price (and probably fired the unfortunate key-inner, but I don't know for sure) and frozen sales from discovery of the mistake.

My opinion is that in the world where we live today errors about money are very rarely accidents or honest mistakes…

Red Dove · « **Reply #581 on:** February 27, 2014, 09:12 »

Having given the matter further thought, I don't agree this can be reduced to the basic statement that we were overpaid and therefore should be expected to hand the money back - especially in the absence of any transaction detail behind the numbers. This is not like being overpaid by your employer or your bank. As businesses we produce, incurring costs as a result, which are covered by our income in the form of royalties from our agent. If the agent overpays us there is a case for "recoupment." However, in the interim our businesses have also incurred costs in monitoring the situation, adjusting our tax returns, setting money aside, requesting further information etc, etc.

Therefore, as with most errors in business relationships it is not unreasonable to expect some degree of mutual write off of said expenses in the interest of continued good relations. It happens every day.

ShadySue · « **Reply #582 on:** February 27, 2014, 09:20 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on February 27, 2014, 09:09

Quote from: ShadySue on February 27, 2014, 08:40
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 27, 2014, 08:28
Quote from: Ron on February 27, 2014, 08:00
Not if its an honest mistake

It's not really up to the consumer at the register to determine if something is an "honest" mistake.

There have also been examples of when someone has accidentally keyed in a wrong very low value for goods on a company's website. Of course, whoever finds it tells their friends, and soon a lot are sold, which obviously tips someone off. In at least some of these cases, the company has honoured the mistaken price (and probably fired the unfortunate key-inner, but I don't know for sure) and frozen sales from discovery of the mistake.

My opinion is that in the world where we live today errors about money are very rarely accidents or honest mistakes…

You never do typos? Good for you, I know that I do - a lot!

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #583 on:** February 27, 2014, 09:34 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 27, 2014, 09:20

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on February 27, 2014, 09:09
Quote from: ShadySue on February 27, 2014, 08:40
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 27, 2014, 08:28
Quote from: Ron on February 27, 2014, 08:00
Not if its an honest mistake

It's not really up to the consumer at the register to determine if something is an "honest" mistake.

There have also been examples of when someone has accidentally keyed in a wrong very low value for goods on a company's website. Of course, whoever finds it tells their friends, and soon a lot are sold, which obviously tips someone off. In at least some of these cases, the company has honoured the mistaken price (and probably fired the unfortunate key-inner, but I don't know for sure) and frozen sales from discovery of the mistake.

My opinion is that in the world where we live today errors about money are very rarely accidents or honest mistakes…

You never do typos? Good for you, I know that I do - a lot!

I do a lot too…

But
In a good business there should always be somebody to verify, and somebody else to verify again.
We are speaking about business here, no?

ShadySue · « **Reply #584 on:** February 27, 2014, 09:41 »

Quote from: Red Dove on February 27, 2014, 09:12

Having given the matter further thought, I don't agree this can be reduced to the basic statement that we were overpaid and therefore should be expected to hand the money back - especially in the absence of any transaction detail behind the numbers. This is not like being overpaid by your employer or your bank. As businesses we produce, incurring costs as a result, which are covered by our income in the form of royalties from our agent. If the agent overpays us there is a case for "recoupment." However, in the interim our businesses have also incurred costs in monitoring the situation, adjusting our tax returns, setting money aside, requesting further information etc, etc.

Therefore, as with most errors in business relationships it is not unreasonable to expect some degree of mutual write off of said expenses in the interest of continued good relations. It happens every day.

Trouble is, our contract is written in terms which only benefit iStock, so they can cream off 'reasonable expenses' for various eventualities (like securing some special sale deal) but nothing is written on our side. Again, if someone stand to be losing a lot on this, as some are, it may be worth their while to consult a lawyer, but sadly it probably won't be worth it for most.

lima · « **Reply #585 on:** February 27, 2014, 09:53 »

take a look http://petapixel.com/2014/02/25/istock-photographers-told-overpaid-will-pay-getty-back/

ShadySue · « **Reply #586 on:** February 27, 2014, 09:56 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on February 27, 2014, 09:34

Quote from: ShadySue on February 27, 2014, 09:20
Quote from: Beppe Grillo on February 27, 2014, 09:09
Quote from: ShadySue on February 27, 2014, 08:40
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 27, 2014, 08:28
Quote from: Ron on February 27, 2014, 08:00
Not if its an honest mistake

It's not really up to the consumer at the register to determine if something is an "honest" mistake.

There have also been examples of when someone has accidentally keyed in a wrong very low value for goods on a company's website. Of course, whoever finds it tells their friends, and soon a lot are sold, which obviously tips someone off. In at least some of these cases, the company has honoured the mistaken price (and probably fired the unfortunate key-inner, but I don't know for sure) and frozen sales from discovery of the mistake.

My opinion is that in the world where we live today errors about money are very rarely accidents or honest mistakes…

You never do typos? Good for you, I know that I do - a lot!

I do a lot too…

But
In a good business there should always be somebody to verify, and somebody else to verify again.
We are speaking about business here, no?

you'd think, but everyone is trying to cut costs and pressurise their workers.
Here are some old ones I don't remember:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8202842.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8276221.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13621315
But I'm sure there were some famous ones last year involving technology being sold inter alia Tesco, IIRC, which is the UK's biggest supermarket chain.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #587 on:** February 27, 2014, 09:59 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 27, 2014, 08:28

Quote from: Ron on February 27, 2014, 08:00
Not if its an honest mistake

It's not really up to the consumer at the register to determine if something is an "honest" mistake.

They haven't sold us anything and we're not consumers, nor have we sold them anything. They've sold licenses on our behalf. All these shopping analogies are a shoal of red herrings.

The real issue is whether they will open the books so people can determine if they have received the right payments and they won't do that for a lot of reasons, some of them legitimage such as confidentiality of business data, but also, I suspect, because they know that a lot of contributor accounts won't withstand scrutiny of the overpayment/clawback calculations (and maybe other things, too).
I notice that the apology accepted blame and apologised on behalf of the computer that bore sole responsibility for the problem. I'm not sure that is really a step forward.

dingles · « **Reply #588 on:** February 27, 2014, 10:08 »

If they are being honest they should open the transaction for those months to the contributors effected. My guess is that they'd be willing to do so if ordered by court, but aren't willing to accept the overhead of doing so just to please us. We really mean nothing to them, we are all just faceless numbers and easily replaceable as far as they are concerned. Hell the next crop of contributors using only mobile devices may be willing to go 90/10. iStock is no longer interested in housing quality content...that is what Getty is for...iStock is all numbers.

They certainly given me a lot to think about as far as my portfolio is concerned.

ShadySue · « **Reply #589 on:** February 27, 2014, 11:11 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 27, 2014, 07:18

It's not that unusual for companies to make a mistake, as Ron has pointed out above.
...

At the end of Jan this year, I got my ISA statement in for the quarter, and I noticed there was no note about the 'cash reserve'. As it happened, I had an appointment with them yesterday, so I'd made a mental note to ask about it then. But at the end of last week, I got a letter in sayhing it had been a mistake throughout their system and all clients with my sort of policy had been affected. This one is different, in that they hadn't overpaid me money I had to pay it back, but it was a sum of almost £19k. However, in parallel with iStock/Getty, this is a huge company (Barclays) who seem to be in some sort of trouble and are shedding >7000 of their UK staff and many more abroad this year ...

None of this defends iStock, but it's not an isolated case the say some people seem to think.

Quoting myself, but at least in that case the full breakdown of the account was sent to me, so I can easily tally it against the previous statement.
But then that's how it always works, not like at iStock where anything other than a regular iS sale is difficult to track, if even possible.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #590 on:** February 27, 2014, 14:27 »

Interesting blog post from an attorney about this very issue.

http://kbhilferlaw.com/how-to-negotiate-prepare-for-and-conduct-a-licensing-audit/

Mantis · « **Reply #591 on:** February 28, 2014, 08:56 »

Well, my Jan PP was about $75 more than usual. Hope this is legit. I won't hold my breath, though.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #592 on:** February 28, 2014, 11:42 »

My PP for January is quite above the average, especially considering that we're talking about one of the worse months of the year...

Waiting for "Hold on to your wallets!" Round 2...

Noedelhap · « **Reply #593 on:** February 28, 2014, 13:44 »

They recouped the first instalment. Without providing data. I consider this theft if they are unwilling to provide the evidence to support their recoupment claim.

dbvirago · « **Reply #594 on:** February 28, 2014, 13:51 »

Yeah, that's my problem with this - no documentation. Regardless of 'irregularities' I should be able to look somewhere on the site and see each PP sale, the image and amount, just like I can for regular sales. Other agencies with PP sales I have dealt with in the past had no problems reporting this. If this were the case, we could then see double billing, or overpayment. Just saying we have irregularities so we're going to take the money back, isn't kosher.

On the other hand, we're not going to do anything about it.

dingles · « **Reply #595 on:** February 28, 2014, 13:55 »

I think there isn't much we can do as legal fees to require them to provide the transaction data would be too high regarding the amount they are recouping. They know this, which is why they probably aren't going to use the overhead to prepare individual transaction data.

dbvirago · « **Reply #596 on:** February 28, 2014, 14:00 »

Agree, but that mechanism should already be in place. If a small shop like Canstock can report PP sales, why can't istock. Went there to see what the forum looked like and didn't see a single thread on this - just a rah-rah thread on how great January was. For me, they continue to be the worst of the 8 sites I contribute to. I've already quit uploading there months ago when they hit bottom

Julied83 · « **Reply #597 on:** February 28, 2014, 14:05 »

I just receive my recoupment email ... today ! I tought I was okay ... I'M so angry too right now ! I just tought I had an higher sale. Hard to tell we can't see PP download per date, and when you have more than 3000 images its hard to find. Also, we are paid month later.

I'M a contributor since the beginning of istock, and today it 's my worst day at this business. What it has became it's such a shame.

I quit exclusivity for multiple reason, because I didn't agree with their redeem credit system,instead of the canister level
Now I'll just send my graphic designer friends to their competitors. I think this decision from them, will hurt them much more than if they would have pay themself for their error.

Woh I'm so angry right now ... but also very sad about that for everybody here.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #598 on:** February 28, 2014, 14:06 »

"We have removed a total of $-20.97 from your account."

That's a double negative, in other words, I am getting that money?

dbvirago · « **Reply #599 on:** February 28, 2014, 14:07 »

I found the forum thread where it was buried.
My post there....

As many have said the solution is simple communication. I have dealt with dozens of stock agencies over the last 8 years and every one except iStock that has PP sales reports them the same way they do regular sales. That way it's easy to see what was sold and for how much. It would also be easy to see if we were overpaid or double paid. But with the PP sales cloaked in secrecy and paid in random drops a month later we just have to take your word for it. Is there any situation in which someone took money out of your account that taking their word for it would be good enough?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties" (Read 99029 times)

Ploink

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

ShadySue

topol

Beppe Grillo

Red Dove

ShadySue

Beppe Grillo

ShadySue

lima

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

dingles

ShadySue

Shelma1

Mantis

StockPhotosArt.com

Noedelhap

dbvirago

dingles

dbvirago

Julied83

Noedelhap

dbvirago

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors