MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Sedge on January 03, 2014, 19:25
-
Lobo just started a new thread on iStock's PP forum. Here's the full quote:
We've established that there were some irregularities with Oct(Sept) and Nov(Oct) Partner Program royalties. We've been investigating these irregularities and hope to have additional information some time next week. What this means is the royalty payments for September and October are being reviewed at this time. We will have an update on this issue next week.
I've got a bad feeling about this...
:'(
-
OMG!
-
They are going to take back my $5 :P
-
Lobo just started a new thread on iStock's PP forum. Here's the full quote:
We've established that there were some irregularities with Oct(Sept) and Nov(Oct) Partner Program royalties. We've been investigating these irregularities and hope to have additional information some time next week. What this means is the royalty payments for September and October are being reviewed at this time. We will have an update on this issue next week.
I've got a bad feeling about this...
:'(
I always had. As I said at the time it seemed almost inconceivable that the PP had managed to generate new income, at a rate equivalent to the entire royalties from DT and FT combined ... almost overnight. How could that possibly have happened?
Just how incompetent can IS/Getty really get?
-
They need a lot more light shining into their inner workings - "trust us" just doesn't cut it with them, not even the "new trust".
-
OMG.... it was too good to be true. So they are going to demand the money back? Its already in my bank. How will they do that, if it is the case? Are they going to lock in my images until I made the money back for them?
-
Simple! We will be minus $ until they get the money back.
-
So if I delete all my images, it will be in minus in perpetuity? That would be awesome.
-
If istock paid one dollar a glitch, I would leave them my royalties.
-
So if I delete all my images, it will be in minus in perpetuity? That would be awesome.
I sent in a request to close my account a few days ago. Hopefully I'll get paid before they figure this all out. Fat chance I'd send them a check for any clawbacks they may impose.
-
My guess is that we got the ENTIRE amount and not our mere peanut percentage.
-
Well, you could see that coming. This should be fun. ::)
-
That and the royalty rate drop - it'll all even out. :(
-
What I find odd is that they say there are irregularities with October and November?!
October royalties were exceptionally high and November's were unusually low (for one of the typically highest selling months of the year).
I suppose it's too much to hope that some of November's sales were attributed to October by mistake?
???
-
Talk about a leaky boat. I hope this isn't another fraud.
This stuff gives me the shivers when it affects my livelihood, not to mention my imminent tax declarations. At the very least IS should be contacting contributors with a proper explanation, action plan and time line for their investigations.
...... but I doubt we'll get anything other than a few fatuous remarks from their forum poodle
-
There is no doubt at all, no matter how they spin it, this will only mean bad news for contributors... :(
-
I cant find the thread on IS where this was announced. Anyone?
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&page=1)
-
Thank you
-
This is just unbelievable. I'm flabbergasted. Istock are an absolute shambles of an organisation.
-
What?! It can't be :o iStock? This biggest king in microstock world and that confusing issues again? One by one...
There are two options (?):
1. Sept. and Oct. earnings are to high and iS will take back some money, or...
2. Nov. is to low, iS wasn't going to check it if not people notice, and... I can't trust them anymore? (it could happen before)
So next week I will know if I close my account now or later...
-
What I find odd is that they say there are irregularities with October and November?!
I think they ment September and October ::)
"We've established that there were some irregularities with Oct(Sept) and Nov(Oct) Partner Program royalties."
My september was pretty normal in PP sales. Only October was way better than other months.
-
My september was pretty normal in PP sales. Only October was way better than other months.
When you say October, do you mean September or November ?
-
So the 2 months that produced much higher than usual individual royalties (which appear consistent with the published rates). We have no way of really knowing that agencies pay us the correct royalties except that we trust them to do so. Fundamentally, we can't trust IS to do this whether it's by dishonesty or incompetence - if there are refunds over this I'm gone once I get next payout.
-
What I find odd is that they say there are irregularities with October and November?!
October royalties were exceptionally high and November's were unusually low (for one of the typically highest selling months of the year).
I suppose it's too much to hope that some of November's sales were attributed to October by mistake?
???
Don't know how your PP reports look like: But for me the number of downloads has been pretty stable from July to November (some +/- 10%), it's only the royalties attributed to the same number of downloads that changed dramatically, almost three times the "usual" amount of money from the same number of downloads.
I was wondering ever since these were added to my account as there only could have been two explanations: 1) They screwed up the reporting; 2) They had some heavy marketing campaign adding more Thinkstock Image Packs to the mix instead of subscriptions.
Given the history, I always thought the first explanation to be far more likely...
-
where is tick stock to say something reassuring/sycophantic.
I swear anytime I post anything about iS it's: I can't believe the soap opera continues. How do they keep outdoing themselves?
-
Its madness I tell ya, madness.
Phoebe: "It's madness I tell you!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJz_FhTl8Fk#)
-
---------
---------
This space is reserved for Tickstock the usual suspects to explain why this is a good thing that could only happen at IS ;D
*SCNR*
-
Once again I call for an Istock accounting ledger page for each contributor. The Account page must be a true ledger of customer payment, iStock deductions, contributor portion. Do this for each transaction in the contributors account. Istock has the data to do the accounting - just make it transparent to each contributor. It's the only way for us to gain any confidence in the Istock accounting system now.
-
Since they don't mention the PP from November (December), I assume this probably means they paid us too much. I KNEW this was too good to be true! Unbelievable.
It's always, ALWAYS the same bogus retard problems at iStock.
-
Once again I call for an Istock accounting ledger page for each contributor. The Account page must be a true ledger of customer payment, iStock deductions, contributor portion. Do this for each transaction in the contributors account. Istock has the data to do the accounting - just make it transparent to each contributor. It's the only way for us to gain any confidence in the Istock accounting system now.
How could you be 100% confident that this would be either honest or accurate?
It looks like their actual accounting was wrong in this instance (maybe PP contributors got 100% of sales?). Why they didn't notice this in their accounting dept or why no-one got suspicious when loads of people were reporting anomalous RPDs here and there beggars belief.
-
I have full confidence that if they have made a mistake and overpaid contributors they will consider the overpayment a goodwill gesture and leave it be. ;)
-
It cant be long now before we have istock chasers instead of ambulance chasers
-
I'd be wiling to bet that they will "fix" this and claw back funds before they they fix the RC levels that were not grandfathered at last year's levels.
-
I have full confidence that if they have made a mistake and overpaid contributors they will consider the overpayment a goodwill gesture and leave it be. ;)
LOL!
That would be like the UK Tax Office, which a couple of months after I'd paid for 2011-12 sent me a (paper) letter saying they had accidentally undercharged me (20-something pence, less than the cost of a stamp). As it was such a small amount, I could add it onto the next year's payment.
TBH, I was astonished they'd waste time, paper and a stamp on this. If I'd made a mistake like that, I'd have popped in the money myself.
But no, the next tax bill had the pence amount added, and cĢ10 late fee.
B*stards.
(I just had to pay. The letter came in saying if I didn't pay within ten days I'd be in court - the morning I was going on holiday for two weeks, and I didn't have time to look for the 'underpaid' letter. If it hadn't been for that unfortunate timing, I'd have held out and only paid the small underpay.)
-
Just when I thought they (iStock) couldn't squeeze my balls any tighter! :-[
-
It's certainly going to be interesting to see how they 'spin' this, if they decide to claw it all back.
-
My september was pretty normal in PP sales. Only October was way better than other months.
When you say October, do you mean September or November ?
Who wants to tell me why I get 3 - votes for making an obviously light hearted quip about the uncertainty we all experience when discussing the accounting - as evidenced any time that there is a monthly sales thread ? i.e. that October can mean September or that October can also mean the sales which end up being reported in November.
If you gave me a minus have the courage to tell me why.
-
Once again I call for an Istock accounting ledger page for each contributor. The Account page must be a true ledger of customer payment, iStock deductions, contributor portion. Do this for each transaction in the contributors account. Istock has the data to do the accounting - just make it transparent to each contributor. It's the only way for us to gain any confidence in the Istock accounting system now.
How could you be 100% confident that this would be either honest or accurate?
It looks like their actual accounting was wrong in this instance (maybe PP contributors got 100% of sales?). Why they didn't notice this in their accounting dept or why no-one got suspicious when loads of people were reporting anomalous RPDs here and there beggars belief.
The contributors would at least be able to check the percentages of the Istock take on each sale and see that the calculations were done correctly. Of course then Istock would have to have a complete descriptive page of how the sales of each category and each contributor level would work. Hence more knowledge by the contributors means more questions have to be answered by Contributor Relations (albeit for the good of all).
What contributors still wouldn't know is if sales "accidentally" got dropped and didn't make the ledger page entry. So, no, this is never going to be 100% confidence but any step is a good step. Massive dropped sales could be caught by a bunch of us banding together and buying some of each others photos and reporting each buy to the seller. If is didn't show in the files sales list (and didn't show in the proposed ledger page) then Istock dropped sales could be detected.
-
Should have known it was too good to be true, or that things might actually be looking up at istock. No matter how long I'm in this game it seems I'm still often too optimistic and too willing to hold on to the ridiculous idea that iStock could become a decent company again.
-
I went back over the past year and took screenshots of all my DLS and earnings. I see the average amount I earn per DL bounces around from month to month, sometimes almost double in one month what I average in another. October is off the chart.
1. It's sad and disgusting that I feel I need to take screenshots of my earnings and sit and figure out anomalies on my own, because the large corporation that represents me and has a staff of IT "experts" and professional accountants is incapable of doing so.
2. I trust the IT experts and accountants at iStock as far as I can throw them.
-
So it's a safe bet that this is an issue of getting paid way too much per DL for at least October, right? Looking at my stats I sometimes have more $$ than DLs some days. No way I should be getting $1+ per PP sale.
I'm going to assume I'll be losing about 75% of my PP earnings from that month. Just a guess, but I won't be surprised if/when it happens.
-
I honestly don't know what to think. I really don't know if October was big because they made a mistake, or October was big because that's what they actually should be paying us and they under-report all the other months.
And it's sad I feel that way, because it shows the level of distrust I have for iStock.
-
I do not understand one thing.
In every organized country in the world, with law and statutes and constitution there is something, excuse my English, called "work inspection".
These people checks if everything is regular, or by the law or contract with contributors. Everyone can call them if questioning some company doesn't work like it is stated by the contracts with worker or contributors.
I really doubt that Canada doesn't have these kind of inspections and that it isn't possible to check sales on sites like photos.com or thinkstock.com.
Is any contributor here from Canada and what can he/she say about it?
excuse my English, please.
-
I do not understand one thing.
In every organized country in the world, with law and statutes and constitution there is something, excuse my English, called "work inspection".
These people checks if everything is regular, or by the law or contract with contributors. Everyone can call them if questioning some company doesn't work like it is stated by the contracts with worker or contributors.
I really doubt that Canada doesn't have these kind of inspections and that it isn't possible to check sales on sites like photos.com or thinkstock.com.
Is any contributor here from Canada and what can he/she say about it?
excuse my English, please.
I was wondering the same
+1
EDIT: Two votes down for agreeing with someone. :o
-
2. I trust the IT experts and accountants at iStock as far as I can throw them.
Knowing IS, the IT Expert (singular) and the accountant are one and the same.
There are no angels in this business - but none can match IS's talent for buttering you up one minute and pulling the rug out from under you the next. Charlatans.
-
I was wondering the same
+1
and I'm not talking only about IStock, I'm talking about every agency in every other country.
Even smallest companies are under laws of the country they headquarters are and if something isn't like it is written in the contract or some sales are not payed or even shown it's called a fraud or deception or misappropriation and it is punishable by the law.
Are we photographers/illustrators some kind of sheep? It's not a question to you or anyone else.
-
Even smallest companies are under laws of the country they headquarters are and if something isn't like it is written in the contract or some sales are not payed or even shown it's called a fraud or deception or misappropriation and it is punishable by the law.
Of course, it's in the contract.
Exclusive ASA (and no doubt the Indie ASA also)
5b
In all cases, payment of royalties to the Supplier will be net of: (i) applicable taxes or other withholdings required by applicable law; (ii) bad debts or other uncollectible sums; (iii); (iii) cancellations or refund of a license where the original sale has been reported to you, including but not limited to where due to a fraudulent transaction; (iv) overpayment of royalties in a prior period; (v) legal and other reasonable fees incurred in enforcing this Agreement or the agreements contemplated herein; and (vii) any amounts owing by the Supplier to iStockphoto under this Agreement or otherwise.
Though that would seem (IANAL) to limit them to taking the money off future payments, not to require repayments of cash already given.
But their previous practice has been to claw back out of any money not taken, before they put you into the red.
-
At last a good new from iStock!
Cheers!
(The return of Shame on iStock)
-
Im so glad Im out of that swamphole since D-day.
The business conduct and ethics is on par with a Nigerian scam.
-
I do not understand one thing.
In every organized country in the world, with law and statutes and constitution there is something, excuse my English, called "work inspection".
These people checks if everything is regular, or by the law or contract with contributors. Everyone can call them if questioning some company doesn't work like it is stated by the contracts with worker or contributors.
I really doubt that Canada doesn't have these kind of inspections and that it isn't possible to check sales on sites like photos.com or thinkstock.com.
Is any contributor here from Canada and what can he/she say about it?
excuse my English, please.
I'm Canadian and I have never heard of work inspection. I believe you would have to either launch a lawsuit or the police would have to lay fraud charges or obtain an " Information to Obtain" order to get them to open their books. That said we have a great mayor in Toronto who just might be willing to share a crack pipe with you or at least send one of his friends over to lean on them!
-
where is tick stock to say something reassuring/sycophantic.
Tickstock has been conspicuously absent the last couple of weeks. I expect we will hear from him on Monday when he returns to his work duties following his holiday break.
-
where is tick stock to say something reassuring/sycophantic.
Tickstock has been conspicuously absent the last couple of weeks. I expect we will hear from him on Monday when he returns to his work duties following his holiday break.
Notice how it coincides with the apparent absence of iStock admins at iStock over the past couple of weeks....I still think he/she is on the iS payroll to come in here and defend the sinking ship.
-
Transparency would be nice...all I Can Say is....crap!
-
I'm Canadian and I have never heard of work inspection. I believe you would have to either launch a lawsuit or the police would have to lay fraud charges or obtain an " Information to Obtain" order to get them to open their books. That said we have a great mayor in Toronto who just might be willing to share a crack pipe with you or at least send one of his friends over to lean on them!
I have to admit, I secretly wish I still lived in Toronto so I could vote for Ford in the next election. What a fascinating car wreck. If Istock was only in Calgary instead of Toronto, we could slide him a Whopper and a crack pipe and I'm sure he would get to the bottom of this.
-
Im so glad Im out of that swamphole since D-day.
The business conduct and ethics is on par with a Nigerian scam.
+1
I spent 2 years with iStock and in January 2010 (or was it 2011?) dropped out in dismay at how they were about to start treating their long-time, loyal contributors. Haven't been sorry yet.
-
I'm Canadian and I have never heard of work inspection.
Are we talking about something like an external audit? Or maybe it's called internal quality control?
Whatever it's called, it should be mandatory for every corporation.
-
Of course, it's in the contract.
Exclusive ASA (and no doubt the Indie ASA also)
5b
In all cases, payment of royalties to the Supplier will be net of: (i) applicable taxes or other withholdings required by applicable law; (ii) bad debts or other uncollectible sums; (iii); (iii) cancellations or refund of a license where the original sale has been reported to you, including but not limited to where due to a fraudulent transaction; (iv) overpayment of royalties in a prior period; (v) legal and other reasonable fees incurred in enforcing this Agreement or the agreements contemplated herein; and (vii) any amounts owing by the Supplier to iStockphoto under this Agreement or otherwise.
Though that would seem (IANAL) to limit them to taking the money off future payments, not to require repayments of cash already given.
But their previous practice has been to claw back out of any money not taken, before they put you into the red.
And what about underpayment? Where is transparency in this?
Is there any possible procedure to find out how many sales you have on, for example, iStock, thinkstock and photos or company can say their accountants whatever they want?
Looks like stock photography need to be regulated much more carefully worldwide.
Let me guess... nobody cares about transparency in Canada unless you launch a lawsuit? There are no tax inspection either?
For example, some small new stock company have 1 contributor and 1 subscriber who payed 249$ for monthly subscription for 25 photos daily, for contributor they record subscriber download only 5 photos daily, and for accountant they record all 25 for every day, so they can pay small income tax and in the same time small royalty (expenditures) and nobody can check if it's all regular and transparent?
if it's true... than wow... it is serious problem and one of the best industry for frauds.
excuse my english
cheers! :)
-
Im so glad Im out of that swamphole since D-day.
The business conduct and ethics is on par with a Nigerian scam.
+1
I spent 2 years with iStock and in January 2010 (or was it 2011?) dropped out in dismay at how they were about to start treating their long-time, loyal contributors. Haven't been sorry yet.
I handed in my 'resignation' a few days ago, admittedly with some reservations, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that those reservations were misguided.
-
I do not understand one thing.
In every organized country in the world, with law and statutes and constitution there is something, excuse my English, called "work inspection".
These people checks if everything is regular, or by the law or contract with contributors. Everyone can call them if questioning some company doesn't work like it is stated by the contracts with worker or contributors.
I really doubt that Canada doesn't have these kind of inspections and that it isn't possible to check sales on sites like photos.com or thinkstock.com.
Is any contributor here from Canada and what can he/she say about it?
excuse my English, please.
A financial audit by independent accountants should check at least the numbers are correct ie that they are paying us what they say and that they have (?) robust accounting systems in place so the financial side is reliable.
I'm guessing they got a clean bill of health in their (last) audit(s) or surely we would have heard. Anybody know?
-
-
-
Surely if the accounting is off, then so is their tax liability? Not a good plan falling foul of the taxman if you get my drift...
-
It wouldnt if they were cooking the books, but I highly doubt they do such things. Its just sheer incompetence and lack of interest to make things right.
-
Same thing - inaccurate book keeping, means inaccurate figures to pay tax on. It doesn't have to be intentional. It's something external auditors should pick up - they will be audited on a regular basis. The problem is the lack of transparency, our relationship with them is based on trust to pay what is due. Let's not go there..
-
You are right, I meant if they cook the books, an audit might not bring that to the surface.
-
All public corporations are audited to make sure they are following generally accepted accounting practices. These audits are typically directed at how they legally record income and expenses, etc. I seriously doubt this type of audit would involve any detailed investigation to the treatment of contributors. Basically, as long as their revenue and payouts are recorded in the correct "columns" they would pass. That said, it is unbelievable to me that they do not provide detailed data to contributors. All the information is available to them and how difficult would it be to set up a database template to pull it together as other companies do?
-
All public corporations are audited
Getty is privately held, so their accounting is NOT subject to mandatory auditing.
-
I forgot they went from public to private! I'm sure they still would have auditors and those reports would go to their private shareholders. Frankly, it makes no difference to the lack of transparency at our end.
-
It wouldnt if they were cooking the books, but I highly doubt they do such things. Its just sheer incompetence and lack of interest to make things right.
I don't think they are intentionally "cooking the books", rather a series of incompetent platforms peppered with poor leadership. I believe that most of the [site performance issues/greedy business decisions] started when Getty purchased Istock so the problem lies with Getty leadership and less with Istock directly.
-
Agree. On a side note, did the Lobo work for IS already, or is he a Getty asset?
-
It wouldnt if they were cooking the books, but I highly doubt they do such things. Its just sheer incompetence and lack of interest to make things right.
I don't think they are intentionally "cooking the books", rather a series of incompetent platforms peppered with poor leadership. I believe that most of the [site performance issues/greedy business decisions] started when Getty purchased Istock so the problem lies with Getty leadership and less with Istock directly.
It's interesting, but pure speculation, as to where the dot on the continuum between malice and incompetence falls.
-
Lobo is an old friend of Bruce's, not a Getty import
See this thread for some discussion of the Bittermen and links to pictures
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87028 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87028)
-
Really? They seem to be so different in character, you wonder how they are friends. But maybe he is just an ass on the forums and a top bloke IRL. I dont know. Anyhoo, thanks, back to topic.
-
Agree. On a side note, did the Lobo work for IS already, or is he a Getty asset?
Novel use of the term "Asset" ;)
-
Agree. On a side note, did the Lobo work for IS already, or is he a Getty asset?
Novel use of the term "Asset" ;)
It falls between a eupmenism and a Malapropism.
-
2 posts were removed.
one for an off colored insulting sexual reference and another for a libelous statement.
-
Really? They seem to be so different in character, you wonder how they are friends. But maybe he is just an ass on the forums and a top bloke IRL. I dont know. Anyhoo, thanks, back to topic.
The few times I have had personal interactions with him, he is an exceptionally nice guy and extremely helpful.
I think being aggressive in the forums is somehow part of his job description. Also, I think that being the point person to deal with contributors when the caca hits the fan is probably extremely frustrating.
-
I've had no issue with Lobo. He is as straight forward as he can be. If he was nice and sugar coated everything, I bet we'd all have issues with that. I guess because HD is the closest thing to a liaison between us and the powers that be, he gets pinned with all our frustrations.
-
My main issue with Lobo is that I find it odd that he passes on the lies from above him as though he believed them. He's been caught out often enough for anyone with sense to distance himself from the lies by some rubric such as "The IT Department tell me that ..." or "The X department is hoping to ..."
I couldn't stand it if my company was constantly making me look like an idiot (I can do that well enough on my own, thank you) and/or a liar.
Most recent being that exclusive files will ALWAYS have priority in search.
Hmmm, I noticed last night in some (not all) of my regular searches that indie files are at the top of searches, and that regular S files are being trounced in most (all the searches I tried, but I can't say 'all', of course) searches.
Also because of the bug that shoots files down the best match if they have between 1 and 10 dls, as far as I can see 'many' (clearly I haven't checked all possible searches) searches have indy files with 0 dls above exclusive files with a few dls, even if the indy files are older.
And how often has he reported that 'there are no plans to ...' and within a short time, ... is happening.
He really should distance himself from the lies he's being asked to peddle.
-
I think is he is a douche and if you dont like your job or get frustrated all the time, you need to quit it and find something else to do. If its in his job description then he seems to enjoy that part a lot. If he is a nice guy IRL, he should show that in the forums. A little respect for the people providing your sandwich goes a long way. To me it looks like a typical case of 'my wife bullies me at home, so at work I go on a power trip'.
-
I don't know, I rather him be blunt then sugar coat anything. Everyone already reads far into things...could you image if he put a pleasant spin and we all expected the positive all the time...which one leads to a larger upset in the end? I think the lying goes on internally with departments at iStock. I feel they are in the dark internally maybe only a tad less then we are. I picture the inner workings of iStock to be a pretty toxic place these days.
The hatred should be fueled at iStock as whole for keeping us in the dark all the time.
-
Lobo could be clear, honest and courteous in his work - without sugar coating anything. Instead he is acerbic, sarcastic, rude and often simply unprofessional. Only a dysfunctional organisation like iStock would have someone like him to moderate the forum of a crowdsourcing organisation.
-
I think is he is a douche
I think it is unfortunate that he has to deal with the sort of people who might ever say something like that.
I can understand that people get frustrated. I can also understand why people sometimes get put on silence.
-
I think is he is a douche
I think it is unfortunate that he has to deal with the sort of people who might ever say something like that.
I can understand that people get frustrated. I can also understand why people sometimes get put on silence.
He doesnt have to deal with people who say that, because people dont say that on the IS forum. What I think of him and what I post here has nothing to do with his behavior on the IS forum. I dont think people call him names on the IS forum, do they?
-
Sad that we are limited to one heart, I'd be tapping away on this comment. A moderator or liaison should not let his personal feelings and opinions color how he treats members. Number one would be showing respect, even if the members are not as fair and level headed. It comes with the job.
Lobo could be clear, honest and courteous in his work - without sugar coating anything. Instead he is acerbic, sarcastic, rude and often simply unprofessional. Only a dysfunctional organisation like iStock would have someone like him to moderate the forum of a crowdsourcing organisation.
Also: about the so called "irregularities" (their word for it, which is vague)
[excerpt]
and... I can't trust them anymore?
2 posts were removed.
one for an off colored insulting sexual reference and another for a libelous statement.
Darn I miss all the fun, but I did see some good football. ;)
-
I think is he is a douche and if you dont like your job or get frustrated all the time, you need to quit it and find something else to do. If its in his job description then he seems to enjoy that part a lot. If he is a nice guy IRL, he should show that in the forums. A little respect for the people providing your sandwich goes a long way. To me it looks like a typical case of 'my wife bullies me at home, so at work I go on a power trip'.
Agree with you.
I think it is unfortunate that he has to deal with the sort of people who might ever say something like that.
I can understand that people get frustrated. I can also understand why people sometimes get put on silence.
And agree with you too
;)
-
Lobo has banned me twice for simply making a -slighty cynical- remark about some kind of problem that popped up at iStock. I was never rude, nor was I out of line. If freedom of speech is considered important at a forum, then Lobo is a horrible moderator.
I understand that dealing with frustrated contributors (or customers) can be hard, but it's his job to always be polite, explanatory and professional. And he simply isn't.
-
he is a fine representative of istock.
Thats why I left.
its about a year ago. And yes, It has paid back.
-
One of the problems I have with Lobo is that he isn't straightforward. He misleads and obfuscates (euphemisms), and he's usually initially quite sarcastically dismissive when someone first brings up an issue or irregularity. It takes more than a dozen questions about the same thing from different people before he accepts that it's really a serious issue; then he makes promises and sets deadlines that are almost never reached...and avoids that thread when people asked what's going on, deadline's passed.
All it takes is a "sorry, guys, we're really trying but it looks like it'll take longer," but instead he offers more sarcasm when people complain when deadlines go zipping by. And unfortunately for him, with the state of things at iStock there are going to be lots of people complaining.
-
Is his only job being the admin of the forum? For some reason I feel that is probably a secondary responsibility, but maybe not. I guess the fact that many folks really don't like him suggests he isn't the best person for that role.
-
Is his only job being the admin of the forum? For some reason I feel that is probably a secondary responsibility, but maybe not. I guess the fact that many folks really don't like him suggests he isn't the best person for that role.
For some reason Getty thinks he is. If it were my company, he would have been instructed to behave or he would have been gone. Thats also why I think Getty/Istock dont care about us, they condone abuse, in the forum and financially.
I think he is also the Head of Newsletters. I received a news letter from him from his own internal Getty email address, which I think was a mistake. It was about the Moleskine MILK Tailor Made Books Partnership.
-
I think it's more that he deals with the stuff they don't want to be bothered with...they probably don't give it much thought...as long as they don't have to deal with it. It is clear they don't value the contributors on various levels. I mean they don't even care if we have their trust.
To them we are all lemmings. In their minds, if we don't supply the content someone else would. They have become more about bean counting then providing quality content and service. It's nothing but a numbers game only now. I believe the contributors are the only ones who really care about the content. The buyers in general are too naive (generalizing of course) to be able to differentiate quality content versus run of the mill.
I
-
When an organisation makes an announcement about irregularities that may very well affect thousands of people, the word on what is being done about it and when should be coming from the top not some keyboard masher in the rank and file.
-
iStock is underestimating the importance of good communication and the way the communication towards contributors should be.
The main reason for that is the fact that many ( and I mean many) contributors are somehow working as a grahic designer or in touch with graphic designers. The whole situation at iS is backfiring.
I dpn't know if IS already knows that you can't fool anybody except yourself any more thats one of the advantages of the internet.
-
One of the problems I have with Lobo is that he isn't straightforward. He misleads and obfuscates (euphemisms), and he's usually initially quite sarcastically dismissive when someone first brings up an issue or irregularity.
Over the past few months, he's taken up an odd strategy whereby someone makes a point and he says he "doesn't understand what they're trying to sayW - even though the OP was perfectly clear.
-
While Lobo and I have had our differences I do appreciate the difficult nature of his job even though I don't necessarily agree with the way he goes about it at times.
He has been helpful when needed even going so far as to call me once when I had a question.
I may even miss him when my run at iStock is up in a few weeks..... ;)
-
so not that I want to drag you all off the topic of Lobo - but going back to the original post - has anyone read anything more about the "Irregularity" issue? I briefly looked around the IS forums but didn't really see anything or the original post.
I know.. I probably could have spent more than 5 minutes poking around there but that was my limit before I really just wanted to get out of there.
-
so not that I want to drag you all off the topic of Lobo - but going back to the original post - has anyone read anything more about the "Irregularity" issue? I briefly looked around the IS forums but didn't really see anything or the original post.
I know.. I probably could have spent more than 5 minutes poking around there but that was my limit before I really just wanted to get out of there.
The thread is somewhat hidden in the Partner Program forum. There are probably lots of people over there that have no idea what could be coming. Lobo posted that there will be an update later this week but it won't be Tuesday. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6973868 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6973868)
-
so not that I want to drag you all off the topic of Lobo - but going back to the original post - has anyone read anything more about the "Irregularity" issue? I briefly looked around the IS forums but didn't really see anything or the original post.
I know.. I probably could have spent more than 5 minutes poking around there but that was my limit before I really just wanted to get out of there.
The thread is somewhat hidden in the Partner Program forum. There are probably lots of people over there that have no idea what could be coming. Lobo posted that there will be an update later this week but it won't be Tuesday. [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6973868[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6973868[/url])
His first update was they would have an update last week, the update after that was they would have an update early this week, his latest update is he will have an update later this week, his next update will be they will have an update next month. And in the end, come July your balance will be in the red and your RCs will still not be fixed.
-
so not that I want to drag you all off the topic of Lobo - but going back to the original post - has anyone read anything more about the "Irregularity" issue? I briefly looked around the IS forums but didn't really see anything or the original post.
I know.. I probably could have spent more than 5 minutes poking around there but that was my limit before I really just wanted to get out of there.
The thread is somewhat hidden in the Partner Program forum. There are probably lots of people over there that have no idea what could be coming. Lobo posted that there will be an update later this week but it won't be Tuesday. [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6973868[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6973868[/url])
His first update was they would have an update last week, the update after that was they would have an update early this week, his latest update is he will have an update later this week, his next update will be they will have an update next month. And in the end, come July your balance will be in the red and your RCs will still not be fixed.
You're a pessimist, Ron. I'm sure they will take the money off us much, much more quickly than that. In fact, I reckon that this is one problem that they will solve in record time. Their corporate communications have already improved dramatically to prepare us for the big day.
-
Dubbelpost
-
so not that I want to drag you all off the topic of Lobo - but going back to the original post - has anyone read anything more about the "Irregularity" issue? I briefly looked around the IS forums but didn't really see anything or the original post.
I know.. I probably could have spent more than 5 minutes poking around there but that was my limit before I really just wanted to get out of there.
The thread is somewhat hidden in the Partner Program forum. There are probably lots of people over there that have no idea what could be coming. Lobo posted that there will be an update later this week but it won't be Tuesday. [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6973868[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6973868[/url])
His first update was they would have an update last week, the update after that was they would have an update early this week, his latest update is he will have an update later this week, his next update will be they will have an update next month. And in the end, come July your balance will be in the red and your RCs will still not be fixed.
You're a pessimist, Ron. I'm sure they will take the money off us much, much more quickly than that. In fact, I reckon that this is one problem that they will solve in record time. Their corporate communications have already improved dramatically to prepare us for the big day.
;D Well, it depends, if the mistake was in our favor or their favor. lol But you are right, the RC problem wont be fixed soon, the claw back will happen asap.
-
so not that I want to drag you all off the topic of Lobo - but going back to the original post - has anyone read anything more about the "Irregularity" issue? I briefly looked around the IS forums but didn't really see anything or the original post.
I know.. I probably could have spent more than 5 minutes poking around there but that was my limit before I really just wanted to get out of there.
The thread is somewhat hidden in the Partner Program forum. There are probably lots of people over there that have no idea what could be coming. Lobo posted that there will be an update later this week but it won't be Tuesday. [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6973868[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6973868[/url])
His first update was they would have an update last week, the update after that was they would have an update early this week, his latest update is he will have an update later this week,
Not so. On Friday (3rd Jan) Lobo posted that there would be an update on the issue 'next week' which is this week, which gives them up to Saturday to have him keep his original promise.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6972926
quoted in the OP of this thread on 4th Jan:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/hold-on-to-your-wallets!-%27there-are-irregularities-with-october%27s-pp-royalties%27/msg359497/#msg359497 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/hold-on-to-your-wallets!-%27there-are-irregularities-with-october%27s-pp-royalties%27/msg359497/#msg359497)
-
Sue, if you are on a mission to constantly prove me wrong, you have your work cut out for you. Just make sure you still have time to take photos in between.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358452&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358452&page=1)
Posted Thu Jan 2 1:18PM
We should have an update soon. Probably not before the end of the week, but early next week.
Which is about the RC, I am just illustrating a scenario.
-
Sue, if you are on a mission to constantly prove me wrong, you have your work cut out for you.
Unfortunately, in this case, you made it too easy.
Don't force me to defend iStock, please.
Just make sure you still have time to take photos in between.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358452&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358452&page=1[/url])
The only quote by Lobo I can see on that page is the last post, asking someone to make a report about a keyword/search issue in a different forum.
Posted Thu Jan 2 1:18PM
We should have an update soon. Probably not before the end of the week, but early next week.
Which is about the RC, I am just illustrating a scenario.
Yeah, but you said Lobo said he would give an update on the PP fiasco last week.
If they don't come up timeously with a promised update on RCs, that's a perfectly valid, but totally different issue.
-
Sometimes I really think you and Ruxperiencediam make a perfect match :)
-
If I'm being honest I suspected all along that October royalties were not entirely kosher. Its just that I wanted to believe IS had finally pulled their socks up and were generating real folding money again.
In hindsight, perhaps people would have been better off keeping their cake holes closed and leaving IS to find the error sometime in January 2064
-
In hindsight, perhaps people would have been better off keeping their cake holes closed and leaving IS to find the error sometime in January 2064
No. It is very important that the figures should be accurate and mistakes should be exposed, whichever way they go. If we keep quiet about strange patterns in the accounting they could start consistently underpaying us. I'd still like to know why, when 2012 turned into 2013, my PP sales suddenly dropped about 30% and stayed at the new level for six months. For all I know I've been being underpaid for the whole of 2013.
-
I thought, for the percentage they make when they sell one of my images, I mean that 85% they could hire some qualified people to manage the shop!
With Istock being one of the lowest paying sites in the business and all these problens they have on the site I wonder how many of us will actually stay there.
The PP sales were OK and the amount we received in november was a nice surprise.
December sales were poor, compared to other sites and till today there isn't much happening in january too!
-
In hindsight, perhaps people would have been better off keeping their cake holes closed and leaving IS to find the error sometime in January 2064
No. It is very important that the figures should be accurate and mistakes should be exposed, whichever way they go. If we keep quiet about strange patterns in the accounting they could start consistently underpaying us. I'd still like to know why, when 2012 turned into 2013, my PP sales suddenly dropped about 30% and stayed at the new level for six months. For all I know I've been being underpaid for the whole of 2013.
I was being facetious sir.
In any event, as Canonbabe points out above it is reasonable to expect an agent who helps themselves to such a large slice to provide a reliable and accurate business service. Alas, along with most other corporations these days money is spent on maintaining their place at the pig trough by marketing and sales as opposed to service, quality and reliability.
As always, IS will elaborate when they're good and ready and whether we like it or not. Pigs.
-
I thought, for the percentage they make when they sell one of my images, I mean that 85% they could hire some qualified people to manage the shop!
With Istock being one of the lowest paying sites in the business and all these problens they have on the site I wonder how many of us will actually stay there.
The PP sales were OK and the amount we received in november was a nice surprise.
December sales were poor, compared to other sites and till today there isn't much happening in january too!
This is a great point. They take such a large slice that it isn't unreasonable for us to expect near perfection. Another good point is made is that we either take it or leave it, they really have the upper hand unfortunantly
-
You know - If iStock runs on the fiscal year end of Dec 31, this glitch ought to make for a little additional fun for their accountants to close the year end books. Ha! Ha!
-
I thought, for the percentage they make when they sell one of my images, I mean that 85% they could hire some qualified people to manage the shop!
With Istock being one of the lowest paying sites in the business and all these problens they have on the site I wonder how many of us will actually stay there.
The PP sales were OK and the amount we received in november was a nice surprise.
December sales were poor, compared to other sites and till today there isn't much happening in january too!
This is a great point. They take such a large slice that it isn't unreasonable for us to expect near perfection. Another good point is made is that we either take it or leave it, they really have the upper hand unfortunantly
In case all contributors all leave, all that remains is an empty site and they still have their overhead costs etc. It is about time they realize that WE are their income.
The more images WE produce and upload on their site, the more money WE generate for them.
After spending the most of november without any stats and no decent explanation for this, we not receive a belated X-mas gift: another "donation" to Istock because "something" was wrong in their calculations? C'mon: I only make a f%&*)ing 15% when I sell my images (I wonder if I ever reach 16%?) so their is 85% left for a) proffessional people, b) a compensation for the mistake. It wouldn't be more than "fair" if we share the difference. Afterall, we have to rely on Istocks honest system, we cannot influence sales, we cannot check the earnings, we cannot do anything except generate money, mainly for them.
Any compensation given to the contributor will be considered as "costs". No problem for those overpaid accountants closing the books by now:)
I feel like a sitting duck with a camera!
-
It is about time they realize that WE are their income.
Getty's approach for the last several years - and they've been sticking it to their contributors with contract changes for Getty Images as well, not just iStock - has been that they have sufficient power in the marketplace that contributors will have no choice but to suck it up when Getty takes more and more of the sale and on less and less favorable terms. Because Getty is too large a percentage of contributors' income (or all of it).
It's a power struggle and Getty thinks they have more power and thus can profit from exercising it to their benefit.
They've also been bulking up iStock with lots of Getty collections, some of it wholly owned content (like the Hulton archive), so even if 100% of the "real" iStock contributors left, there'd still be content on the site - and I'm sure Yuri would hang around as he's a professional hanging with professionals :)
The disgraceful mis-management of the iStock site reflects Getty's priorities (influenced by their private equity part owners) - spend as little as possible on site maintenance. That and a history of mangled software releases that stands out even in a business that regularly ships bugs along with new features.
-
All you can do is wait until Getty buckles under their massive debt and they will be declared bankrupt. Once the cancer is removed from the patient, we will see a healthy growth in royalties again.
-
The sooner the better.
-
All you can do is wait until Getty buckles under their massive debt and they will be declared bankrupt. Once the cancer is removed from the patient, we will see a healthy growth in royalties again.
Wouldn't bet on it. They are likely to be acquired by a private equity firm. (private equity is just the new name for hostile leveraged buyout firms, worst of worst corporate raiders)
-
All you can do is wait until Getty buckles under their massive debt and they will be declared bankrupt. Once the cancer is removed from the patient, we will see a healthy growth in royalties again.
Wouldn't bet on it. They are likely to be acquired by a private equity firm. (private equity is just the new name for hostile leveraged buyout firms, worst of worst corporate raiders)
Hasn't that already happened? Didn't Carlyle buy Getty and then borrow most of the money against Getty to pay themselves back? I don't think that there is any room for more 'leveraging'.
-
All you can do is wait until Getty buckles under their massive debt and they will be declared bankrupt. Once the cancer is removed from the patient, we will see a healthy growth in royalties again.
Wouldn't bet on it. They are likely to be acquired by a private equity firm. (private equity is just the new name for hostile leveraged buyout firms, worst of worst corporate raiders)
Hasn't that already happened? Didn't Carlyle buy Getty and then borrow most of the money against Getty to pay themselves back? I don't think that there is any room for more 'leveraging'.
Anyone buying Getty now is crazy or has waaaaaay too much money to burn.
-
Slightly off-topic...did they let tickstock go? No rah-rahs from him? her? in quite a while.
-
Slightly off-topic...did they let tickstock go? No rah-rahs from him? her? in quite a while.
Could be on holiday, I guess.
I don't think even he could spin this as being a Good Thing, but I did expect him to be in all cokka with his Dec and 2013 figures, being one of a few who were doing well through the year.
-
We've established that there were some irregularities with Oct(Sept) and Nov(Oct) Partner Program royalties. We've been investigating these irregularities and hope to have additional information some time next week. What this means is the royalty payments for September and October are being reviewed at this time.
We will have an update on this issue next week.
UPDATE: January 9, 2014.
Weve had the Finance team go back over the royalty payments for September and October and have discovered some issues with a portion of the Partner Program participants payments. This issue impacts approximately 25,000 contributor accounts. We will be sending the affected contributors email notifications of the total amount over paid as well as a recoupment schedule in the very near future.
Has the issue that caused this over payment been addressed?
- Yes, we discovered it in December 2013 prior to the delivery of the November Partner Program royalties.
Why wasnt the contributor base notified earlier?
- We werent able to identify the extent of the issue until early January 2014.
How will the affected contributors be contacted?
- We will be sending email notifications to the impacted contributors in the next week. We will notify this thread as soon as the emails start going out. Please note, if you dont receive an email then your account isnt affected.
* ;(
-
Can you delete all files through deepmeta?
-
Oddly enough all of their errors always equate to an over payment...never an under payment...what a smart system they have there. :P :-\
-
Oddly enough all of their errors always equate to an over payment...never an under payment...what a smart system they have there. :P :-\
They've had underpayments before, but sometimes it's been impossible to tell whether we were repaid the correct amount. I questioned one in the past, got a canned reply that didn't match my question, and when I queried it again it disappeared off my ticket list. It was probably only a few cents, but a few cents from all the contributors ...
-
And we wonder why they have a lack of transparency ::)
-
Of all the incompetent, clod-hopping, dimwitted and yokel-minded companies I've had to deal with, Getty/IS takes first prize with bells on.
This will probably wipe out my December PP earnings at the very least - hopefully not more. Useless.
-
Of all the incompetent, clod-hopping, dimwitted and yokel-minded companies I've had to deal with, Getty/IS takes first prize with bells on.
This will probably wipe out my December PP earnings at the very least - hopefully not more. Useless.
It's 'only' affecting about 25,000 contributors....maybe you aren't one of them. ;)
-
My guess:
They have a yearly competition which department will be able to cause the worst reputation disaster
Probably this competition is organized with a very sophisticated redeemed credit system (please be aware: the calculation of this RC system might be responsible for temporary slow-downs of the site).
-
I wonder if you can delete your account while you have a negative earnings amount? I think my 11 year old could run a company better than this BS!
-
What?! It can't be :o iStock? This biggest king in microstock world and that confusing issues again? One by one...
There are two options (?):
1. Sept. and Oct. earnings are to high and iS will take back some money, or...
2. Nov. is to low, iS wasn't going to check it if not people notice, and... I can't trust them anymore? (it could happen before)
So next week I will know if I close my account now or later...
Let me ask again... Can we trust them?
...rhetorical question...
???
-
SNAFU
Posted By heywoody:
How about a bit of detail on how the problem was caused and what precisely was affected?
Lobo:
There was an issue with the data that was sent. It affected the royalties of approximately 25,000 contributors who are Partner Program participants.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6974806 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6974806)
-
What?! It can't be :o iStock? This biggest king in microstock world and that confusing issues again? One by one...
There are two options (?):
1. Sept. and Oct. earnings are to high and iS will take back some money, or...
2. Nov. is to low, iS wasn't going to check it if not people notice, and... I can't trust them anymore? (it could happen before)
So next week I will know if I close my account now or later...
Let me ask again... Can we trust them?
???
No, of course not.
A high admin even admitted years ago it was a 'new kind of trust' ::) ages before they let him go.
I can't find the quote on iStock, (it was by previous admin JJRD), but I have found a reference I made to it here in March 2011 and it was probably some time before that.
-
All you can do is wait until Getty buckles under their massive debt and they will be declared bankrupt. Once the cancer is removed from the patient, we will see a healthy growth in royalties again.
As long as key microsite players like SS use price undercutting as a long term growth strategy to capture market share, sites like IS are under pressure to cut or keep image pricing ultra low and that does not beget healthy royalties.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last)
-
All you can do is wait until Getty buckles under their massive debt and they will be declared bankrupt. Once the cancer is removed from the patient, we will see a healthy growth in royalties again.
As long as key microsite players like SS use price undercutting as a long term growth strategy to capture market share, site like IS are under pressure to cut or keep image pricing ultra low and that does not beget healthy royalties.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last[/url] ([url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last[/url])
Why did I just know that your post on a topic about an Istock mistake ... would be to blame SS for it. Classic!
-
oh those canadians, eric cartman was right :/
I think only true payment that they have made so far was that over-calculated one.
-
@ gbalex, please open a thread in the SS forum, alternatively [email protected]
Dont bother replying to my comments as I dont care about your quotes.
-
Just in case I am one of the 25,000 affected, I cashed out.
I would rather owe them money than have them claw it back from me :P. And I don't sell that much so it will be in negative for a while.
-
As usual with those toerags at IS the words "we are sorry", "we apologize" or "we regret" are missing from their vocabulary.
And I still say they owe us a statement from the organ grinder not just the monkey.
-
All you can do is wait until Getty buckles under their massive debt and they will be declared bankrupt. Once the cancer is removed from the patient, we will see a healthy growth in royalties again.
Cancer removed!!!
Operation succesfull,
Patient died (.... small issues do happen)
-
iS has position nr 3 in my personal earnings ranking right now.
Wonder if Dreamstime will end up on position nr 3 and iS on nr 4 or 5.
Which will bring them in my 'upload' danger zone.
The competition couldn't have a better start of the Year.
Without any effort (except doing their job right). SS, FT and DT will grow in numbers due to the incompetence of the iS board and her shareholders.
-
All you can do is wait until Getty buckles under their massive debt and they will be declared bankrupt. Once the cancer is removed from the patient, we will see a healthy growth in royalties again.
As long as key microsite players like SS use price undercutting as a long term growth strategy to capture market share, sites like IS are under pressure to cut or keep image pricing ultra low and that does not beget healthy royalties.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last[/url] ([url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last[/url])
That's the truth, and the root cause of problems like this. It's got nothing to do with 'lobo' or his personality. Why are people minus-ing it?
-
sorry seems to be the hardest word ;)
-
The more I think about this my blood boils. They take so much of the sale and can't provide the services they promise. As usual the little guys pays for mistakes they have no control over.
-
As usual with those toerags at IS the words "we are sorry", "we apologize" or "we regret" are missing from their vocabulary.
Would you prefer that they lied and pretended they actually GAD?
-
If my account goes into the negative because of this, I'm closing my account on the spot. I wonder how they will feel about losing money already paid out? Hopefully not too good.
-
If my account goes into the negative because of this, I'm closing my account on the spot. I wonder how they will feel about losing money already paid out? Hopefully not too good.
Actually, when you close your account it takes up to 30 days for your images to come off the PP sites so they will continue to generate income even though you are no longer there. Final payout is about 60 days after your account closes. So, in theory, any negative balance you have from this PP clawback should be made up for by the time final payout occurs. iStock will get it's money.
My account closed today.
-
If my account goes into the negative because of this, I'm closing my account on the spot. I wonder how they will feel about losing money already paid out? Hopefully not too good.
All of a sudden an ' account closing' glitch will show up till their lawyers have found a way to screw you and suck the last dime out of ya
-
If my account goes into the negative because of this, I'm closing my account on the spot. I wonder how they will feel about losing money already paid out? Hopefully not too good.
Actually, when you close your account it takes up to 30 days for your images to come off the PP sites so they will continue to generate income even though you are no longer there. Final payout is about 60 days after your account closes. So, in theory, any negative balance you have from this PP clawback should be made up for by the time final payout occurs. iStock will get it's money.
My account closed today.
Good point, but that is assuming PP sales are good, which apparently they are not, the good sales where all "just a glitch" all along, so depending on the severity of the over payment, even 60 days may not be enough to "repay" them.
-
As usual with those toerags at IS the words "we are sorry", "we apologize" or "we regret" are missing from their vocabulary.
Would you prefer that they lied and pretended they actually GAD?
First choice: they were so meticulous and talented in running the site that mistakes didn't happen
Second choice: they actually cared about contributors
Third choice: they respected contributors enough to treat them professionally and apologize profusely when they find they've made a mistake even though they didn't really care
-
As usual with those toerags at IS the words "we are sorry", "we apologize" or "we regret" are missing from their vocabulary.
Would you prefer that they lied and pretended they actually GAD?
First choice: they were so meticulous and talented in running the site that mistakes didn't happen
Second choice: they actually cared about contributors
Third choice: they respected contributors enough to treat them professionally and apologize profusely when they find they've made a mistake even though they didn't really care
I'd go for one or two, but by not lying, they let us all know exactly what we're dealing with.
In case anyone was still in any doubt.
-
I don't know what to say... I'll be losing hundreds of Dollars if the October earnings were actually supposed to be more like the November earnings...
-
It is so utterly unprofessional that one might think iS does it on purpose. One might even think... is there a strategy behind the performance of iS?
Reminds me of a John Cleese film.... How to iritate people
-
I've heard of being 'Serviced' but this isn't what I had in mind... :-[
-
I've heard of being 'Serviced' but this isn't what I had in mind... :-[
What, you rather have Lobo serve you with a dance?
South Park - You Just Got F'd in the A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDmwZVWGG4Y#ws)
-
As long as key microsite players like SS use price undercutting as a long term growth strategy to capture market share, sites like IS are under pressure to cut or keep image pricing ultra low and that does not beget healthy royalties.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last[/url] ([url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last[/url])
No one's hands are clean in the race for the bottom. Contributors aren't stupid. If you sell licenses for $15 and only pay the contributor 15%, the contributor knows they are better off selling at another agency for $5 and taking 50%, as they get more sales and more money per sale (demand curves and all that), and so the cycle goes.
-
The 15% we "make" is the bottom royalty in this market! In case we redeemed enough credits we can even earn a whooping 16%. To reach the 16% we need to redeem 1500 credits. This is $ 1,750.71 in earnings. By that time IS earned their 85% and this is 11,671.43. Talking about making money!
-
My blood is boiling. I can never trust iStock again (not that I ever did). If there's a big bunch of sales, it's credit card fraud and the money gets refunded. If the PP royalties for ONE SINGLE MONTH turn out to be rather good, it's an overpayment.
It's as if they don't want us to to make any decent money.
-
If the PP royalties for ONE SINGLE MONTH turn out to be rather good, it's an overpayment.
Not for an instant defending iStock's gross incompetence, malice etc., but it surely was suspicious in 'one single month' that in the PP so many people were suddenly reporting a vastly increased RPD, with no evidence that there was any reason for it.
-
No update this week per Lobo
-
No update this week per Lobo
He has amended the first post in that thread
UPDATE: January 9, 2014.
Weve had the Finance team go back over the royalty payments for September and October and have discovered some issues with a portion of the Partner Program participants payments. This issue impacts approximately 25,000 contributor accounts. We will be sending the affected contributors email notifications of the total amount over paid as well as a recoupment schedule in the very near future.
Has the issue that caused this over payment been addressed?
- Yes, we discovered it in December 2013 prior to the delivery of the November Partner Program royalties.
Why wasnt the contributor base notified earlier?
- We werent able to identify the extent of the issue until early January 2014.
How will the affected contributors be contacted?
- We will be sending email notifications to the impacted contributors in the next week. We will notify this thread as soon as the emails start going out. Please note, if you dont receive an email then your account isnt affected.
-
I posted it on istock forum but it was deleted instantly. But here they can't do anything
After reading this article it's become clear that this is a fraud. They desperately looking how to reducing debt. And I don't want to pay for that.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298 (https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298)
P.S I don't understand why they delete my post on istockpoto forum. Because it's not a secret information. Everybody can find it and read.
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
-
I posted it on istock forum but it was deleted instantly. But here they can't do anything
After reading this article it's become clear that this is a fraud. They desperately looking how to reducing debt. And I don't want to pay for that.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298 (https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298)
P.S I don't understand why they delete my post on istockpoto forum. Because it's not a secret information. Everybody can find it and read.
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
I don't think it's fraud. They're just incompetent.
-
Posted by: Noedelhap
Ŧ on: Today at 15:13 ŧ Insert Quote
Quote from: mayaartist on Today at 13:54
I posted it on istock forum but it was deleted instantly. But here they can't do anything
After reading this article it's become clear that this is a fraud. They desperately looking how to reducing debt. And I don't want to pay for that.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298 (https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298)
P.S I don't understand why they delete my post on istockpoto forum. Because it's not a secret information. Everybody can find it and read.
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
I don't think it's fraud. They're just incompetent.
I just can't afford to get even less than 15% it's just a pure slavery.
-
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
And I did it this morning. I've asked to deactivate all my files and waiting to payout after Jan. end when PP is calculated. I'm sick of this 15%, 0,08$ and often all issues here :|
-
Ariene
Ŧ Reply #164 on: Today at 16:29 ŧ
Quote #link+1
Quote from: mayaartist on Today at 13:54
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
And I did it this morning. I've asked to deactivate all my files and waiting to payout after Jan. end when PP is calculated. I'm sick of this 15%, 0,08$ and often all issues here :|
Hi Ariene,
I absolutely agree with you. I can't tolerate the IS behavior any more
-
I posted it on istock forum but it was deleted instantly. But here they can't do anything
After reading this article it's become clear that this is a fraud. They desperately looking how to reducing debt. And I don't want to pay for that.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298 (https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298)
P.S I don't understand why they delete my post on istockpoto forum. Because it's not a secret information. Everybody can find it and read.
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
Lol, I just posted the same thing and it was deleted as well.
-
I posted it on istock forum but it was deleted instantly. But here they can't do anything
After reading this article it's become clear that this is a fraud. They desperately looking how to reducing debt. And I don't want to pay for that.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298 (https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298)
P.S I don't understand why they delete my post on istockpoto forum. Because it's not a secret information. Everybody can find it and read.
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
Lol, I just posted the same thing and it was deleted as well.
Ok, new update, they have banned me from the forums for posting that link.
-
As long as key microsite players like SS use price undercutting as a long term growth strategy to capture market share, sites like IS are under pressure to cut or keep image pricing ultra low and that does not beget healthy royalties.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
[url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last[/url] ([url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last[/url])
No one's hands are clean in the race for the bottom. Contributors aren't stupid. If you sell licenses for $15 and only pay the contributor 15%, the contributor knows they are better off selling at another agency for $5 and taking 50%, as they get more sales and more money per sale (demand curves and all that), and so the cycle goes.
If you think I was defending IS on any level you are wrong. I completely agree that many sites are contributing in the race to the bottom. I was simply responding to Ron's comment that we will see healthy royalties again at IS if and when Getty goes bankrupt. I simply detailed and documented one key reason I don't think we will see healthy royalties in the near term at any micro site. That being price undercutting as a company growth strategy.
In addition I think we will see sites spending more $$$$$$$ attracting and then promoting new contributors in searches so that they can pay out a lower % royalties.
How low do you suppose they will be willing to go in the devaluation of our assets?
As to the claw back, isn't this what we have come to expect when doing business with IS? I cut them free after the Google Drive fiasco.
All you can do is wait until Getty buckles under their massive debt and they will be declared bankrupt. Once the cancer is removed from the patient, we will see a healthy growth in royalties again.
-
I'm so angry right now ! It's not CONTRIBUTORS fault it errors happens. So it's totally unfair they take our money back. They already got more than 80% on our sales and it's still not enough ? They don't answers and they delete our post. *.
I'Ve been a part of istock since 2004, was exclusive and diamond. I earned them big money. Now look how they thanks us ? With their stupid redeem credit system I lost all ! Then remove exclusivity to get opportunity on other agencies. So not the peanuts I have there, they taking it back ! WOW ! I'm so MAD !!! What a wrong way to start year 2014 !
Any lawyer here ? That should be illegal !
-
I'm the last one to stand up for iStock in any way, shape, or form (note, I closed my account yesterday and am officially outta there). But, if I'm not mistaken someone (Lobo?) said that the Oct PP figure fiasco was due to a reporting error? Whose error? iStock's or the partner sites themselves? Considering iStock's track record I would assume the blame lies with them but do we know that for sure? Since I can't get into the forums any longer maybe someone can enlighten me; although I'm not sure why, or if, I care.
-
bpepz
Ŧ Reply #167 on: Today at 17:16 ŧ
Quote #link0
Quote from: bpepz on Today at 17:07
Quote from: mayaartist on Today at 13:54
I posted it on istock forum but it was deleted instantly. But here they can't do anything
After reading this article it's become clear that this is a fraud. They desperately looking how to reducing debt. And I don't want to pay for that.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298 (https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298)
P.S I don't understand why they delete my post on istockpoto forum. Because it's not a secret information. Everybody can find it and read.
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
Lol, I just posted the same thing and it was deleted as well.
Ok, new update, they have banned me from the forums for posting that link.
I had two site mails form Lobo when I posted it. And than I started deleting my images.
-
bpepz
Ŧ Reply #167 on: Today at 17:16 ŧ
Quote #link0
Quote from: bpepz on Today at 17:07
Quote from: mayaartist on Today at 13:54
I posted it on istock forum but it was deleted instantly. But here they can't do anything
After reading this article it's become clear that this is a fraud. They desperately looking how to reducing debt. And I don't want to pay for that.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298 (https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298)
P.S I don't understand why they delete my post on istockpoto forum. Because it's not a secret information. Everybody can find it and read.
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
Lol, I just posted the same thing and it was deleted as well.
Ok, new update, they have banned me from the forums for posting that link.
I had two site mails form Lobo when I posted it. And than I started deleting my images.
seems they are really sensitive about that article. I'm banned now for posting it.
-
bpepz
Ŧ Reply #167 on: Today at 17:16 ŧ
Quote #link0
Quote from: bpepz on Today at 17:07
Quote from: mayaartist on Today at 13:54
I posted it on istock forum but it was deleted instantly. But here they can't do anything
After reading this article it's become clear that this is a fraud. They desperately looking how to reducing debt. And I don't want to pay for that.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298 (https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298)
P.S I don't understand why they delete my post on istockpoto forum. Because it's not a secret information. Everybody can find it and read.
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
Lol, I just posted the same thing and it was deleted as well.
Ok, new update, they have banned me from the forums for posting that link.
I had two site mails form Lobo when I posted it. And than I started deleting my images.
seems they are really sensitive about that article. I'm banned now for posting it.
No, it's not that. You posted it three times and ignored my sitemails indicating the article you are linking was from October 31, 2013 and it was in no way related to the Partner Program issues.
-
the article you are linking was from October 31, 2013 and it was in no way related to the Partner Program issues.
Why couldn't you just say "it is in no way related to the Partner Program issues" and leave the link there? I hope you do understand that all this hiding and other shenanigans seem very suspicious?
-
No, it's not that. You posted it three times and ignored my sitemails indicating the article you are linking was from October 31, 2013 and it was in no way related to the Partner Program issues.
Of all the hurt and agony and fvck ups that IS puts upon us, your only reply is to justify a forum ban. T Y P I C A L !
-
the article you are linking was from October 31, 2013 and it was in no way related to the Partner Program issues.
Why couldn't you just say "it is in no way related to the Partner Program issues" and leave the link there? I hope you do understand that all this hiding and other shenanigans seem very suspicious?
so what if it was oct 31st? its not like they could instantly pull something like this off. Only a few months difference, also the new year may have something to do with the timing as well. Only time will tell.
-
iStockphoto seems to have North Korea as their role model.
Heck, I feel like I was working for North Korea already.
-
bpepz
Ŧ Reply #167 on: Today at 17:16 ŧ
Quote #link0
Quote from: bpepz on Today at 17:07
Quote from: mayaartist on Today at 13:54
I posted it on istock forum but it was deleted instantly. But here they can't do anything
After reading this article it's become clear that this is a fraud. They desperately looking how to reducing debt. And I don't want to pay for that.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298 (https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298)
P.S I don't understand why they delete my post on istockpoto forum. Because it's not a secret information. Everybody can find it and read.
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
Lol, I just posted the same thing and it was deleted as well.
Ok, new update, they have banned me from the forums for posting that link.
I had two site mails form Lobo when I posted it. And than I started deleting my images.
seems they are really sensitive about that article. I'm banned now for posting it.
No, it's not that. You posted it three times and ignored my sitemails indicating the article you are linking was from October 31, 2013 and it was in no way related to the Partner Program issues.
I originally posted to see if what people were saying was true, that if that information was posted you would get your message deleted. Sure enough, my message was deleted, signaling to me that indeed something indeed may be amiss, and I kept posting with the hopes that someone could see it. Truthfully though I did not see the site mail till after I noticed I could not post anymore, I am not really complaining about being banned, but it does show there is some sort of damage control going on over that information.
-
I'M on other microstock agencies and things like that never happens ! They never take back money error ! That's juste happen on istock.
-
pieman
I'm Lobo
Ŧ Reply #173 on: Today at 17:53 ŧ
Quote #link0
Quote from: bpepz on Today at 17:49
Quote from: mayaartist on Today at 17:42
Quote
bpepz
Ŧ Reply #167 on: Today at 17:16 ŧ
Quote #link0
Quote from: bpepz on Today at 17:07
Quote from: mayaartist on Today at 13:54
I posted it on istock forum but it was deleted instantly. But here they can't do anything
After reading this article it's become clear that this is a fraud. They desperately looking how to reducing debt. And I don't want to pay for that.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298 (https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Getty-to-B3-from-B2-Outlook-is-Stable--PR_285298)
P.S I don't understand why they delete my post on istockpoto forum. Because it's not a secret information. Everybody can find it and read.
After all this I've decided to start delete my portfolio from istockphoto. I don't believe them any more.
Lol, I just posted the same thing and it was deleted as well.
Ok, new update, they have banned me from the forums for posting that link.
I had two site mails form Lobo when I posted it. And than I started deleting my images.
seems they are really sensitive about that article. I'm banned now for posting it.
No, it's not that. You posted it three times and ignored my sitemails indicating the article you are linking was from October 31, 2013 and it was in no way related to the Partner Program issues.
I posted it not because it's only related to the PP issue. But if you understand a bit finance this article will give you an idea that Getty Images has a difficult financial time. And simply deleting peoples posts is just hiding something(very unprofessional).
P.S. And by the way if IS only provide us with minimal info about what's heppend. Why we can't find some official reports which is in public domain.
-
If I'm correct informed.... Moody's downgraded Getty Images recently.
-
If I'm correct informed.... Moody's downgraded Getty Images recently.
The ratings agencies have repeatedly downgraded the USA. But it is still there and you wouldn't mess with it.
(the same agencies which rated all that collateralized debt AAA just before the 2007/8 crash)
-
If I'm correct informed.... Moody's downgraded Getty Images recently.
The ratings agencies have repeatedly downgraded the USA. But it is still there and you wouldn't mess with it.
(the same agencies which rated all that collateralized debt AAA just before the 2007/8 crash)
That's not really the point, is it? GI isn't a country and can't print money to pay its debts. It has to find people willing to lend to it if it needs to refinance and will have to pay higher interest rates, which in turn makes it more unlikely that it will be able to meet its obligations some time in the future.
If at some point it needs a large sum and can't find a lender then it goes bust - and guess who would be the last in the queue to get paid out from what's left? It won't be the banks.
-
After thinking about this a while, as much as I am sure Istock has no problem outright stealing from contributors, I think its unlikely in this situation. More likely, the uptick in PP sales were totally artificial, a way for istock to boost its image on paper, knowing full well as soon as 2014 came around they would call it a "glitch" and claw it all back. It seems they knew they were under scrutiny and were trying to boost performance to prevent the downgrade from Moody's. Obviously they still had the downgrade, but even if they had not, the extra "sales" would of been clawed back either way. At least in this situation istock has not exactly defrauded its contributors, you can't really feel bad about losing a sale that never happened.
-
Its not stealing, its an overpayment and has to be paid back. I have no issues with paying back an overpayment, the problem is with their never ending cock ups and the way they handle these issues. No explanation, forum bans, no apologies.... etc.
-
Once again I call for an Istock accounting ledger page for each contributor. The Account page must be a true ledger of customer payment, iStock deductions, contributor portion. Do this for each transaction in the contributors account. Istock has the data to do the accounting - just make it transparent to each contributor. It's the only way for us to gain any confidence in the Istock accounting system now.
I Totally agree! We need a professional accounting system because we're making our living on this blind trust system and its not good enough.
-
Correction - my ISP decided to block Payoneer emails, so they were the problem, not iS
Three days ago Istock sent me a message telling me that the latest payment into Payoneer was "almost there". In the past, this has been followed in a couple of hours with confirmation from Payoneer, but this time I am still waiting. I can't help wondering if someone has moved to block pending payments until they claw back the money.
Has anybody else seen anything similar?
-
Its not stealing, its an overpayment and has to be paid back. I have no issues with paying back an overpayment, the problem is with their never ending cock ups and the way they handle these issues. No explanation, forum bans, no apologies.... etc.
Why I never have overpayment from IS?as you guys all reported a wonderful NOV on PP, I just got one lousy pp which is 0.28...lolololol ;D
-
Changed my mind.
-
I feel like a dog who's been given a delicious (and unexpected) $300 cookie. And now, almost 2 months later, with the cookie half eaten, the Boss wants it back. And I'm not the only dog with a half eaten cookie. There's 25000 doggies like me. I think Istock is pretty courageous to mess with 25000 dogs.
-
PP ... isn't it strange that we can't track our saled by date on IS ? You need a script, and even with a script, you can't track the last sales on PP ! I have 3800 images so I can't see exactly wich have sold last month.
That would be a good start if IS display our PP sales. Now we don'T know anything, and can't track error ! That's very very strange and I have doubt about their intentions. And the way they're not responding... And no appologies ...
I can't wait for next week to have answers.
-
I can't wait for next week to have answers.
What answers are you hoping for next week?
AFAICS, all that's going to happen is that "We will be sending email notifications to the impacted contributors in the next week. We will notify this thread as soon as the emails start going out. Please note, if you dont receive an email then your account isnt affected." as per Lobo's updated OP.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6972926 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6972926)
No further answers other than he's already stated there have been offered.
-
I was hoping explanation from them !
-
I was hoping explanation from them !
Posted By heywoody:
"How about a bit of detail on how the problem was caused and what precisely was affected?"
Lobo:
"There was an issue with the data that was sent. It affected the royalties of approximately 25,000 contributors who are Partner Program participants."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6974806 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6974806)
-
I just finished with deactivation of my files on IS. I left one until they calculate next PP. But I doubt that I'll be able to cash out then. It doesn't matter to be honest.
-
25,000
This number seems rather curious.
Only 25,000 on millions of users?
When each of us here seem to have been affected by the plague ...
Another another lie?
-
I agree this number is curious ! It's still 25 000 ! to me it's huge !
-
Probably 30,000 to 40,000 contributors with ports not all of whom are in PP so 25,000 is plausible. I don't know if the larger royalties reflect something like the OD at SS or whether there are different subs packages that pay different royalties so possible explanation would be that downloads were recorded against an incorrect package - just an example of an explanation beyond "wrong amounts were transferred". The bottom line though is that it is now not possible to have any confidence or trust that IS can pay us correctly.
-
The bottom line though is that it is now not possible to have any confidence or trust that IS can pay us correctly.
That's not new. Look at previous PP payout bungles where they have had to scrap what they've posted and start again.
-
This discussion just reinforces my conviction that microstock is no longer worth the hassle and the aggravation, given the ever-shrinking returns. I got out of IS back on D-Day and never looked back. I still have my stuff at a couple other places but I no longer submit anything.
No idea where this company thinks it's going. They can't rely on enthusiastic but clueless newbies for all their future submissions. Or can they? I've stopped caring.
-
This discussion just reinforces my conviction that microstock is no longer worth the hassle and the aggravation, given the ever-shrinking returns. I got out of IS back on D-Day and never looked back. I still have my stuff at a couple other places but I no longer submit anything.
No idea where this company thinks it's going. They can't rely on enthusiastic but clueless newbies for all their future submissions. Or can they? I've stopped caring.
You say you've stopped caring but you certainly haven't stopped posting!
By my calculations there will be something like $200M to be shared amongst microstock contributors during 2014. It just depends how hard you are prepared to work for your piece of the action.
-
I just finished with deactivation of my files on IS. I left one until they calculate next PP. But I doubt that I'll be able to cash out then. It doesn't matter to be honest.
If you are closing your account, you don't need to have $100 in your balance to receive a payout. (But there might be a matter of a clawback at this time :( >:()
-
Posted by: ShadySue
Ŧ on: Today at 06:25 ŧ Insert Quote
Quote from: mayaartist on Yesterday at 10:18
I just finished with deactivation of my files on IS. I left one until they calculate next PP. But I doubt that I'll be able to cash out then. It doesn't matter to be honest.
If you are closing your account, you don't need to have $100 in your balance to receive a payout. (But there might be a matter of a clawback at this time )
Hi ShadySue,
Thank you very much for the info. I didn't know that.
-
This discussion just reinforces my conviction that microstock is no longer worth the hassle and the aggravation, given the ever-shrinking returns. I got out of IS back on D-Day and never looked back. I still have my stuff at a couple other places but I no longer submit anything.
No idea where this company thinks it's going. They can't rely on enthusiastic but clueless newbies for all their future submissions. Or can they? I've stopped caring.
We are a few that had enough, and took our port down.
Im sad to see newbies with high hopes doing everything to get in, and earn 5 dollars and get abused, lied to and used as an argument.
-
Istock is like a chiken without head.
-
From the IS thread:
"Pending the results of this investigation, my company is placing iStock on probation. A update on this probation and whether or not further actions will be taken will be provided next week."
Double secret probation!
-
Risky to read too much into this, but I just got paid for the request I made just after midnight on January 1st. I'm surprised, since it sounded like payments would be delayed while they sorted out October's PP royalties.
-
Risky to read too much into this, but I just got paid for the request I made just after midnight on January 1st. I'm surprised, since it sounded like payments would be delayed while they sorted out October's PP royalties.
Lobo said:
"We will be sending the affected contributors email notifications of the total amount over paid as well as a recoupment schedule in the very near future." which I inferred as meaning a staged claw-back over a specified number of months.
But ambiguity rules over there, and anyone's inference is as good or bad as mine.
-
Still cant find how to delete my images.
-
Still cant find how to delete my images.
click on an image. Scroll down until you see the "Administration" link and click on it. It will pop up a "Manage file" tab at the top of the screen. Under that is "deactivate file".
Total PITA and time waster if you have alot of photos to deactivate.
I think you can also send a list of file numbers to Contributor Relations and they will deactivate them (or your whole account if you wish, I'm really tempted at this point myself) for you.
-
Still cant find how to delete my images.
click on an image. Scroll down until you see the "Administration" link and click on it. It will pop up a "Manage file" tab at the top of the screen. Under that is "deactivate file".
Total PITA and time waster if you have alot of photos to deactivate.
I think you can also send a list of file numbers to Contributor Relations and they will deactivate them (or your whole account if you wish, I'm really tempted at this point myself) for you.
Thanks Buddy, I have 80 files. So its not a disaster. I think I will get the GM script from Sean to do it. Just need to dig up the instructions and the link.
-
I am unique as i both contribute personally and buy for my company from iStock.
Our company account has spent over 10K in the past few years on images.
I just posted to their forum thread, to paraphrase "screw me personally, lose me professionally"... then i followed up from my corp account to verify that i wasn't BSing.
The equation for them in my case is, get back $40-$80, lose $5,000 in the next couple years. Let's see how incompetent their decision is, or if they even care to read it.
My company may be looking at a shiny new shutter stock or fotolia account in the coming month!
;D
-
Nevermind, looks like its already deleted! HAHAHA
Wow they are quick to hide criticism
-
I am unique as i both contribute personally and buy for my company from iStock.
Our company account has spent over 10K in the past few years on images.
I just posted to their forum thread, to paraphrase "screw me personally, lose me professionally"... then i followed up from my corp account to verify that i wasn't BSing.
The equation for them in my case is, get back $40-$80, lose $5,000 in the next couple years. Let's see how incompetent their decision is, or if they even care to read it.
My company may be looking at a shiny new shutter stock or fotolia account in the coming month!
;D
AIUI, you're not the only person who contributes and buys there.
I guess their total they need to claw back is more than they'll lose from your custom. They say 25,000 contributors are affected, so that would only need 20c from each clawed back to make the $5000 you're removing.
I'm not defending their gross incompetence; it's sheer Maths.
Like it or not, we agreed to recompense them for overpayments when we signed the contract
4b " In all cases, payment of royalties to the Supplier will be net of: ... (iv) overpayment of royalties in a prior period;"
-
...My company may be looking at a shiny new shutter stock or fotolia account in the coming month...
They'd be better off anyway. iStock isn't a good deal from the buyer perspective. Shutterstock is a better deal, as are many other companies. I've known of a few design agencies/studios recently moving away from iStock, and as far as I know they're happy with the decision.
-
I used to refer my graphic designer friends to buy on istock. Now they ask me how my selling goes, I tell em the truth ! And they ask me where else they can buy images they need ! And they go somewhere else ! SO yes, be unfair and unethic with contributors, will have consequences on buyer ! But do istock care ? I don't think so ! I would like to see the owner in our shoes like the tv show undercover boss !
-
Is there a working version of Seans script to deactivate files? I cant find a working link.
-
Is there a working version of Seans script to deactivate files? I cant find a working link.
I don't think it works any more. Maybe someone with access to IS can modify it. They probably just changed a column name or something.
http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js (http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js)
-
Is there a working version of Seans script to deactivate files? I cant find a working link.
I don't think it works any more. Maybe someone with access to IS can modify it. They probably just changed a column name or something.
[url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js[/url] ([url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js[/url])
So I need to manually deactivate my 80 images, ok, I guess its not that much work.
Thanks anyway.
-
Is there a working version of Seans script to deactivate files? I cant find a working link.
I don't think it works any more. Maybe someone with access to IS can modify it. They probably just changed a column name or something.
[url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js[/url] ([url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js[/url])
So I need to manually deactivate my 80 images, ok, I guess its not that much work.
Thanks anyway.
I found that the easiest way is to just close your account.....quite liberating, actually.
-
I found that the easiest way is to just close your account.....quite liberating, actually.
Yes, it's time. I've been hunting around the site, looking for a way to do that, without success. Let me guess: I have to create a support ticket?
-
I am unique as i both contribute personally and buy for my company from iStock.
Our company account has spent over 10K in the past few years on images.
I just posted to their forum thread, to paraphrase "screw me personally, lose me professionally"... then i followed up from my corp account to verify that i wasn't BSing.
The equation for them in my case is, get back $40-$80, lose $5,000 in the next couple years. Let's see how incompetent their decision is, or if they even care to read it.
My company may be looking at a shiny new shutter stock or fotolia account in the coming month!
;D
AIUI, you're not the only person who contributes and buys there.
I guess their total they need to claw back is more than they'll lose from your custom. They say 25,000 contributors are affected, so that would only need 20c from each clawed back to make the $5000 you're removing.
I'm not defending their gross incompetence; it's sheer Maths.
Like it or not, we agreed to recompense them for overpayments when we signed the contract
4b " In all cases, payment of royalties to the Supplier will be net of: ... (iv) overpayment of royalties in a prior period;"
I seem to remember it also said something about paying indies 20%.....
-
Is there a working version of Seans script to deactivate files? I cant find a working link.
I don't think it works any more. Maybe someone with access to IS can modify it. They probably just changed a column name or something.
[url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js[/url] ([url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js[/url])
So I need to manually deactivate my 80 images, ok, I guess its not that much work.
Thanks anyway.
I found that the easiest way is to just close your account.....quite liberating, actually.
The script still works, just deactivated all images. I dont want them to sell one more, and then opened a support ticket to close my account. Its done. I am out of there.
The refund notice I got today finally got me to do it.
-
Is there a working version of Seans script to deactivate files? I cant find a working link.
I don't think it works any more. Maybe someone with access to IS can modify it. They probably just changed a column name or something.
[url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js[/url] ([url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js[/url])
So I need to manually deactivate my 80 images, ok, I guess its not that much work.
Thanks anyway.
I found that the easiest way is to just close your account.....quite liberating, actually.
The script still works, just deactivated all images. I dont want them to sell one more, and then opened a support ticket to close my account. Its done. I am out of there.
The refund notice I got today finally got me to do it.
Congrats
-
I found that the easiest way is to just close your account.....quite liberating, actually.
Yes, it's time. I've been hunting around the site, looking for a way to do that, without success. Let me guess: I have to create a support ticket?
Support ticket it is.
-
Is there a working version of Seans script to deactivate files? I cant find a working link.
I don't think it works any more. Maybe someone with access to IS can modify it. They probably just changed a column name or something.
[url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js[/url] ([url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_addDeactivationColumn.user.js[/url])
So I need to manually deactivate my 80 images, ok, I guess its not that much work.
Thanks anyway.
I found that the easiest way is to just close your account.....quite liberating, actually.
The script still works, just deactivated all images. I dont want them to sell one more, and then opened a support ticket to close my account. Its done. I am out of there.
The refund notice I got today finally got me to do it.
Atta way, Ron. Feel better now? I sure do.
-
Yep, I remember really wanting to get accepted by Istock, what a disappointment it turned out to be.
-
"red herring" removed
Sorry folks, carry on... ::)
-
That post conveniently only references one specific usage of the word recoupment, and is a total Red Herring in this context.
The Free Dictionary, as my first Google search result shows:
re·coup (r-kp)
v. re·couped, re·coup·ing, re·coups
v.tr.
1. To receive an equivalent for; make up for: recoup a loss. See Synonyms at recover.
2. To return as an equivalent for; reimburse.
3. Law To deduct or withhold (part of something due) for an equitable reason.
v.intr.
To regain a former favorable position.
n.
The act of recouping.
[Middle English recoupen, to cut short, from Old French recouper, to cut back : re-, re- + couper, to cut (from coup, blow; see coup).]
re·coupa·ble adj.
re·coupment n.
which is the only meaning I know of the term, not the music one.
-
What Chris explains is correct as well.
-
What Chris explains is correct as well.
Yes, but totally irrelevant to this matter.
-
Since nobody at Istock works on the weekend (apart from the cleaning lady) I assume their "next week" update will occur sometime before 17:30 hours tomorrow.
If that fails, it would be a nice gesture if they could start rolling out the December PP earnings this weekend. If only to give us a few minutes to look at them before they are snatched away again.
-
What happened to: "somewhere next week we'll send everyone an e-mail"?
-
still no comment from tickstock? my popcorn has gone cold waiting...
-
still no comment from tickstock? my popcorn has gone cold waiting...
Maybe this is something even he cannot defend :o
-
still no comment from tickstock? my popcorn has gone cold waiting...
Tickstock has been assimilated by the collective known as Istock. His biological and technological distinctiveness has been added to their own. Resistance is futile.
-
still no comment from tickstock? my popcorn has gone cold waiting...
Tickstock has been assimilated by the collective known as Istock. His biological and technological distinctiveness has been added to their own. Resistance is futile.
We already knew that ;)
-
still no comment from tickstock? my popcorn has gone cold waiting...
Well, his "cover" has pretty much been blown. It's now widely known/believed that he's a Getty employee pushing their agenda in the guise of an objective contributor. When he magically disappeared over the same period that Istock employees were on holiday break, that pretty much sealed it.
Now they have two choices - send him or someone else in under a new screen identity (and maybe be less OBVIOUS this time). Or perhaps they've realized there's nothing they can do to win over our "hearts and minds" while they keep screwing us, and have given up.
-
Well, his "cover" has pretty much been blown. It's now widely known/believed that he's a Getty employee pushing their agenda in the guise of an objective contributor.
You were also convinced at one point that I was part of this conspiracy. Anyhow: widely known/believed by who ? I doubt that more than 10 people in the whole world care.
I think that some people get annoyed and sometimes become quite unfriendly when others have a point of view which contradicts their own. Which is a pity because it discourages free speech.
So let's hope he comes back soon. The site needs posters representing a variety of different perspectives and experiences.
-
He's been recoupmentated - whatever that means.
Having said that, I agree with Bunhill.
-
...The site needs posters representing a variety of different perspectives and experiences.
True, but I hardly think tickstock's ranting qualified as perspective and I don't recall him/her sharing actual experiences much. To be fair, I had this poster ignored, but as so many people I don't ignore kept quoting his/her knee-jerk responses I saw a lot of it anyway.
There are plenty of iStock exclusives who can and do make their perspectives known here (and on FB where I also interact with them).
It isn't useful at all when someone posts about a negative regarding iStock and people like tickstock jump in with a "Shutterstock sucks" or other irrelevant comment. That's not free speech - it's trolling.
I've no idea who tickstock is but I can't imagine anyone at iStock or Getty caring enough about what's said here to send anyone in to participate. If they cared about community involvement, they wouldn't have destroyed the iStock forums, rendering a once vibrant place a virtual desert. And not even Getty's daft enough to think that sending in a troll is going to do squat to overcome the negative opinions of them their own policies and behaviors have brought about.
-
...The site needs posters representing a variety of different perspectives and experiences.
True, but I hardly think tickstock's ranting qualified as perspective and I don't recall him/her sharing actual experiences much. To be fair, I had this poster ignored, but as so many people I don't ignore kept quoting his/her knee-jerk responses I saw a lot of it anyway.
There are plenty of iStock exclusives who can and do make their perspectives known here (and on FB where I also interact with them).
It isn't useful at all when someone posts about a negative regarding iStock and people like tickstock jump in with a "Shutterstock sucks" or other irrelevant comment. That's not free speech - it's trolling.
I've no idea who tickstock is but I can't imagine anyone at iStock or Getty caring enough about what's said here to send anyone in to participate. If they cared about community involvement, they wouldn't have destroyed the iStock forums, rendering a once vibrant place a virtual desert. And not even Getty's daft enough to think that sending in a troll is going to do squat to overcome the negative opinions of them their own policies and behaviors have brought about.
Pieman makes his voice heard here from time to time - he at least is keeping an eye on what is said on this Forum. I suspect he reads more than he comments - and if he's reading, he's reading for a reason. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that Getty are prepared to pay someone to try and put a gloss on all the negative views that are expressed here of iStock and Getty.
-
The only professional approach is to bring in a competent admin with a service oriented mind set to explain what is going on at istock and act as a bridge to their own forums and the wider community. The way Shutterstock does it...and many other agencies.
Back in the days I suggested it several times, but sadly noone took up the idea.
I don't know if Getty cares about real community building, or if they even understand how community building works.
The istock forums are a desert, most activity is taking place underground. Even the yearly sales thread for all of 2013 has less than a hundred people posting out of over 30 000 artists.
If they don't know how to reach out to their own people, including the many admins who used to be very active on the forums as well and seem to have completely disappeared...how will they understand the dynamics of msg?
rogermexico was the last real community builder they had. I am not seeing anyone else being able to get the vibe of the people, make them trust him/her and draw them in the way he could.
I don't know if tickstock was a paid getty employee. But he was the most active poster I have seen all last year. And I don't see any active istock exclusive posting theway he did.
But I believe they should have paid him, or maybe reached out to him to become an official getty admin for msg, if he wasn't already on their pay roll.
So we will never know the real story...just another stock industry mystery that seems to have disappeared on Jan1st.
And maybe one day...getty will have an official admin on msg...and if not...the industry will keep moving on...
-
still no comment from tickstock? my popcorn has gone cold waiting...
Well, his "cover" has pretty much been blown. It's now widely known/believed that he's a Getty employee pushing their agenda in the guise of an objective contributor. When he magically disappeared over the same period that Istock employees were on holiday break, that pretty much sealed it.
Now they have two choices - send him or someone else in under a new screen identity (and maybe be less OBVIOUS this time). Or perhaps they've realized there's nothing they can do to win over our "hearts and minds" while they keep screwing us, and have given up.
First time I'm hearing it...a bit skeptical
-
The guy came out of nowhere when a getty was in a terrible crisis. He claims to be istock exclusive, but there is nobody we know who has his posting style over on istock. I've asked him many times why he didn't take part in the exclusive community, but he always avoided answering.
Somebody who loves forums so much, he works up nearly 2000 posts only on msg in one year (I have 1233) ? But never on istock, that he is always defending?
Whatever his story is, with all the hiding and being anonymous, many people found his behaviour strange.
He simply comes across as someone with an agenda, not the usual artist, who goes to msg for the chitchat and some industry news.
I had him on ignore for a while, but people kept quoting him anyway.
istock has enough exclusives posting here and in the wider community that are not anonymous and easily mix with people. So the exclusive perspective is well represented, there are a huge number of people with an active voice in the community.
And when they defend or recommend istock, their voice has a track record in the industry.
All istock has to do is give people a reason to be enthusiastic about their exclusivity. That will create positive buzz by itself.
-
I've no idea who tickstock is but I can't imagine anyone at iStock or Getty caring enough about what's said here to send anyone in to participate. If they cared about community involvement, they wouldn't have destroyed the iStock forums, rendering a once vibrant place a virtual desert. And not even Getty's daft enough to think that sending in a troll is going to do squat to overcome the negative opinions of them their own policies and behaviors have brought about.
I think this is the truth, though the sudden disappearance of Tickstock is very odd.
If what he had said on this forum before was true, he was in the PP, so would have lost presumably a 'reasonable sum'.
-
Whatever his story is, with all the hiding and being anonymous, many people found his behaviour strange ... istock has enough exclusives posting here and in the wider community that are not anonymous and easily mix with people
Some of the brightest and most honest posters here were anonymous. It was a great pity they quit when it was suggested that anonymous posters were no longer welcome.
The 'wider community' is a bit of a myth IMO. Most people in the world of photography and stock are not part of these cliques.
The old iStock community was probably great in its day if you were on the inside - but the whole weird way of speaking was quite peculiar ... addressing everyone as Member for example. And there was much too much favouritism IMO. It's kind of better and probably much more honest them not pretending to be our friend.
ETA: I think Alamy has the right balance - courteous, friendly and quick to respond to emails - but the forum is not especially a part of how they typically communicate.
-
Still no email from iStock...and I have been bent over my chair all day just waiting for them. :o
-
Some of the brightest and most honest posters here were anonymous. It was a great pity they quit when it was suggested that anonymous posters were no longer welcome.
But you can usually recognise the writing style, if they are also active in the wider community. This is a very small industry, people know each other.
I donīt think people mind if someone is anonymous. It is just when they visibly attack people who are not anonymous, talk down their portfolios etc...that you will get resentment.
And of course if you claim "my results are fantastic - I am earning xyz" while everyone else who is not anonymous and has been posting results for years publishes the opposite...well, it is simply hard to see if what you are writing is real.
Like you say, if someone is genuinely and consistently describing accurate events and has an intelligent and interesting opinion and ideas, the voice will be respected in time. But to just come and "pose" as being knowledgable...well, you simply have to be very convincing in what you write. Was tickstock convincing, especially in the beginning? I think he got better at communicating over the year. But he also put a massive amount of time into practising his forum voice.
To the point that now people wonder what happened to him and where did he go.
I still believe Getty should have given him a House contract and not make him pay for files in the PC collection.
Active, positive social media communication - there is a market value, a price you can attach to that. He certainly earned that contract. And I am assuming his work is good enough, although I have never seen it. His enthusiasm for Getty seemed genuine to me.
-
Well, his "cover" has pretty much been blown. It's now widely known/believed that he's a Getty employee pushing their agenda in the guise of an objective contributor.
You were also convinced at one point that I was part of this conspiracy.
Nope. Reread that exchange. You were anonymous and had posted some things that made me wonder if you and Tickstock were tag teaming the discussion. I never said for certain that you were. You very quickly dispelled that notion.
Also, please reread my comments in the thread where the removal of anonymity was suggested. I am a staunch defender of anonymity (and free speech for that matter). Neither free speech nor anonymity is a carte blanche to say whatever you want and not be challenged by differing opinions.
If people are going to come in here and attack any and everyone who has a complaint or criticism about one site, it is perfectly reasonable to question their objectivity and motives.
If you want to argue with my opinions, that's fine with me. That's part of a discussion, but if you have to misquote and mischaracterize them to make your point, then you just sound ill-informed and contentious. Seems like maybe you have a personal ax to grind.
-
You were anonymous and had posted some things that made me wonder if you and Tickstock were tag teaming the discussion.
Honestly: I felt that it was a completely unreasonable and bitter suggestion - especially since I was being perfectly polite and sincere. And it was a suggestion which seemed to reflect a sort of inherent suspiciousness of other points of view. Therefore I found it quite unpleasant. I very nearly quit but that would have felt too much like being forced out. And I hate it when people flounce out of forums.
My sense here, sometimes, is that people who go against the group-think get, sort of, bullied into shutting up. Often it seems as if people are not happy to tolerate a range of different opinions without somehow feeling the need to raise the emotional temperature.
PS - there are lots of people who have not posted so far this year.
-
....
My sense here, sometimes, is that people who go against the group-think get, sort of, bullied into shutting up. Often it seems as if people are not happy to tolerate a range of different opinions without somehow feeling the need to raise the emotional temperature.
...
-
I've no idea who tickstock is but I can't imagine anyone at iStock or Getty caring enough about what's said here to send anyone in to participate. If they cared about community involvement, they wouldn't have destroyed the iStock forums, rendering a once vibrant place a virtual desert. And not even Getty's daft enough to think that sending in a troll is going to do squat to overcome the negative opinions of them their own policies and behaviors have brought about.
I think this is the truth, though the sudden disappearance of Tickstock is very odd.
If what he had said on this forum before was true, he was in the PP, so would have lost presumably a 'reasonable sum'.
Another possible reading is that they destroyed the iS forums because they DO care about negative publicity and wanted to shut down the discussions. The only possible reasons for giving Sean the boot were things that happened on forums - theirs and here (and maybe in his blog).
I don't know what the truth is about Tickstock, though. He (or she) obviously had an agenda, but whether that was inspired by true love of IS or by a pay-packet I don't know. If it was true love and now a hundreds of dollars are under threat from the partner program then I suppose Tickstock could be going through feelings of rejection and abandonment. (I also agree with bunhill's quote in Ron's post, above).
-
For me personally, one of the things that I like about msg is the fact that there are a lot of strong discussions here. msg is not owned by any agency. For me it is real, a professional business forum.
And business forums, at least the ones that I know, are not for the faint hearted. The business world is not a sweet place to live in, it is not a safe world.
So raging emotions and often wild discussions are for me part of what makes msg so interesting. And Tyler does moderate when things go completely out of hand.
If you have a general discussion group about photography things are different, but many people who come here are are feeding their families with their work. So reactions will be strong.
Overall msg is still a very friendly place, especially because the industry is so small and many people know each other personally.
But yes, you will definitely need to put more energy into your opinions, than on one of the agency run forums. And many people probably prefer an environment with stronger moderation and maybe a more "sheltered" discussion.
Which is fine, there are many forums and groups being run out there, so everyone can find their favourite discussion place on the net.
-
In the meantime, those scoundrels at IS have knocked off for the weekend. So "next week" becomes the "week after next week" - or something like that.
Understandably, they want to get the recoupmenteringability procedure absolutely bang on to ensure they don't leave a single cent behind in some starving contributor's bank account.
-
And once again they're leaving us in complete darkness for another whole weekend about how much they're going to claw back. Their laziness and complete lack of punctuality is crazy.
-
Well, his "cover" has pretty much been blown. It's now widely known/believed that he's a Getty employee pushing their agenda in the guise of an objective contributor.
You were also convinced at one point that I was part of this conspiracy. Anyhow: widely known/believed by who ? I doubt that more than 10 people in the whole world care.
I think that some people get annoyed and sometimes become quite unfriendly when others have a point of view which contradicts their own. Which is a pity because it discourages free speech.
So let's hope he comes back soon. The site needs posters representing a variety of different perspectives and experiences.
I don't believe that most peeps here discourage alternative opinions at all (what you call free speech), but most of his comments in Istock threads were OBVIOUS block and tackle, anything to mute the problems of Istock/Getty to the point where it became funny to some (me, at least) and annoying to others. Personally I welcome alternative opinions and an open discussion, but members like Tickstock hurt that tone openness for others.
-
Well, his "cover" has pretty much been blown. It's now widely known/believed that he's a Getty employee pushing their agenda in the guise of an objective contributor.
You were also convinced at one point that I was part of this conspiracy. Anyhow: widely known/believed by who ? I doubt that more than 10 people in the whole world care.
I think that some people get annoyed and sometimes become quite unfriendly when others have a point of view which contradicts their own. Which is a pity because it discourages free speech.
So let's hope he comes back soon. The site needs posters representing a variety of different perspectives and experiences.
I don't believe that most peeps here discourage alternative opinions at all (what you call free speech), but most of his comments in Istock threads were OBVIOUS block and tackle, anything to mute the problems of Istock/Getty to the point where it became funny to some (me, at least) and annoying to others. Personally I welcome alternative opinions and an open discussion, but members like Tickstock hurt that tone openness for others.
That, and trying to change almost every conversation about what's wrong with iStock to what's wrong with their main competitor, Shutterstock, even though he doesn't submit there.
-
Well, his "cover" has pretty much been blown. It's now widely known/believed that he's a Getty employee pushing their agenda in the guise of an objective contributor.
You were also convinced at one point that I was part of this conspiracy. Anyhow: widely known/believed by who ? I doubt that more than 10 people in the whole world care.
I think that some people get annoyed and sometimes become quite unfriendly when others have a point of view which contradicts their own. Which is a pity because it discourages free speech.
So let's hope he comes back soon. The site needs posters representing a variety of different perspectives and experiences.
I don't believe that most peeps here discourage alternative opinions at all (what you call free speech), but most of his comments in Istock threads were OBVIOUS block and tackle, anything to mute the problems of Istock/Getty to the point where it became funny to some (me, at least) and annoying to others. Personally I welcome alternative opinions and an open discussion, but members like Tickstock hurt that tone openness for others.
That, and trying to change almost every conversation about what's wrong with iStock to what's wrong with their main competitor, Shutterstock, even though he doesn't submit there.
There is that.
-
And once again they're leaving us in complete darkness for another whole weekend about how much they're going to claw back. Their laziness and complete lack of punctuality is crazy.
Don't we know, deep down, that the clawback is going to be almost exactly the extra we made, beyond what we had come to expect? In my case, almost exactly 50%.
-
And once again they're leaving us in complete darkness for another whole weekend about how much they're going to claw back. Their laziness and complete lack of punctuality is crazy.
Don't we know, deep down, that the clawback is going to be almost exactly the extra we made, beyond what we had come to expect? In my case, almost exactly 50%.
My thoughts exactly. For me that's about $400 USD.
-
You were anonymous and had posted some things that made me wonder if you and Tickstock were tag teaming the discussion.
Honestly: I felt that it was a completely unreasonable and bitter suggestion - especially since I was being perfectly polite and sincere. And it was a suggestion which seemed to reflect a sort of inherent suspiciousness of other points of view. Therefore I found it quite unpleasant. I very nearly quit but that would have felt too much like being forced out. And I hate it when people flounce out of forums.
Well, I am sorry you were so hurt and offended. You seem to have read a LOT more into that brief exchange than was actually intended on my end and are ascribing motives to me that simply weren't there.
I will agree with Jasmin's comments above that this place often gets heated. My feelings have been hurt and I have been offended a number of times too. Sometimes it's good to take some time off when that happens. But it's pointless to re-litigate every slight, real or imagined, months later in unrelated threads, don't you think?
-
... unrelated threads ... etc
If the thread ends up being about conspiracy theories then previous conspiracy theories here do sort of come into scope. That was my thinking anyhow.
Feel free to keep belaboring it if that is going to provide you some measure of comfort or self-validation.
Thanks. That does not seem at all snitty.
-
And once again they're leaving us in complete darkness for another whole weekend about how much they're going to claw back. Their laziness and complete lack of punctuality is crazy.
Don't we know, deep down, that the clawback is going to be almost exactly the extra we made, beyond what we had come to expect? In my case, almost exactly 50%.
Yes, but I don't know how much extra I made. I have an estimated guess, but I'd just like to know some exact numbers ASAP.
-
... unrelated threads ... etc
If the thread ends up being about conspiracy theories then previous conspiracy theories here do sort of come into scope. That was my thinking anyhow.
Feel free to keep belaboring it if that is going to provide you some measure of comfort or self-validation.
Thanks. That does not seem at all snitty.
Yeah, I tend to agree. That's why I deleted that part of my post more than a half hour before you posted your response to it. How does that happen??
You seem to be nursing a grudge for a brief one or two post exchange that happened, a couple of months ago, and hasn't been repeated. I've said I was sorry to have offended you, and that it wasn't my intention. Not sure what more you're looking for. If you still are not satisfied, feel free to PM me and we can sort this out in a more appropriate venue.
If, instead, you still feel compelled to post your personal grievances in threads expressing conspiracy theories, you have your work cut out for you because there's some of that in half or better of the threads in these forums.
-
^^^ Go and sort it out in the playground. No one is interested in stupid squabbles.
-
Curious as to how this latest screw-up is going to affect iStock getting out the tax forms on time???
-
Curious as to how this latest screw-up is going to affect iStock getting out the tax forms on time???
Not sure if they do anything for Canadian residents, but iStock doesn't send out 1099s to US residents, so it won't affect anything for those of us in the US. I assume the US is no different to them from any other country that isn't Canada :)
-
Curious as to how this latest screw-up is going to affect iStock getting out the tax forms on time???
Not sure if they do anything for Canadian residents, but iStock doesn't send out 1099s to US residents, so it won't affect anything for those of us in the US. I assume the US is no different to them from any other country that isn't Canada :)
Thnaks I had forgotten they didn't sen them.
-
Yes they send to Canadians, but you can never rely on when they will arrive. Due in Feb arrive in April kinda issue.
-
Tis' Thursday of the week following the original week in which they were going to provide further detail about the recoupmentabilitationary process. Professionals my hairy ar*e.
-
Don't know what's going on, my account balance goes up and then goes down. My two last download dissapear ! I didn't receive email refund. Scary !
-
I don't expect much for December PP might even be zero for them to recoup their overpayment in October...
-
Don't know what's going on, my account balance goes up and then goes down. My two last download dissapear ! I didn't receive email refund. Scary !
There used to be an issue with two or three different servers being updated at different times, so one might know about a sale while another hadn't been notified, and suppliers got shifted betweent them while this was happening. So vanishing sales might not mean anything more than a slow server update.
-
I don't expect much for December PP might even be zero for them to recoup their overpayment in October...
This occurred to me too. It would make sense to take the overpayments out of the PP since that's where they came from. I expect they will still have to report the sales and send the e-mails about how much is being recovered though, even if the money doesn't wind up in our accounts.
-
I don't expect much for December PP might even be zero for them to recoup their overpayment in October...
This occurred to me too. It would make sense to take the overpayments out of the PP since that's where they came from. I expect they will still have to report the sales and send the e-mails about how much is being recovered though, even if the money doesn't wind up in our accounts.
Apparently ...
Posted By Ju-Lee:
Tomorrow it's the last week-end of the month, can we expected to received december PP ? (http://Tomorrow it's the last week-end of the month, can we expected to received december PP ?)
Posted by Lobo:
Before the end of the month, yes. (http://Before the end of the month, yes.)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6979360 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6979360)
-
Thanks for the update Liz :)
-
Thanks for the update Liz :)
Note I 'grounded' the info and didn't 'own' it, so don't shoot the messenger if it doesn't come to pass.
-
No december PP this morning. Will we get it 31th ? Before the end of the month ..... ahhhh ! I was waiting for it to make a payment request before monday ! This is too long. A joke ! I'm mad.
-
December PP earnings $250
Recoupmentabilitationmentary $249 minus
-----------
Nett Value = $1 YAY!
-
December PP earnings $250
Recoupmentabilitationmentary $249 minus
-----------
Nett Value = $1 YAY!
I am afraid this is close to accurate for many of us.
-
December PP earnings $250
Recoupmentabilitationmentary $249 minus
-----------
Nett Value = $1 YAY!
Never made even $1 on YAY
-
I wish they take their money back already so I can move on. Going to be a bummer if we get December PP before they take the money back.
-
Thanks for the update Liz :)
Note I 'grounded' the info and didn't 'own' it, so don't shoot the messenger if it doesn't come to pass.
are you kidding? If I shot the messenger I'd have to go on iStock forms myself. I'd much rather have you break it down for me here. :)
-
"Going to be a bummer if we get December PP before they take the money back."
Who said you're going to get December PP :-[
-
"Going to be a bummer if we get December PP before they take the money back."
Who said you're going to get December PP :-[
Lobo, FWIW.
-
So I really don't understand what Lobo is hinting at here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6984128 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6984128)
"We are doing our best to limit the impact and reduce the reach of the recoupment. " Limit the impact would be taking a little bit out at a time rather than in one lump sum? Reduce the reach would be not going back more than a certain period (where that would hint that the problems had been going on longer than just a month)?
At this point my exposure for really long ago clawback is limited given how few files I have left there - there's only so much you can earn on 109 files :) - but can this really be so big?
-
I wish I could protect my account money from them. There should be a rule: if money earned is not clawed back after a month, it's yours, no matter what.
-
I wish I could protect my account money from them. There should be a rule: if money earned is not clawed back after a month, it's yours, no matter what.
Yup. I just cashed out but left some in to pay for the clawback.
-
I was hoping no news was good news. Apparently not. I am dreading this. Also, doing my taxes soon I am not sure whether to include that money in my 2013 income and then deduct it from 2014, or to guesstimate how much it will be and claim that much less from 2013.
-
They don't make anything easy over at IS
-
I don't even know how much I was overpaid. Did I miss it when this was announced? I don't check their forums much.
-
I don't even know how much I was overpaid. Did I miss it when this was announced? I don't check their forums much.
They don't either.
-
I don't even know how much I was overpaid. Did I miss it when this was announced? I don't check their forums much.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&page=1)
-
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.
-
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.
They haven't been sent out yet, AFAICS.
-
how clever to imply it's gone on longer but they'll "only" take back October's overpayment. Don't be fooled into thinking that's a win.
-
I am sure that they consider any payment to us to be an overpayment, especially one that exceeds the 15-20% in their "new and improved" contract.
-
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.
Don't waste your time. They haven't sent any email whatsoever. They love to keep their contributors guessing.
Not surprisingly, Lobo confirmed that there have been no underpayments, only overpayments. Of course. How convenient for them.
-
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.
Don't waste your time. They haven't sent any email whatsoever. They love to keep their contributors guessing.
Not surprisingly, Lobo confirmed that there have been no underpayments, only overpayments. Of course. How convenient for them.
Hmmmm. There was a month where almost everyone was reporting vastly more $$ than usual per sale; but I don't recall anyone saying the opposite.
-
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.
Don't waste your time. They haven't sent any email whatsoever. They love to keep their contributors guessing.
Not surprisingly, Lobo confirmed that there have been no underpayments, only overpayments. Of course. How convenient for them.
Right. Does anyone really believe that Istuck would even take ANY ACTION if THEY discovered a bug that caused under payments? The partner program underpayment was addressed because CONTRIBUTORS discovered the underpayment and Istuck faced a sh$;t storm of complaints.
-
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.
Don't waste your time. They haven't sent any email whatsoever. They love to keep their contributors guessing.
Not surprisingly, Lobo confirmed that there have been no underpayments, only overpayments. Of course. How convenient for them.
Right. Does anyone really believe that Istuck would even take ANY ACTION if THEY discovered a bug that caused under payments? The partner program underpayment was addressed because CONTRIBUTORS discovered the underpayment and Istuck faced a sh$;t storm of complaints.
And that only because it was so obvious - no downloads for anyone on specific days. Imagine if instead it was no downloads for a bunch of 1/2 days instead - same deficiency, but it wouldn't have been so glaringly obvious and they would have just said normal sales variation.
-
Has anyone heard anything regarding the clawbacks? I hate to have an umbrella of debt floating over me for a duration that IS decides is in their best interest and for an unknown amount.
-
Has anyone heard anything regarding the clawbacks? I hate to have an umbrella of debt floating over me for a duration that IS decides is in their best interest and for an unknown amount.
The last official note was from Lobo on 11th Feb "I will update the OP as soon as I have a time table to share.", which hasn't happened yet.
-
Has anyone heard anything regarding the clawbacks? I hate to have an umbrella of debt floating over me for a duration that IS decides is in their best interest and for an unknown amount.
No mate. Their accountant is in hospital after licking his pencil once too often.
-
That was 5 weeks ago. I don't think I got an e-mail. I guess I'll have to go back and look for it.
Don't waste your time. They haven't sent any email whatsoever. They love to keep their contributors guessing.
Not surprisingly, Lobo confirmed that there have been no underpayments, only overpayments. Of course. How convenient for them.
Well I can confirm there was an under payment only today I had a surprise addition to December sales from the PP program. A month after it was closed.
Not a huge amount ($0.60) but an addition nonetheless and an extra sale was posted. ::)
-
Some news from IS forum. Lobo posted a few minutes ago:
"We've reduced the number of affected contributors from 25k down to a little over 9k. We've completed all the calculations and will be sending out notification emails out to all the affected contributors later today.
Rather than perform one single recoupment we have established a 6 month recoupment schedule. The email we are sending will contain the total amount that will be recouped as well as the monthly recoupment amount. We will not be providing an individual file breakdown."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&page=13#post6987258 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&page=13#post6987258)
-
How did they reduce the number? did they just write off the small fry or what? Their accounting and reporting does leave something to be desired.
-
"We decided to forgo recouping on amounts that were less than $50. This essentially reduced the affected contributor numbers by more than half. It's not a perfect solution, but we did want to find a way to limit the impact of the recoupment."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6987266 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6987266)
Mazel tov for the small guys.
-
"We decided to forgo recouping on amounts that were less than $50. This essentially reduced the affected contributor numbers by more than half. It's not a perfect solution, but we did want to find a way to limit the impact of the recoupment."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6987266[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6987266[/url])
Mazel tov for the small guys.
Does that mean they are going to hack $50 off of someone who might owe, say, $200 to make it fair across the board?
-
Why are they suddenly concerned about the impact of the clawback? They never were before. For instance, they took $150 from me in one blow back in 2012. That, aside from all the refund payments that can jump into hundreds or thousands of dollars.
-
Why are they suddenly concerned about the impact of the clawback? They never were before. For instance, they took $150 from me in one blow back in 2012. That, aside from all the refund payments that can jump into hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The only reason I can think of that they'd suddenly get misty-eyed about contributors is that they are vulnerable (in some way we don't know about) to charges that they're responsible for this eff-up. Offering something would then reduce the likelihood people might pursue this and significantly reduce the size of any "angry mob". They're trying to protect or immunize themselves, IMO.
And I agree that they should just forgive $50 of whatever's owed across the board rather than full boat for those over and freebie for those under $50 owed.
-
Maybe the overheads in clawing back small payments weren't worth it, though they have done that, too, in the past. (Maybe learning from past costs/benefits?)
I also wondered if they were going to cancel out the first $50 of bigger gainers, but they haven't said so, yet.
-
OK fine with it, no choice to deal with that, and i'm still angry and didn't trust istock anymore ! Now can they sends us JANUARY PP Payment at least ????
-
Why are they suddenly concerned about the impact of the clawback? They never were before. For instance, they took $150 from me in one blow back in 2012. That, aside from all the refund payments that can jump into hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The only reason I can think of that they'd suddenly get misty-eyed about contributors is that they are vulnerable (in some way we don't know about) to charges that they're responsible for this eff-up. Offering something would then reduce the likelihood people might pursue this and significantly reduce the size of any "angry mob". They're trying to protect or immunize themselves, IMO.
And I agree that they should just forgive $50 of whatever's owed across the board rather than full boat for those over and freebie for those under $50 owed.
I suspect that the cost of administrating an extra 16,000 transactions would simply be too high and take too long. Mathematically the average should be about $25 (of those being overpaid between $1 - $50) so the 'write off' should be about $400K. That's probably about half of one day's sales for IS.
-
Just got my email, the clawbacks have begun!
:(
-
I dont think they have a clue what the amounts are without resort to the slate and abacus so its only worth it for relatively large amounts
-
Notice received. Now on the six month payment plan. Feel like I am buying a new TV on the instalment plan.
-
Just got my recoupement email too. I am f***ing incandescent. The f***ing incompetent b***ards!
-
Over Payment Total=$77.04
Monthly Recoup Amount=$12.84
Really? Goes from bad to worse.
-
I just got an email saying they are clawing back my $37 in over payment. So much for the $50 cutoff. Hard to believe there are communication issues with IS.
-
.. sigh...
Hello leaf,
We discovered that there were some irregularities with September 2013 and October 2013 Partner Program royalties payments. There were a number of contributor accounts that were overpaid royalties over these two months. Unfortunately your account was one of the affected accounts.
We have calculated the over payment amount to be $416.10. Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period. Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $69.35. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. You will receive a monthly notification as immediately after the funds are removed.
Over Payment Total=$416.10
Monthly Recoup Amount=$69.35
If you have any questions please contact us via our Contributor Relations Contact Ticket feature.
Regards,
iStockphoto LP
-
Everyone should ask why the under $50 recipients get a free $50, and the rest don't. If they are going to drop the amounts by $50, it should be across the board.
-
Guess I'm lucky, only $83 bucks. They're taking $13 bucks a month out to recompense themselves. No explanation as to why they overpaid me in the first place though which is a little disturbing.
-
I just got an email saying they are clawing back my $37 in over payment. So much for the $50 cutoff. Hard to believe there are communication issues with IS.
And I was just about to gripe that I was *just* over the limit... well, thanks for making me feel better!
-
Partner Program Recoupment Notification
Hello rez-art,
We discovered that there were some irregularities with September 2013 and October 2013 Partner Program royalties payments. There were a number of contributor accounts that were overpaid royalties over these two months. Unfortunately your account was one of the affected accounts.
We have calculated the over payment amount to be $113.46. Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period. Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $18.91. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. You will receive a monthly notification as immediately after the funds are removed.
Over Payment Total=$113.46
Monthly Recoup Amount=$18.91
If you have any questions please contact us via our Contributor Relations Contact Ticket feature.
Regards,
iStockphoto LP
-
The "amounts under $50" is just not true. They're clawing back a whopping $16.02 off me.
We have calculated the over payment amount to be $16.02. Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period. Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $2.67. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. You will receive a monthly notification as immediately after the funds are removed.
Over Payment Total=$16.02
Monthly Recoup Amount=$2.67
I feel for those of you with more significant amounts though :(
-
.. sigh...
Hello leaf,
We discovered that there were some irregularities with September 2013 and October 2013 Partner Program royalties payments. There were a number of contributor accounts that were overpaid royalties over these two months. Unfortunately your account was one of the affected accounts.
We have calculated the over payment amount to be $416.10. Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period. Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $69.35. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. You will receive a monthly notification as immediately after the funds are removed.
Over Payment Total=$416.10
Monthly Recoup Amount=$69.35
If you have any questions please contact us via our Contributor Relations Contact Ticket feature.
Regards,
iStockphoto LP
almost the same as you ... how do we audit this guys
-
Everyone should ask why the under $50 recipients get a free $50, and the rest don't. If they are going to drop the amounts by $50, it should be across the board.
Whoops, it was only a free $10 for those folks, according to latest post.
-
under 10 dollars, not under 50. but still do i get 10 dollars free as well or are they taking the full amount?
people are reporting refunds over 1100 dollars...how on earth did nobody notice it before?
-
Are the * crazy? During November-December 2013 i earned 160$ less than other months and now they want more than 140$. Are they * kidding? this is not funny, they are a only bunch of legalized scammers.
-
Just go the email. I have to pay back $126.12! I'm so f* pissed of! This is unbelievable!
-
- 70 $
-
So nice of them to split it out over 6 months. Woo Yay!!! The incompetence over there is mind blowing.
-
Everyone should ask why the under $50 recipients get a free $50, and the rest don't. If they are going to drop the amounts by $50, it should be across the board.
Whoops, it was only a free $10 for those folks, according to latest post.
10... 50... 1... 5... ah whatever, they're only numbers, right? Right??
And people wonder how this happened in the first place.
-
Everyone should ask why the under $50 recipients get a free $50, and the rest don't. If they are going to drop the amounts by $50, it should be across the board.
BK (above) said he was getting $37 clawed back - so does that mean s/he was actually $87 over, or is it a mistake and they don't realise that $37 is under $50.
Oh, I see there are some posts about this over there, so we'll see what answer they give.
Why can't the explain everything in a oner? Why do they make a part-announcement, forcing people to ask basic questions then give the details (or at least as much of the detail as they choose to give)?
Ooops, Sean, I missed that you'd already posted Lobo's correction, $10, not $50.
!!!
Sorry for all those affected. :( >:(
-
$278 for me. Oh well - just keep calm
Steve
-
They can't told us only "you have to refund us". I want a * detailed explanation with every detail, every partner involved with this, it's to easy to say we had problems last years now we want YOUR money back!
-
Almost $800 for me. #^$%$&#*&^#%.
-
Over Payment Total=$144.60
Monthly Recoup Amount=$24.10
No explanation? Not even apology? Absolutely unacceptable. >:( iStock... you're fired!!!
-
This was no surprise!
-
Gotta feel sorry for monkeybusinessimages and
Yuri, I doubt we'll ever know what they had to pay back.
......unless of course they cut a deal :)
I stand corrected (thx jjneff) :)
-
It was much more than I had expected. "We discovered that there were some irregularities" is a big understatement. And indeed, not even an apology? Unbelievable. Not only because they actually screwed up, but also because we apparently can't expect much more in terms of PP sales.
-
Yuri is exclusive and not on PP
-
Kind of wish they'd just take it all in one shot so I don't get a monthly reminder of this fiasco.
-
Sales are now so low, and the money taking back it's so awful on istock now ... >:(
-
Almost $800 for me. #^$%$&#*&^#%.
Wow, Michele, that's a major bummer. Hard to believe, actually.
I'm so sorry.
-
My monthly recoupment amount times 6 equals my total recoupment amount. I can't believe they got the calculation right. That must be what took so long. ;)
-
As one who bailed out of iStock in 2011, thank God, I can only remind you guys: You do this for the love of it, remember? Not for the money, right?
-
My monthly recoupment amount times 6 equals my total recoupment amount. I can't believe they got the calculation right. That must be what took so long. ;)
That and the problem that all the Calgary shops ran out of abaci too soon.
-
that can't be right, my October earnings, with my "overpayment" taken off, put October as pretty much the worst month of the year (excluding jan/feb/march Dday drama). half the earnings of june, july, august, september, november, and lower than ALL the rest. That seems incredibly fishy to me.
-
Sales are now so low, and the money taking back it's so awful on istock now ... >:(
That's why they have to do it over six months! No one is making enough to take it at once...
-
that can't be right, my October earnings, with my "overpayment" taken off, put October as pretty much the worst month of the year (excluding jan/feb/march Dday drama). half the earnings of june, july, august, september, november, and lower then . That seems incredibly fishy to me.
Me too! I feel I'm getting scammed!
-
I got my email today regarding the recoupment.
I sent a support ticket asking for a breakdown of the transactions & file numbers that were overpayments. I'm sure other have done the same. Was anyone successful in getting a more detailed (transparent) breakdown?
Jean
-
I'm so happy I left them when the RC thingy started...
How many of you will now just deactivate their portfolio and leave a negative balance sitting with Istock?
-
Sent a ticket to CR:
Dear Istock Contributor Relations,
I have received your Partner Program Recoupment Notification.
Because your administration has shown to be prone to huge errors affecting many contributors, I want to make sure no mistakes are being made with this recoupment plan.
Therefore, I demand a full, detailed report featuring all misreported sales, the amount paid and the amount recouped before you take any money from my account.
You may email this report to [email protected].
Your sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Username: Noedelhap
-
Sent to Contributor Relations:
Can you please provide me with detailed breakdown of my Partner Program transactions for Sep 2013 and Oct 2013 in regards to the recoupment with explanation of what are the mistakes you made.
Thank you,
Tomas
...I am expecting their usual useless and arrogant answer, which I want to publish it on my blog for everyone to see :)
-
Over Payment Total=$361.26
Monthly Recoup Amount=$60.21
That's a very high price to pay to be fuc**d
-
Sent a ticket to CR:
Dear Istock Contributor Relations,
I have received your Partner Program Recoupment Notification.
Because your administration has shown to be prone to huge errors affecting many contributors, I want to make sure no mistakes are being made with this recoupment plan.
Therefore, I demand a full, detailed report featuring all misreported sales, the amount paid and the amount recouped before you take any money from my account.
You may email this report to [email protected].
Your sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Username: Noedelhap
Don't hold your breath: there's a ticket backlog:
(http://www.lizworld.com/ticket.jpg)
-
Sent a ticket to CR:
Dear Istock Contributor Relations,
I have received your Partner Program Recoupment Notification.
Because your administration has shown to be prone to huge errors affecting many contributors, I want to make sure no mistakes are being made with this recoupment plan.
Therefore, I demand a full, detailed report featuring all misreported sales, the amount paid and the amount recouped before you take any money from my account.
You may email this report to [email protected].
Your sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Username: Noedelhap
Don't hold your breath: there's a ticket backlog:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/ticket.jpg[/url])
Yeah, I was aware of the backlog, so I doubt they'll respond to it, let alone with a report, but it can't hurt to let them know we're expecting a certain level of professionalism from them.
-
Wow, this is really bad. I've seen a couple of four-figure clawbacks reported.
-
Got my notice. Overpayment of $1571.00. Monthly recoupment $261.
It's going to hurt.
-
Sounds like a perfect time to close your account and leave them holding the bag.
-
They are full of it...I just got an email...Overpayment of $22.98 and they say they are recouping...So is the under $50 a lie?
-
Sounds like a perfect time to close your account and leave them holding the bag.
Yeah, except between what they owe me for this month and the upcoming PP they can still get their pound (or 1500+ lbs.) of flesh.
-
Seems like $50 was a typo...now it is under $10 they won't recoup
-
Wow some folks are getting hit hard...only time it is good to be a small fish. Still I think they need to provide details on sales those months...if they over paid...they still owe us the 28 cents for the sale...without details how do we know this is accurate. Also sucks for anyone who paid taxes already...
-
They are full of it...I just got an email...Overpayment of $22.98 and they say they are recouping...So is the under $50 a lie?
Lobo made a typo, it was supposed to be under $10.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6987306 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6987306)
-
Sent a ticket to CR:
Dear Istock Contributor Relations,
I have received your Partner Program Recoupment Notification.
Because your administration has shown to be prone to huge errors affecting many contributors, I want to make sure no mistakes are being made with this recoupment plan.
Therefore, I demand a full, detailed report featuring all misreported sales, the amount paid and the amount recouped before you take any money from my account.
You may email this report to [email protected].
Your sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Username: Noedelhap
Don't hold your breath: there's a ticket backlog:
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/ticket.jpg[/url])
I just sent in a CR ticket to ask why my video application was never evaluated and how long will it take. I got a response within two days, "we're sorry for the delay, but you are rejected, and don't bother us with the stupid requests for us to be fair in our response times". Ha. They really didn't say that last part but I easily inferred that by their sudden rejection based on me having to ask.
-
::)
-
$363 for me...where is the middle finger emoticon, Tyler?
-
I know, but I'm not allowed to tell. ;)
$363 for me...where is the middle finger emoticon, Tyler?
Hey someone, anyone, please help me. The returns and earnings are so low that people are leaving, and now, something in effect is a six months error has been discovered and will be taken back.
Does that mean that the totally crappy and bottom * earnings are much worse than already reported? Doesn't hurt me, but I'm just to the point of earnings reaching what they were in 2011 and have been falling since then. That's how bad things are?
Watch the charts on the right. Don't forget to use your real adjusted earnings now.
Other question is, if this goes back months and months, didn't the Exclusives used to be in the program? Are they getting funds removed also?
Sad situation. Just when things look like someone at IS couldn't screw them up worse, and there was some hope for recovery... they come up with a new, darker moment of shame.
-
Over Payment Total=$364.74
Monthly Recoup Amount=$60.79
-
Time ago there was an option to opt-out PP, where is it now?
-
Other question is, if this goes back months and months, didn't the Exclusives used to be in the program? Are they getting funds removed also?
Exclusives could formerly opt into the PP, and if they did, the files which were already there stayed there (unless requested to be removed).
So yes, they are having funds removed - it's being discussed on the iS PP thread.
-
Time ago there was an option to opt-out PP, where is it now?
Indies cannot opt out, all their files go into the PP.
Exclusives cannot opt in new files, but old files previously opted in are still there.
If the opt-out button has gone for exclusives, you'll probably have to contact CR and be prepared to wait.
-
got my what letter today from iStock- I wonder if they are related to the IRS? They will be collecting a payment each six months until paid off. Maybe the should collect interest and late fees as well! :o
-
Got my notice. Overpayment of $1571.00. Monthly recoupment $261.
It's going to hurt.
Lisa, mine is
Over Payment Total=$1,570.50
Monthly Recoup Amount=$261.75
The numbers are just way too close. What's your portfolio size on istock? I wonder if this is all bullsh*t and they are just taking money back according to portfoilo size... may have nothing to with actual "overpayment".
-
Got my notice. Overpayment of $1571.00. Monthly recoupment $261.
It's going to hurt.
Lisa, mine is
Over Payment Total=$1,570.50
Monthly Recoup Amount=$261.75
The numbers are just way too close. What's your portfolio size on istock? I wonder if this is all bullsh*t and they are just taking money back according to portfolio size... may have nothing to with actual "overpayment".
Hmmm. Mine is $331.56 with a port size of 2428, or .136 cents per image. Might be a starting point to test.
-
Got my notice. Overpayment of $1571.00. Monthly recoupment $261.
It's going to hurt.
Lisa, mine is
Over Payment Total=$1,570.50
Monthly Recoup Amount=$261.75
The numbers are just way too close. What's your portfolio size on istock? I wonder if this is all bullsh*t and they are just taking money back according to portfolio size... may have nothing to with actual "overpayment".
Hmmm. Mine is $331.56 with a port size of 2428, or .136 cents per image. Might be a starting point to test.
I got almost the exact numbers.. that's strange!
Is Istock going banana or something?
-
They are full of it...I just got an email...Overpayment of $22.98 and they say they are recouping...So is the under $50 a lie?
Lobo made a typo, it was supposed to be under $10.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6987306[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&messageid=6987306[/url])
Typo - really!!??
I know I so often hit the 5 on my keyboard when I meant to hit the 1.
How can a mistake like that be made on such an important announcement - what a bunch of incompetent fools.
So glad I bailed in July.
Sorry for the rest of you.
-
Got my notice. Overpayment of $1571.00. Monthly recoupment $261.
It's going to hurt.
Lisa, mine is
Over Payment Total=$1,570.50
Monthly Recoup Amount=$261.75
The numbers are just way too close. What's your portfolio size on istock? I wonder if this is all bullsh*t and they are just taking money back according to portfoilo size... may have nothing to with actual "overpayment".
Interesting. Almost the exact same figure. My Istock port is arond 6400. I dont know if it is based on port size or perhaps sales volume. Either criteria seems fishy. Who is to say that this bug or issue should necessarily follow either port size or sales volume? Feels a bit shady.
I agree with the posts calling for an itemized accounting of the overpayments. As awful as the fraud clawback a couple of years ago was, there was an itemized list sent of the fraudulent sales.
-
Guys, i told you, It's a * legalized scam. They have no idea how many "wrong sales" they had and they are letting paid us a random forfeiture mainly based on few weird calculus.
-
Got my notice. Overpayment of $1571.00. Monthly recoupment $261.
It's going to hurt.
Lisa, mine is
Over Payment Total=$1,570.50
Monthly Recoup Amount=$261.75
The numbers are just way too close. What's your portfolio size on istock? I wonder if this is all bullsh*t and they are just taking money back according to portfoilo size... may have nothing to with actual "overpayment".
Interesting. Almost the exact same figure. My Istock port is arond 6400. I dont know if it is based on port size or perhaps sales volume. Either criteria seems fishy. Who is to say that this bug or issue should necessarily follow either port size or sales volume? Feels a bit shady.
I agree with the posts calling for an itemized accounting of the overpayments. As awful as the fraud clawback a couple of years ago was, there was an itemized list sent of the fraudulent sales.
Same here. The other thing - I looked at my totals for Sept/Oct 2013 and they are actually LOWER than for the other months of the year. And based on previous years sales are usually HIGHER during this time. So there was no unusual spike in earnings, just the opposite. It looks to me they have no clue who was overpaid and how much and just randomly distributing the pain.
-
Over Payment Total = over $900
Monthly Recoup Amount = over $150
:'( >:(
Quote from: Elenathewise on Today at 20:36
"Same here. The other thing - I looked at my totals for Sept/Oct 2013 and they are actually LOWER than for the other months of the year. And based on previous years sales are usually HIGHER during this time. So there was no unusual spike in earnings, just the opposite. It looks to me they have no clue who was overpaid and how much and just randomly distributing the pain."
I'm seeing the exact same pattern. I added up my posted PP sales for Sept. and Oct. and subtracted the recoupment value. The average sales totals for the two months in question are now below my sales totals from both August and November. Although possible, it's statistically improbable. I created a CR contact ticket requesting an accounting and verification of iStock's purported recoupment "value." I suspect this "value" may actually be an estimate (or possibly a half-assed guess). I strongly urge everyone to check your statistics and send iStock a CR ticket if your recoupment value is suspect.
They don't call Elena "the wise" for nothing...
P.S. For what it's worth, my portfolio is under 1000 images.
-
"Hold on to your wallets"
More like hold on to your children! :-\
-
Same here. The other thing - I looked at my totals for Sept/Oct 2013 and they are actually LOWER than for the other months of the year. And based on previous years sales are usually HIGHER during this time. So there was no unusual spike in earnings, just the opposite. It looks to me they have no clue who was overpaid and how much and just randomly distributing the pain.
Again, same situation here. AFTER the clawback both Sept. and October are lower than average. Particularly for normally good selling pre-holiday months.
I agree with your conclusions too. It seems there is some magical number they are trying to recover and they are just spreading it among contributors according to either port size, sales volume, or some combination of the two.
Curiouser and curiouser... ???
How can this be legal?!
-
I have sent a ticket pointing that out (my october earnings will now be the lowest of the year) - that's hard to believe.
-
...Curiouser and curiouser... ???
How can this be legal?!
Fortunately or unfortunately, being an incompetent boob isn't illegal :)
I looked at Elena's Thinkstock portfolio versus yours and she has 13K+ there (StockXpert plus iStock) and 8K+ on iStock. You have 6K+ on iStock and 5K+ on Thinkstock, I assume because their busted connector was not delivering everything to the PP.
These recoupment amounts could well be guesses versus calculated numbers - they've done that before (while I was exclusive they pulled the extended license bonus months too soon and then had to pay it back; they got the numbers wrong and when I wrote to support they said they knew but that as it was a little over they were just going to leave it alone). But it isn't portfolio size that would match you and Elena up.
What a shame there isn't someone on the inside who's seen the books willing to level with contributors to get this straightened out - I don't see legal action as a practical option (long time; large expense and Getty has a pile of lawyers who could stop harassing customers and turn to contributors instead).
In the IS forum, one person said that if 9,000 contributors were to have money "recouped" and if on average the amount was $75, they'd be netting $675K. I'm guessing that's a low average given that all the $10 and under claims have been eliminated from the pool. If the average was $112, they'd collect a million dollars.
Has there been even a hint as to what they claim happened? I don't count saying that there have been overpayments as useful information.
-
Yeah, they sent me a message with a notice that they're going to take out a handful of money every month to make up for their mistake. What is wrong with them at iStock? We barely make any money and they blow it for us and take money back. Despicable slave drivers. >:(
Lobo just started a new thread on iStock's PP forum. Here's the full quote:
We've established that there were some irregularities with Oct(Sept) and Nov(Oct) Partner Program royalties. We've been investigating these irregularities and hope to have additional information some time next week. What this means is the royalty payments for September and October are being reviewed at this time. We will have an update on this issue next week.
I've got a bad feeling about this...
:'(
-
Same here. The other thing - I looked at my totals for Sept/Oct 2013 and they are actually LOWER than for the other months of the year. And based on previous years sales are usually HIGHER during this time. So there was no unusual spike in earnings, just the opposite. It looks to me they have no clue who was overpaid and how much and just randomly distributing the pain.
Again, same situation here. AFTER the clawback both Sept. and October are lower than average. Particularly for normally good selling pre-holiday months.
I agree with your conclusions too. It seems there is some magical number they are trying to recover and they are just spreading it among contributors according to either port size, sales volume, or some combination of the two.
Curiouser and curiouser... ???
How can this be legal?!
Do you think they have committed fraud?
-
It is sooo simple:
Somebody on IS needs new yacht.
Oh, and somebody needs new house...
>:(
I think this is just a start of neverendind story.
-
So IS now saying us (indirectly) that you have to pay istock a fee to sell your images from istock. Now wait and see when istock publicly announces this.
-
this is a bad taste joke and it can't be right... just unbelievable how can they do this!?
PP for Sep 2013 - 56.51$
PP for Oct 2013 - 83.81$
Over Payment Total=$83.88
Monthly Recoup Amount=$13.98
does this mean I have made 7 cents in October? :o
-
Over Payment Total=$19.98
Monthly Recoup Amount=$3.33
I'm not sure if I should be happy rather than sad, seeing your numbers...
Loooool ;D
More there is... I closed my account in Jan. (they closed it for me), and now they say:
"Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period. Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $3.33. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. "
How will they do that if I'm not with them anymore? Waiting for my income for Dec. 2013, Jan, and Feb. 2014 (with PP).
Nevermind. I was so happy having nothing to do with them anymore, and here we go again - like neverending story, oh god ::)
IStock is just amazing!!!
-
Istock is US firm? If this is true it is steal. Can someone call police and notice all major media . We must be loud now. They are stealing!
please call the police, this is fraud!
this is a bad taste joke and it can't be right... just unbelievable how can they do this!?
PP for Sep 2013 - 56.51$
PP for Oct 2013 - 83.81$
Over Payment Total=$83.88
Monthly Recoup Amount=$13.98
does this mean I have made 7 cents in October? :o
-
Wasn't there some clause in their contracts that would allow contributors to ask for an audit? Wouldn't now be the time for that?
-
What a shame there isn't someone on the inside who's seen the books willing to level with contributors to get this straightened out - I don't see legal action as a practical option (long time; large expense and Getty has a pile of lawyers who could stop harassing customers and turn to contributors instead).
Essentially, what you're saying is: even if they're doing something illegal, we can't do anything about it. I have a tendency not to believe that. :)
-
One thing is thought provoking here... So many of us report overpayment, and they say it's only 9k/25k people...? Strange...
May I ask you guys, why are you still with them? Is it worth? Is there no better (and more professional) place for your work in the world? I just can't understand why you accept this issues and treating... You do your photography only for making money, or you do it for fun and joy? If it's only business, should it go this way?
I'm confused... ::)
-
Wasn't there some clause in their contracts that would allow contributors to ask for an audit? Wouldn't now be the time for that?
Possibly, it is there for Getty; but at your own expense.
-
Just got my recoupement email too. I am f***ing incandescent. The f***ing incompetent b***ards!
Totally agree. Unbelievable. Im finally cancelling my account after 10 years and 60,000 sales. Way to disrespect the people who made you rich iStock. Have never come across a less competent business. Ever.
-
One thing is thought provoking here... So many of us report overpayment, and they say it's only 9k/25k people...? Strange...
May I ask you guys, why are you still with them? Is it worth? Is there no better (and more professional) place for your work in the world? I just can't understand why you accept this issues and treating... You do your photography only for making money, or you do it for fun and joy? If it's only business, should it go this way?
I'm confused... ::)
Provoking thought indeed. Latest info I found is that iStock has some 85k contributors. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=208351 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=208351)
If we assume this number is still around 80-90k, then 9k affected contributors would be around 10%. Yet I see pretty much all known names on this forum being affected. So... either iStock is lying big time, or 9k contributors is all that's left. :o
Why are we still with them? In my case... because they generate 19% of income (used to be 28% a year ago). At this point however, I'm finished with them. Even the low earners with significantly smaller budgets are able to calculate earnings transparently and without errors. They used to be a very bad business partner, now I regard them as plain scum.
-
$105
I was going to hammer my keyboard to smithereens with a strong retort this morning but what is the point - when it is seemingly beneath their top suits to even put their name on the smarmy email they sent out, let alone a sincere and well deserved apology.
I imagine if this were shareholders being nailed for a dividend "irregularity" it would be on Bloomberg by now.
-
They used to be a very bad business partner, now I regard them as plain scum.
Scum is an understatement
-
I opened a ticket, with them.
--------------------------
I demand a detailed account of day-to-day and image by image of the gains that you feel wrong.
I will not settle for an email with a monetary figure put it that way approximate.
Although earnings are irregular expect a detailed report.
---------------------------
At least give it bother you!
they MUST specifically Reporting back
It is not possible to behave so badly.
I'm very very angry!
-
over 7k $ already reported here...
-
$29,46
opened a ticket...i'd like to have a Delorean with timer sets to 2024 to read the answer
-
Just for record ... my numbers are to similar to LEAF
Over Payment Total=$418.56
I think we all should ask for more detailed information opening a ticket like Aurielaki did ... I will do that today.
-
Just for record ... my numbers are to similar to LEAF
Over Payment Total=$418.56
I think we all should ask for more detailed information opening a ticket like Aurielaki did ... I will do that today.
sent it a few minutes ago!
-
I opened a ticket, with them.
--------------------------
I demand a detailed account of day-to-day and image by image of the gains that you feel wrong.
I will not settle for an email with a monetary figure put it that way approximate.
Although earnings are irregular expect a detailed report.
---------------------------
133 dollar.
I copied your text - is this ok?
-
My ticket ...
Partner program recoupment.
This situation is not acceptable, how do I know that there aren't also some irregularities where istock is not paying me for the real licenced images? How can you assure me that this time you are making the right calculation of my royalties?
I demand a detailed account of day-to-day and image by image of the gains that are right and that you feel that are wrong in September and October 2013, and a detailed explanation of what was the problem that lead to the amount of $418,26 that you know want to to remove from my royalties.
-
Over Payment Total=$967.56
Monthly Recoup Amount=$161.26
bxxstxxrds >:(
-
Over Payment Total=$56.94 Its not a lot but I am very unhappy with the absence of a reasonable explanation. It isn't fair to take money back form some people and not others based on how bad they screwed up individual accounts. At very least they should waver the first $10 for everyone. >:(
-
one big question, did that great guy Yuri get the claw back from IS?hehehehehe ;D ;D ;D
If so, how much is it?10k?or 100k?hehehehe ;D
-
one big question, did that great guy Yuri get the claw back from IS?hehehehehe ;D ;D ;D
If so, how much is it?10k?or 100k?hehehehe ;D
I don't find humor in any of this!
-
I haven't got an email... am I the only one? :o
(Yes, I had very strong October earnings)
-
If they really had a legit explanatio for all this, it would not be too difficult to automatically create some sheets with the exact calculations and statistics for each contributor. Assuming that the iStock staff has the needed skill set, which they propably don't have...
-
I haven't got an email... am I the only one? :o
(Yes, I had very strong October earnings)
I haven't got one, either, and I had significantly higher PP earnings in October. Then again, the only IS emails that reach me are those confirming a payout request - I'll see at the end of the month :P
-
I have to pay to istock $127.02 (6 x $21,17) >:(
-
It really does seem like istock is constantly having accounting problems. If it is not credit card fraud it is software bugs.
-
It really does seem like istock is constantly having accounting problems. If it is not credit card fraud it is software bugs.
They are not very good with numbers. Here they messed up with $50 and $10. In royalty percentages they thought 15% and 50% are the same :P
-
I have to pay back $ 91.92.
I've already sent a ticket to clarify.
-
From istock forum,
Posted By Altinosmanaj:
The fact that Photos.com is shutting down in March is very telling and I am almost certain that what happened is related to Photos.com.
I had an email about the recoupment too amounting to $60.06. However i had a sale for $39.84 for one sale on Photos.com for that month amongs the other sales for a lot less from both thinkstock and photos.com all in total amounting to $74.69 (including the $39.84 from photos.com). So the overpayment is related to photos.com that is for sure.
As the photos.com is now shutting down i can only sespect that they did not pay Istock what they owed when they were suposed to do so. So Istock ended up paying us the money out of their pocket to meet the deadlines and the demands from the contributors while they did not receive the money from photos.com for the sales.
Obviously for Istock to pay us in the first place Istock would have known the sales details. Otherwise they would have not payed us randomly.
So Istock had specific info from photos.com on each of the sales but they did not receive money from Photos.com (hence they are shutting them down).
Meanwhile, Istock had payed us already, but had not received the payments from photos.com. So Istock decides to get the money back from the accounts it payed in. For those sales.
As far as I am concerned the sales did occur for each of the files involved thats why we were payed in the first place. Istock did not made them up.
So for Istock to demand (sorry, they are not even asking for it they are just getting it out of our accounts) the money back, Istock has to really come clean with a reasonable explenation as to why we were payed for those specific sales in the first place and then why we have to give it back. It is clear that the buyers have payed for the files they have dowloaded so we should be entitled to our share.
If Photos.com got payed by the buyer for the sales of our files then refused to pay Istock, Istock has to get the money from Photos.com rather then the contributers.
Have you noticed how the reason for the closure of photos.com is also not explained and kept confidential? Think about it.
If this is true, things are worse than we think now.
-
Itīs "Over Payment Total=$177.18" for me :-\
Sending ticket right now
-
Not weighing in on the incompetence vs malice debate (could be 100% for both), doesn't it look like somehow they paid out 100% or some very high payment (maybe the reciprocal of what you're supposed to get) during these months, when people were suddenly reporting large amounts per sale from their PP sales, which hadn't happened before.
OTOH, these single payments did seem extremely high, without any obvious reason why so many buyers would suddenly have bought files at higher, non-sub prices, rather than a gradual increase as seems to have happened at SS.
-
Seems like $50 was a typo...now it is under $10 they won't recoup
Typo... it is well known that on Canadian keyboards '1' and '5' are very close.
I will open tickets every weekend until I get an explanation. Their numbers couldn't not be right. According their calculations in Sept and Oct I earned 60% less then usual.
I don't trust them.
-
Interesting thoughts on photos.com. The claw backs could be related to photos.com as that seems to make sense. If that is true no one will ever see an itemized report on the claw backs! Sending in a ticket will be a waste of time but do it if it makes you feel better. I feel sorry for contributor relations. They probably only have one person to look at all those e-mails.
-
Interesting thoughts on photos.com. The claw backs could be related to photos.com as that seems to make sense. If that is true no one will ever see an itemized report on the claw backs! Sending in a ticket will be a waste of time but do it if it makes you feel better. I feel sorry for contributor relations. They probably only have one person to look at all those e-mails.
They won't look at them, they'll just hit the auto-button to tell you that the calculation is correct.
-
True enough but I suspect there will be "no response"
-
.. etc etc
As the photos.com is now shutting down i can only sespect that they did not pay Istock what they owed when they were suposed to do so. So Istock ended up paying us the money out of their pocket to meet the deadlines and the demands from the contributors while they did not receive the money from photos.com for the sales.
..
etc etc
photos.com is owned by Getty Images. http://www.whois.com/whois/photos.com (http://www.whois.com/whois/photos.com)
5 seconds max to look that up.
I can understand that people are disappointed that they have not earned as much as they thought they had and now have to pay back the over payment. But it's annoying how the internet turns everything into a conspiracy.
-
Was a duplicate post
-
We know photos.com is owned by Getty, I didn't have to look that up. Second the amounts are random and there is not proof as to why they are what they are. I could care less about bashing iStock or Getty but to keep them honest is important. I remember when on the video side someone made a stink about Vetta Video pricing, I sided with iStock but man was I wrong. Luckily he stuck to his guns and changes were made for the better! It pays to make some noise in these situations as there seems to be no over sight for us.
-
I just got my email also, looked at my stats and at first glance looks like there may be some fuzzy math.
I am going to print out the stats and go through each sale Whitchurch should be $0.28 for each DL and make notes, to make sure the "claw back" is actually correct and I will post it here when I'm done if I find its inaccurate.
This is why I opt out of PPs on any site... The lack of transparency.
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
I can understand that people are disappointed that they have not earned as much as they thought they had and now have to pay back the over payment. But it's annoying how the internet turns everything into a conspiracy.
BS. No company can just claim you owe them money without presenting evidence. I doubt here the competence of istock mto make the numbers correctly. It should not be left like this.
-
"Quote from: Ron on Today at 05:30
I dont understand, everyone knew they messed up and that a claw back was on the way. If you held onto the overpayment, there is no impact on your financials. The money wasnt ours in the first place. Bring on the down votes, but its the same with taxes. You need to pay back overpayments. So you put the money aside for when they come and get it. If you've spent the money, you only have yourself to blame."
You are missing the point, Ron. Many posters here are saying the AMOUNT doesn't make sense, it's too much (percentage wise) based on the income they normally make. It's not a well balanced, realistic clawback, at least that's how I am reading many of these posts. I personally would have FAR MORE RESPECT and be FAR MORE TOLERANT of the clawback if they would have attached a detailed financial accounting justifying the clawback. But they just posted am amount. That's suspicious, very suspicious.
I think this post from another thread is pertinent for this one.
-
$74.58
My ticket:
"I have received from you by e-mail a "Partner Program Recoupment Notification"
I'm asking you to provide me relevant documentation that corroborates the alleged over-payment of Partner Program royalties to me, in the past months of September and October 2013.
Thank you"
Was I too soft?
-
We know photos.com is owned by Getty
In which case the suggestion (which I was responding to) that this is to do with photos.com (i.e. Getty) not paying iStock (i.e. Getty) is clearly wild. And a distraction.
There is no reason to believe that this is anything other than a mistake which has been complicated to untangle. Presumably because thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of micropayments represents an enormous accounting nightmare.
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.
-
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.
-
We know photos.com is owned by Getty
In which case the suggestion (which I was responding to) that this is to do with photos.com (i.e. Getty) not paying iStock (i.e. Getty) is clearly wild. And a distraction.
There is no reason to believe that this is anything other than a mistake which has been complicated to untangle. Presumably because thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of micropayments represents an enormous accounting nightmare.
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.
Could whoever voted this down explain which bit they disagree with specifically ?
-
I didn't vote it down bunhill as I would like to see action over screaming any day. I am sure it is a nightmare for Getty but that is no excuse for not giving a detailed report of the loss to those who are affected.
-
It makes sense to me:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&page=19 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358476&page=19)
The fact that Photos.com is shutting down in March is very telling and I am almost certain that what happened is related to Photos.com.
I had an email about the recoupment too amounting to $60.06. However i had a sale for $39.84 for one sale on Photos.com for that month amongs the other sales for a lot less from both thinkstock and photos.com all in total amounting to $74.69 (including the $39.84 from photos.com). So the overpayment is related to photos.com that is for sure.
As the photos.com is now shutting down i can only sespect that they did not pay Istock what they owed when they were suposed to do so. So Istock ended up paying us the money out of their pocket to meet the deadlines and the demands from the contributors while they did not receive the money from photos.com for the sales.
Obviously for Istock to pay us in the first place Istock would have known the sales details. Otherwise they would have not payed us randomly.
So Istock had specific info from photos.com on each of the sales but they did not receive money from Photos.com (hence they are shutting them down).
Meanwhile, Istock had payed us already, but had not received the payments from photos.com. So Istock decides to get the money back from the accounts it payed in. For those sales.
As far as I am concerned the sales did occur for each of the files involved thats why we were payed in the first place. Istock did not made them up.
So for Istock to demand (sorry, they are not even asking for it they are just getting it out of our accounts) the money back, Istock has to really come clean with a reasonable explenation as to why we were payed for those specific sales in the first place and then why we have to give it back. It is clear that the buyers have payed for the files they have dowloaded so we should be entitled to our share.
If Photos.com got payed by the buyer for the sales of our files then refused to pay Istock, Istock has to get the money from Photos.com rather then the contributers.
Have you noticed how the reason for the closure of photos.com is also not explained and kept confidential? Think about it.
-
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.
FWIW Getty Images, the parent, has a C- rating with the BBB. And I say FWIW because I realize this latest is iStock PP, not related to the Getty part of it -- but still, it IS the parent company.
http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/business-reviews/photographs-stock/getty-images-in-seattle-wa-37000916 (http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/business-reviews/photographs-stock/getty-images-in-seattle-wa-37000916)
-
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.
But we're not 'customers', we're suppliers.
-
From istock forum,
Posted By Altinosmanaj:
The fact that Photos.com is shutting down in March is very telling and I am almost certain that what happened is related to Photos.com.
According to Kelvinjay:
"Assuming that this is actually a serious question, no, there is no connection at all between photos.com ceasing to offer its subscription service and the accidental overpayment in PP royalties on iStock. That's like adding 2 and 2 and getting 22."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359316&messageid=6987698 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359316&messageid=6987698)
I wonder how much Kelvin knows, but isn't letting on, or isn't being allowed to share.
-
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.
But we're not 'customers', we're suppliers.
Yep, the customers will receive refunds on request to maintain an A rating - at our expense, of course! We're suppliers and we are totally expendable.
-
I'm curious, has anyone here thought of filing a Better Business Bureau complaint against iStock? They have an A+ rating somehow, which means they've settled all of their complaints in a way that was satisfactory to the customer. My guess is, whoever files a complaint online would get to keep their "overpayment" money simply because it won't be worth it to them to tarnish their BBB status.
But we're not 'customers', we're suppliers.
What is on BBB page:
BBB's goal is to successfully resolve complaints involving buyers and sellers in a fair and timely fashion. This includes complaints involving consumer-to-business and business-to-business transactions that involve the advertisement and/or sale of a product or service. Information concerning the nature and resolution of complaints filed with BBB is used in developing BBB Reliability Reports on companies.
I think we can consider to contact them. Personally I will wait 10-15 days and if I don't get a response to my ticket I'll contact BBB.
Imagine if 10% of 9k of concerned contributors contact them. Even if they cannot accept our complainants it will be a huge mess.
-
I wonder how much Kelvin knows, but isn't letting on, or isn't being allowed to share.
Kelvin always seems straightforward. So I doubt he would step into a conversation if he had something to withhold. My guess is that closing photos.com is mostly to do with brand consolidation. Though the well reported EU trademark ruling perhaps did not help either. Thinkstock has always been the stronger brand.
I cannot understand why people want this to be anything more than a mistake. I agree with those saying that the accounting should be better. Perhaps consolidating the brands will pave the way for better accounting and reporting.
-
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.
I would agree to that in general. Constructive conversation almost universally is the better choice.
It's just that for any major issues with Istock in the past (RCs, Google Deal,...) constructive conversation lead nowhere.
Constructive conversation only works if both parties are willing to engage in it.
-
hi to all,
I do not often come here because of my English, I saw that you were talking about the thread I opened, so I pass just here to tell you this:
I think kelvinjay right, and I trust him, he does his work, as we do ours. After that, I try to have information, that's all, I do not try to be vicious in this thread.
In addition, I also was affected as you've probably seen my post in the other thread, and I opened as much, a support ticket for an explanation
-
I wonder how much Kelvin knows, but isn't letting on, or isn't being allowed to share.
Kelvin always seems straightforward. So I doubt he would step into a conversation if he had something to withhold. My guess is that closing photos.com is mostly to do with brand consolidation. Though the well reported EU trademark ruling perhaps did not help either. Thinkstock has always been the stronger brand.
I cannot understand why people want this to be anything more than a mistake. I agree with those saying that the accounting should be better. Perhaps consolidating the brands will pave the way for better accounting and reporting.
I certainly don't want it to be anything more than a mistake. The problem is that I simply don't trust them any more. They can't get their website operating properly though other stock agencies are able to do so, they can't get their accounting straightened out, and they're the only place I've heard of that's clawed back earnings due to credit card fraud and "irregularities." Not to mention the "irregularities" that were only admitted a few months ago because so many contributors reported suspiciously low earnings on exactly the same days. They certainly didn't notice that themselves.
Overall it just seems like they're either incompetent or worse.
More detail and transparency about what this latest mistake was, how it happened, and how the numbers were crunched to fix it would sure be nice.
-
I think all anyone is really asking for is detailed data specific to them on the issues. And it comes down to our own accounting and needs. It shouldn't matter is it is an accounting nightmare for IS or not, they should be required to provide this information. They also need to fix the stats for those months to reflect actual downloads and earnings for PP. I am going to go back and assume the download count was correct and apply the .28 for each download and see what my figures come to and check that the clawback is accurate. Whether it is accurate or not, I still want a correction to the data.
-
After reading thru the thread on the DepositPhoto/ShotStop debacle. http://www.microstockgroup.com/depositphotos/the-german-shotshop-reseller-of-depositphotos/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/depositphotos/the-german-shotshop-reseller-of-depositphotos/) I think it is pretty clear why there won't be any accounting of what was sold/what was paid by the buyer and what was paid to istock, and what was paid to contributor.
They are doing up front deals, and then giving out reduced royalties, and the fall out from the information would be even worse than a 'quiet' clawback.
Seems like the whole industry is just a nest of snakes now. Few exceptions. I would say the only agencies to trust are the ones who are transparent in their accounting.
what a shame.
-
What a shame there isn't someone on the inside who's seen the books willing to level with contributors to get this straightened out - I don't see legal action as a practical option (long time; large expense and Getty has a pile of lawyers who could stop harassing customers and turn to contributors instead).
Essentially, what you're saying is: even if they're doing something illegal, we can't do anything about it. I have a tendency not to believe that. :)
I don't think that's at all what I said.
Legal action (i.e. civil suit by contributors) isn't practical, IMO. Unless there is a contributor who's been hosed who is also a lawyer willing to pursue the case pro bono, the expenses of legal action would be so great relative to the amount of money we could recover that it just makes no sense. The fact that Getty has deep pockets and a history of abuse in this area just makes things even less appealing.
The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than criminal (balance of probabilities versus beyond a reasonable doubt) but there's still the issue of having any information (versus just a hunch) to work with. Hence the hope that an insider would spill the beans so we had something concrete to work with.
Saying one option makes no sense is not equivalent to saying do nothing.
-
Could you get a court order to show the books?
-
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.
Sounds reasonable and no less than what we should expect. I'm also accepting of the belief this whole debacle is the result of complete incompetence as opposed to piracy. I'm also not that vexed over the amount since I was expecting it, or thereabouts based on past earnings and had made some provision.
What continues to churn my milk is the total absence of an apology - or anyone other than the forum monkeys bothering to communicate the way forward with the contributor base.
-
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.
Yeah, asking for better reporting and constructive conversations have worked so well in the past there.
-
I'm also not that vexed over the amount since I was expecting it, or thereabouts based on past earnings and had made some provision.
Exactly. Thats the point I tried to make.
-
Got my notice. Overpayment of $1571.00. Monthly recoupment $261.
It's going to hurt.
* you're good.
-
What a shame there isn't someone on the inside who's seen the books willing to level with contributors to get this straightened out - I don't see legal action as a practical option (long time; large expense and Getty has a pile of lawyers who could stop harassing customers and turn to contributors instead).
Essentially, what you're saying is: even if they're doing something illegal, we can't do anything about it. I have a tendency not to believe that. :)
I don't think that's at all what I said.
Legal action (i.e. civil suit by contributors) isn't practical, IMO. Unless there is a contributor who's been hosed who is also a lawyer willing to pursue the case pro bono, the expenses of legal action would be so great relative to the amount of money we could recover that it just makes no sense. The fact that Getty has deep pockets and a history of abuse in this area just makes things even less appealing.
The burden of proof is lower in civil cases than criminal (balance of probabilities versus beyond a reasonable doubt) but there's still the issue of having any information (versus just a hunch) to work with. Hence the hope that an insider would spill the beans so we had something concrete to work with.
Saying one option makes no sense is not equivalent to saying do nothing.
If you are not willing to fight for your small rights, you will lose the big ones too. We have to get rid of this sheep mentallity. This is what brought the industry into this mess. You have to do what is right no matter what outcome.
Otherwise you are just livestock for the financial industry.
-
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.
Yeah, asking for better reporting and constructive conversations have worked so well in the past there.
This request has been made, and as noted, totally ignored
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270162&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270162&page=1)
If you look at the thread and various comments, that was constructive and detailed.
The issue is not the lack of constructive suggestions, it's a power struggle and giving contributors information would (a) require work on Getty's part and they spend the bare minimum on iStock to keep the site running, (b) cause them lots of grief because there would then be a basis for more complaints about the errors I'm almost certain they're making (they can't calculate percentages correctly because they can't do the right thing with money given their use of floating point calculations as but one for-instance of their accounting mess), and (c) be transferring one of their levers of control back to contributors (with whom it rightly belongs).
-
I think the action Getty/istock is taking is hard to defend. They need to provide you with details of why the amount is being taken from your accounts. Stating "it is what it is" to contributors doesn't make it legal. Also it does seem the amounts are "rounded off" and why did it go from 25K to 9K of affected contributors? It should be either all or none, or at least with some documentation backing that up.
So what can you do? Since Istock is a Canadian company located in Alberta here are some people you can contact, if they get more than one inquiry, it should make them stand up and take notice.
Links to the Competition Bureau, Service Alberta and the Calgary BBB (and main office) are here:
http://www.consumerhandbook.ca/en/topics/consumer-protection/unfair-or-deceptive-business-practices#related (http://www.consumerhandbook.ca/en/topics/consumer-protection/unfair-or-deceptive-business-practices#related)
Second: you can send a registered letter to istock HQ stating that your are an affected contributor and that you demand a full and detailed account of these transactions.
Third: Send a registered letter to Eliot P.S. Merrill - The Carlyle Group, 520 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 United States - who deals with Getty Images and is a Managing Director. The fact that Contributors are being forced to pay back amounts which istock cannot provide documentation to may be illegal and/or a bad business practice that could open itself to legal issues. Also, since they are part owner of istock/getty they should expect it to be run properly and maintain a standard of business. Having the books filled with white out corrections isn't a good thing.
-
I think the action Getty/istock is taking is hard to defend. They need to provide you with details of why the amount is being taken from your accounts. Stating "it is what it is" to contributors doesn't make it legal. Also it does seem the amounts are "rounded off" and why did it go from 25K to 9K of affected contributors? It should be either all or none, or at least with some documentation backing that up.
So what can you do? Since Istock is a Canadian company located in Alberta here are some people you can contact, if they get more than one inquiry, it should make them stand up and take notice.
Links to the Competition Bureau, Service Alberta and the Calgary BBB (and main office) are here:
[url]http://www.consumerhandbook.ca/en/topics/consumer-protection/unfair-or-deceptive-business-practices#related[/url] ([url]http://www.consumerhandbook.ca/en/topics/consumer-protection/unfair-or-deceptive-business-practices#related[/url])
Second: you can send a registered letter to istock HQ stating that your are an affected contributor and that you demand a full and detailed account of these transactions.
Third: Send a registered letter to Eliot P.S. Merrill - The Carlyle Group, 520 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 United States - who deals with Getty Images and is a Managing Director. The fact that Contributors are being forced to pay back amounts which istock cannot provide documentation to may be illegal and/or a bad business practice that could open itself to legal issues. Also, since they are part owner of istock/getty they should expect it to be run properly and maintain a standard of business. Having the books filled with white out corrections isn't a good thing.
Artpuppy, you are the hero of my day. A great, pragmatic and informative post.
With the time difference taken into account I will call tomorrow the Competition Bureau - mainly to have some personal communication first - and later send them in written form a complaint. I hope they will react.
If everyone does it, it will have a effect.
-
That is what it will take!!! Good Post
-
I'm also not that vexed over the amount since I was expecting it, or thereabouts based on past earnings and had made some provision.
Yes, I am also a bit wondering about people reporting they get hundreds of dollars "stolen" from their account now. I mean, in the first place the money was put there in error and it was obvious to many of us (though iStock took its while to figure it out...). And I am really surprised how someone can simply "overlook" that he "earned" hundreds of dollar more than in usual months. I wish I had that kind of problem...
iStock technology sucks. It sucked for a long time. We all should be used to it.
iStock communication sucks. It sucked for a long time. We all should be used to it.
-
iStock technology sucks. It sucked for a long time. We all should be used to it.
iStock communication sucks. It sucked for a long time. We all should be used to it.
I agree. We shouldn't get used to having arbitrary (or at least unexplained) sums from our accounts without so much as a "By your leave" or an apology, though.
-
I mean, in the first place the money was put there in error and it was obvious to many of us (though iStock took its while to figure it out...). And I am really surprised how someone can simply "overlook" that he "earned" hundreds of dollar more than in usual months.
There was no certainty that the money was put there in error - some of the initial concern was that the prior months might have been incorrectly too low given what people saw in Sept/Oct.
There was certainly a hope that the increase was actually growth in the Partner program, although apparently - according to iStock - that was overly optimistic. We have at times - admittedly not many at iStock in the recent past - seen substantial growth that was actually growth. I also think that it's more than passing strange that some people with big reversals now see months that were much worse than "usual" - not returning to the expected amount based on prior track record.
A lot of businesses say "sorry" when they mess up - which clearly iStock/Getty/Thinkstock/photos.com did in this case - with some sort of comped item of value or a credit. They don't do this to be nice but because they want to continue a positive business relationship. iStock has an unparalleled (with the microstock agencies as the comparison group) string of c*ck ups some of which resulted in large "recoupments" (credit card fraud), some of which resulted in lost sales (picking the busy fall time to trash the site functioning and performance).
No one likes being treated as if they and their small business don't matter, and a lot of the anger here is, IMO, a reflection of that.
-
In my case the September and October sales levels were pretty average but they are taking money back anyway. After the correction, my sales for September and October are considerably lower than normal.
There was never any reason for me to think there was anything unusual happening with my account. That is until IS announced unspecified and vague "irregularities".
I have good reason to be suspicious of this behavior. I think we all do.
-
Personally, I am more skeptical than angry. The amount they are claiming as overpayment, in my case, is more that I expected, given usual pp performance. It would go a long way toward relieving my skepticism if there were an itemized dated list of the specific overpayment amount and an explanation as to why these were not legitimate sales.
One reason I did not initially think there was anything amiss with the high numbers in September and October was that there was a corresponding drop in sales at istock. It was reasonable to assume there might have been some targeted promotion to get istock buyers to try TS out.
Even with the 1571.00 "overpayment" my monthly totals for istock and PP combined were down from previous months.
-
I posted a comment on this article about this mess. Others might want to as well.
http://petapixel.com/2014/02/25/istock-photographers-told-overpaid-will-pay-getty-back/ (http://petapixel.com/2014/02/25/istock-photographers-told-overpaid-will-pay-getty-back/)
-
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.
Yeah, asking for better reporting and constructive conversations have worked so well in the past there.
Leeches can't speak, they need only to be smashed, microstockers need a labor union...
-
Hard time for my finger this wk, after Depositphoto deactivation, I'm on with Istock.
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script works very well, thank you for your work.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339)
It was a hard decision but I will close my account.
It may seem stupid but i feel so much better and proud of that.
-
I posted a comment on this article about this mess. Others might want to as well.
[url]http://petapixel.com/2014/02/25/istock-photographers-told-overpaid-will-pay-getty-back/[/url] ([url]http://petapixel.com/2014/02/25/istock-photographers-told-overpaid-will-pay-getty-back/[/url])
Me too. Thanks for the link. Not that it will change anything, but good for people to know this is happening, I suppose.
-
Has any of the European Istockers received his/her e-mail yet? I haven't got mine yet, and I don't believe for a second they'll forget me (my October PP was more than double of September).
-
Has any of the European Istockers received his/her e-mail yet? I haven't got mine yet, and I don't believe for a second they'll forget me (my October PP was more than double of September).
me, from Italy
-
Hard time for my finger this wk, after Depositphoto deactivation, I'm on with Istock.
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script works very well, thank you for your work.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339[/url])
It was a hard decision but I will close my account.
It may seem stupid but i feel so much better and proud of that.
If you haven't already closed it, perhaps you want to leave an image or two to keep the accountt open (so you keep access to your stats)?
-
Received my IS-mail today: They take away a considerable amount of money whereas they suggest to do it on a monthly basis:
"We discovered that there were some irregularities with September 2013 and October 2013 Partner Program royalties payments. There were a number of contributor accounts that were overpaid royalties over these two months. Unfortunately your account was one of the affected accounts.
We have calculated the over payment amount to be $xxx.xx. Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period. Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $xx.xx. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. You will receive a monthly notification as immediately after the funds are removed."
My sales within this period have been quite good but for sure not as good that they take away this sum of money. We don't have any means to control all the monetary scenarios arising from our microstock activity. It is kind of a "game of luck". Quite disappointing. Confidence and faith don't have no meaning. What a pity.
-
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.
Yeah, asking for better reporting and constructive conversations have worked so well in the past there.
Leeches can't speak, they need only to be smashed, microstockers need a labor union...
A workers' union comprising people across the whole planet will work when there is one world govt. Plans for a one world govt are on hold.
Photos are not in short supply and are mostly already free even in most typical semi-/commercial uses. Sean implies that better reporting and constructive conversation has not worked. I tend towards thinking that better reporting is almost certainly part of an inevitable road map - but likely depends upon other stuff being in place first. It makes sense from everyone's perspective - because it will be the most efficient and cost effective solution. (And I am guessing).
In terms of communications: Communications are better now (in a less is more way) than in the days when iStock communicated with itself via huge long angry and rather pointlessly repetitive forum threads (and ikon changing) from the same few people. Then the management would step in and implement a quick and often lousy fix backed up with a vague promise. But the issues would be left the fester. That style of management was transitional - it almost certainly works at a boutique, art or influential reportage agency with a few hundred or fewer contributors and everyone knows each other. It is surely the wrong solution at a site with thousands of contributors.
I doubt there is any particular business case for touchy-feely communications or promising anything. With many thousands of contributors it is impossible to please everyone and it may be better to keep things very formal.
I agree that the processes need to improve. But I think that will happen inevitably as part of the inevitable economics.
-
Interesting way to boost their cashflow for the next 6 months. Are they for sale again?
Don't forget this affects your personal taxes also because you actually received the money in 2013 and are having it clawed back in 2014.
Have any Canadians received their T-5's yet? Poor Elena (You are from Quebec I believe?), she likely has to pay about $560 in taxes on that amount if she is in say a 36% tax bracket because she received it in 2013 - but say she has lower tax earning this year of clawback (like she drops Istock perchance ;)) she may be at a lower tax rate and get screwed again by the difference.
-
Whoopie, I made $1.27 since I deactivated all but one. Nope, no clawback for me!!!
-
In terms of communications: Communications are better now (in a less is more way) than in the days when iStock communicated with itself via huge long angry and rather pointlessly repetitive forum threads (and ikon changing) from the same few people. Then the management would step in and implement a quick and often lousy fix backed up with a vague promise. But the issues would be left the fester. That style of management was transitional - it almost certainly works at a boutique, art or influential reportage agency with a few hundred or fewer contributors and everyone knows each other. It is surely the wrong solution at a site with thousands of contributors.
I doubt there is any particular business case for touchy-feely communications or promising anything. With many thousands of contributors it is impossible to please everyone and it may be better to keep things very formal.
I agree that the processes need to improve. But I think that will happen inevitably as part of the inevitable economics.
I am absolutely certain that what you are writing is probably the attitude of the getty management. And they will get their wish - they will evolve backwards to a much smaller reportage style agency.
Because that is all their managers understand. They have no top level management with high quality internet communication skills. Or when was the last time you saw the CEO personally communicate in a crisis? Take responsibility? Apologize?
Compare that with how Shutterstock is handling their online communication. And look at the success they have in growing their business.
I am sure you have noticed the valuation that is being placed by investors on companies with active and thriving communities.
Active, live, thriving online communities are worth billions of dollars.
Imagine what istock could be worth to an investor today, if they had encouraged their community to grow instead of killing it off?
The community alone could today be worth much more than all their images, news reports and licensing business.
It is not that difficult communicating online. It is HARD WORK. But if you are an online company,it is simply a requirement. It is normal to be good at online communication.
Well, in business there will always be someone to benefit from a company that decides to go down. In this case it is SS that is having it IMO too easy to grow. Well deserved success of course.
And on topic: yes, an apology would have been the minimum just as an itemised list and proper explanation. I canīt understand how the US or Canadian accounting laws even allow for clawbacks without proof.
Spreading it over 6 months is a good idea though. Thank you to whoever it was that thought one step ahead.
-
Personally, I am more skeptical than angry. The amount they are claiming as overpayment, in my case, is more that I expected, given usual pp performance. It would go a long way toward relieving my skepticism if there were an itemized dated list of the specific overpayment amount and an explanation as to why these were not legitimate sales.
One reason I did not initially think there was anything amiss with the high numbers in September and October was that there was a corresponding drop in sales at istock. It was reasonable to assume there might have been some targeted promotion to get istock buyers to try TS out.
Even with the 1571.00 "overpayment" my monthly totals for istock and PP combined were down from previous months.
Lisa, that was my thinking as well, when I saw the increase in PP sales, which appeared to be compensating somewhat for declining iStock sales. Now I have to pay back $1513, with no explanation of how this figure was worked out. So I'm skeptical, but also angry... ::)
-
We need to sue. Every contributor gives 10$ for lawyer. we do not need high skilled, im sure some lawyers in canada are also stock photographer. Anyone know someone? :)
-
I am absolutely certain that what you are writing is probably the attitude of the getty management. And they will get their wish - they will evolve backwards to a much smaller reportage style agency.
I could not be sure - but I strongly suspect that is not the future they see for themselves. More likely they see themselves as global content providers. At this time there are very few successful small agencies.
Compare that with how Shutterstock is handling their online communication. And look at the success they have in growing their business.
I am sure you have noticed the valuation that is being placed by investors on companies with active and thriving communities.
Shutterstock has done very well so far but it is early days and everything they have achieved has been in a market which has more or less only been going in one direction. They are surely in a bubble.
Since their IPO, the market has risen beyond all reasonable expectations on the back of cheap govt money and zero rates. I am not one of those people who makes easy predictions - but IMO we are in a period surprisingly comparable with about 1996 when Alan Greenspan briefly said that there was something iffy about with the fundamentals, before quickly withdrawing his comments for political reasons. Sooner or later Shutterstock has to deal with a falling market.
ETA: it is a mistake to talk about communities. Stock agencies are not really communities. Unless they have only very few contributors who mostly know each other. It's an over-used term today and mostly out of context.
-
Why didnīt getty grow their business at the same time? Why are they falling back?
They were the undisputed market leader...
Yes, we will see what happens. But what makes me so sad is that istock had it all - not just a fantastic community but also a great team of people who where eager to grow the business and the community in harmony. All the skills were available and ready.
Instead istock was taken apart and now...we have to deal with communication and accounting gettystyle..
Getty wonīt disappear, the getty family can keep it floating forever.
But the most important asset in an online company are the people. I doubt they are even aware of who the important people are. maybe at getty, but at istock?
I am glad I have moved on and that istock is now just one part of my income. I will keep uploading, who knows,maybe one day...
-
Has any of the European Istockers received his/her e-mail yet? I haven't got mine yet, and I don't believe for a second they'll forget me (my October PP was more than double of September).
And me from Italy too.. We are the first when someone has to pay...
-
Has any of the European Istockers received his/her e-mail yet? I haven't got mine yet, and I don't believe for a second they'll forget me (my October PP was more than double of September).
Yes, it arrived in Ukraine, despite the revolution
-
what makes me so sad is that istock had it all - not just a fantastic community but also a great team of people who where eager to grow the business and the community in harmony. All the skills were available and ready.
iStock was not a community and nor is Shutterstock. Not in any sort of normal sociological definition of community. They are just businesses.
IMO it's a very early 90s phenomena - the idea of online communities. TBH I think it had already been partially deconstructed by the time that people were switching from Compuserve to ISPs.
ETA: communities definitely exist within and between companies however . But most of the thousands of people making stock photos today do not know each other.
-
I donīt know how sociologists define communities bunhill. But Facebook is a community, flickr is a community, msg is a community and yes, so are istock and SS.
They are online communities.
There are loads of these - religious online groups,hobby online communities,fan communities,music lovers,sports,mothers of the world,fathers of the world,tealovers,...etc...
That is the whole advantage of the internet - connect with an interest group worldwide.
I am not downvoting your posts by the way. I understand what you are saying, we just differ in opinion.
-
I am not downvoting your posts by the way. I understand what you are saying, we just differ in opinion.
That's okay. I did not think you were. I respect your perspective. I expect to get down voted for saying unpopular things.
Carmen Hermosillo who used to post as 'humdog' in the early 90s was one of the first people to write about the idea of online communities - a perspective she ultimately rejected.
-
My guess is that the fallout from the publicity this will create is going to cost them more than they are able to claw back from suppliers.
I suspect they know that, and the reason they cut the number affected from 25k to 9k was to reduce the number of people who were going to be complaining noisily about their behaviour. They would probably have been wise to drop the whole thing, but with the state Getty's finances appear to be in that probably wasn't considered an option.
-
Carmen Hermosillo who used to post as 'humdog' in the early 90s was one of the first people to write about the idea of online communities - a perspective she ultimately rejected.
I might read up on that, thank you. However online communities today are very different from the nineties. Mostly because a lot more people actually meet in real life or at least have face to face interaction with various members as opposed to the mostly alias based,faceless communities of the nineties.
Sorry for the parallel discussion everyone, maybe we should start a new thread or carry on over site mail.
But then, these are the moments I appreciate,when suddenly you learn something.
-
what makes me so sad is that istock had it all - not just a fantastic community but also a great team of people who where eager to grow the business and the community in harmony. All the skills were available and ready.
iStock was not a community and nor is Shutterstock. Not in any sort of normal sociological definition of community. They are just businesses.
IMO it's a very early 90s phenomena - the idea of online communities. TBH I think it had already been partially deconstructed by the time that people were switching from Compuserve to ISPs.
ETA: communities definitely exist within and between companies however . But most of the thousands of people making stock photos today do not know each other.
There's no doubt that IS was 'a community'. A lot of people really weren't there just for the money but for the validation of their work, the interaction with other artists and admiration of many of the 'admin' including inspectors.
There was actually some truth in the COO's famously derided statement of "You don't come here for the money ...". Unfortunately it was a truth that he shouldn't have thrown in contributors faces ... whilst reducing their incomes.
You can't buy that 'community' stuff and they don't stock it on the shelves ... but it sure is valuable and it can be monetised. It enabled IS to grow an eye-wateringly profitable business, whilst paying peanuts to most contributors, in very few years. Livingstone sold IS for $50M in 2006 (unbelievably) but by the end of 2010 it would probably have been worth close to $1B as an independent business.
-
It's just horrible to read what they did. Do they think we are so stupid. I'm happy that I've deleted my port on IS and PP sites recently.
-
I think its much simpler Shutterstock are slaughtering the opposition by being merely competent - yes far too easy for them which may cause problems down the road.
-
i see you dont any legal actions, we are stupid they are smart and they know we are stupid.
they will do it again.
It's just horrible to read what they did. Do they think we are so stupid. I'm happy that I've deleted my port on IS and PP sites recently.
-
90 USD? >:( In translation to English: Dear contributor thank you for being already 7 years our loyal supplier. Now give us back the alms we gave to you... Thanks your Istockphoto
-
Hard time for my finger this wk, after Depositphoto deactivation, I'm on with Istock.
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script works very well, thank you for your work.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339[/url])
It was a hard decision but I will close my account.
It may seem stupid but i feel so much better and proud of that.
If you haven't already closed it, perhaps you want to leave an image or two to keep the accountt open (so you keep access to your stats)?
No need to do that. My account is still open with full access to stats without any active image since 2011...
-
Cesar
Ŧ Reply #495 on: Today at 17:18 ŧ
Quote #link0
i see you dont any legal actions, we are stupid they are smart and they know we are stupid.
they will do it again.
Quote from: mayaartist on Today at 16:57
It's just horrible to read what they did. Do they think we are so stupid. I'm happy that I've deleted my port on IS and PP sites recently.
You are right Cesar.
I was so stupid to believe them. But now they can't do it for me any more. PERIOD
''Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction''.
--Erich Fromm
-
Pity indeed. Ironically, this cartoon I made recently sold on iStuck...
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/17407827/2/stock-illustration-17407827-money-out-the-window.jpg)
Received my IS-mail today: They take away a considerable amount of money whereas they suggest to do it on a monthly basis:
"We discovered that there were some irregularities with September 2013 and October 2013 Partner Program royalties payments. There were a number of contributor accounts that were overpaid royalties over these two months. Unfortunately your account was one of the affected accounts.
We have calculated the over payment amount to be $xxx.xx. Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period. Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $xx.xx. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. You will receive a monthly notification as immediately after the funds are removed."
My sales within this period have been quite good but for sure not as good that they take away this sum of money. We don't have any means to control all the monetary scenarios arising from our microstock activity. It is kind of a "game of luck". Quite disappointing. Confidence and faith don't have no meaning. What a pity.
-
Interesting way to boost their cashflow for the next 6 months. Are they for sale again?
Don't forget this affects your personal taxes also because you actually received the money in 2013 and are having it clawed back in 2014.
Have any Canadians received their T-5's yet? Poor Elena (You are from Quebec I believe?), she likely has to pay about $560 in taxes on that amount if she is in say a 36% tax bracket because she received it in 2013 - but say she has lower tax earning this year of clawback (like she drops Istock perchance ;)) she may be at a lower tax rate and get screwed again by the difference.
Toronto actually:) But ya I thought about that - I am to pay taxes on the amount they will claw back, and it will affect my tax installments. So, fun year ahead of me - my tax installments will be bigger, and my income - smaller!
-
... I am to pay taxes on the amount they will claw back, and it will affect my tax installments. So, fun year ahead of me - my tax installments will be bigger, and my income - smaller!
Same situation here in the US. I already included the overpayment in my 2013 income. I will be deducting the monthly clawback from 2014 income though. Not sure it will equal out in the end, but it's all I can think of to do about it.
-
I think many folks are missing the fact that if the money wasn't ours it should go back. The crime is IS not providing the detailed data to us. This is an accounting issue and they should be transparent. Say for instance I already did my taxes, and next year I have to report the loss. What happen if I get audited, what proof do I have outside of the letter. Without the data the numbers IS is claiming is arbitrary. Even if it is accurate it is arbitrary until we have the sales data. If I expense something for work and cannot provide a receipt I don't get reimbursed. If I itemize things on my taxes and have no proof when audited, I owe that money back plus interest and penalties. It's bad enough we trust them to report accurately, but not to provide details is criminal. And I'm not talking about details of the error, I am talking about detailed sales data for those months. I get that unexpected errors happen, but they need to due their part in providing accurate data. They are brass for not providing such info and are probably banking on the contributors to muddy this enough to mask the real issue. If they can not furnish this data we all have a legal right to seek council. If they do not provide this data they must be banking that we won't file a class action lawsuit against them.
In short,recouping funds is not illegal, but not varnishing the data is.
-
@ Lisa and Elena ~
Move to the UK. Our tax year starts 6th April, and self-employed people have until 31st January of the following year to file their tax form electronically.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/tax-deadlines.pdf (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/tax-deadlines.pdf)
Apparently that's because of late payers, late invoicers etc.
-
Dingles, I'm not sure anyone is missing the point. If the demand had come with a detailed transaction list (and an apology), and if the sum demanded seemed to make sense when compared with average earnings over the period then I suspect the anger would be much diminished.
The lack of detailed information and the fact that people say the amount being deducted appears to exceed the probable error make it unacceptable.
Like you, I've argued that if it was a mistake then they should have the money back. But this looks, from what is being reported, as if they are just piling another mistake on top of the first one - only this time the mistake appears designed to fill their pockets at the expense of the contributor. And, unlike the initial mistake, this one looks as if it is deliberate and calculated.
If it does turn out to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to secure monies in excess of those that are owed from thousands of people, then I feel sure that the lawyers have a word to describe it.
-
I think many folks are missing the fact that if the money wasn't ours it should go back. The crime is IS not providing the detailed data to us. This is an accounting issue and they should be transparent. Say for instance I already did my taxes, and next year I have to report the loss. What happen if I get audited, what proof do I have outside of the letter. Without the data the numbers IS is claiming is arbitrary. Even if it is accurate it is arbitrary until we have the sales data. If I expense something for work and cannot provide a receipt I don't get reimbursed. If I itemize things on my taxes and have no proof when audited, I owe that money back plus interest and penalties. It's bad enough we trust them to report accurately, but not to provide details is criminal. And I'm not talking about details of the error, I am talking about detailed sales data for those months. I get that unexpected errors happen, but they need to due their part in providing accurate data. They are brass for not providing such info and are probably banking on the contributors to muddy this enough to mask the real issue. If they can not furnish this data we all have a legal right to seek council. If they do not provide this data they must be banking that we won't file a class action lawsuit against them.
In short,recouping funds is not illegal, but not varnishing the data is.
Your 1099 from 2014 will show the minus income so you'll show whatever is less then.
Ok, thinking about it, maybe not as I don't know if we receive 1099's from Canada as I just got back and have not gone through the pile of mail to see.
If they do send some form to the US then we'll see the deduction there next year.
-
@ Lisa and Elena ~
Move to the UK. Our tax year starts 6th April, and self-employed people have until 31st January of the following year to file their tax form electronically.
[url]http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/tax-deadlines.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/tax-deadlines.pdf[/url])
Apparently that's because of late payers, late invoicers etc.
Thank you for the invitation. I'd be delighted to move to the UK, but not sure they'd have me ;)
-
Your 1099 from 2014 will show the minus income so you'll show whatever is less then.
Ok, thinking about it, maybe not as I don't know if we receive 1099's from Canada as I just got back and have not gone through the pile of mail to see.
No, if you are in the US we don't get a 1099 from Istock, nor any other paperwork.
Only thing I can think of to do is to print out the e-mail and take to my accountant with next year's taxes...
-
@ Lisa and Elena ~
Move to the UK. Our tax year starts 6th April, and self-employed people have until 31st January of the following year to file their tax form electronically.
[url]http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/tax-deadlines.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/tax-deadlines.pdf[/url])
Apparently that's because of late payers, late invoicers etc.
Thank you for the invitation. I'd be delighted to move to the UK, but not sure they'd have me ;)
We seem to take most people .... in fact, almost anybody if the Daily Mail is to be believed.
-
In reading this thread and related ones on the iStock forum I get the impression there is a lot of contributor mistrust toward iStock. I'm wondering, it that is the case, why would anyone continue to work for/with a company they didn't trust?
Let the negatives fly but, IMO, it is something to think about, isn't it??
-
Dingles, I'm not sure anyone is missing the point. If the demand had come with a detailed transaction list (and an apology), and if the sum demanded seemed to make sense when compared with average earnings over the period then I suspect the anger would be much diminished.
The lack of detailed information and the fact that people say the amount being deducted appears to exceed the probable error make it unacceptable.
Like you, I've argued that if it was a mistake then they should have the money back. But this looks, from what is being reported, as if they are just piling another mistake on top of the first one - only this time the mistake appears designed to fill their pockets at the expense of the contributor. And, unlike the initial mistake, this one looks as if it is deliberate and calculated.
If it does turn out to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to secure monies in excess of those that are owed from thousands of people, then I feel sure that the lawyers have a word to describe it.
I get that, but that isn't real until IS provided the data. I was also referring to folks still jumping on the argument that IS should've recoup. It's all a poor argument until we have proof
-
Your 1099 from 2014 will show the minus income so you'll show whatever is less then.
Ok, thinking about it, maybe not as I don't know if we receive 1099's from Canada as I just got back and have not gone through the pile of mail to see.
No, if you are in the US we don't get a 1099 from Istock.
Doesn't matter anyway as this year we will simply receive less which will be shown on next years forms. As an example if they grab $1000 back this year from you, your income showing for this year will be $1000 less.
-
In reading this thread and related ones on the iStock forum I get the impression there is a lot of contributor mistrust toward iStock. I'm wondering, it that is the case, why would anyone continue to work for/with a company they didn't trust?
Let the negatives fly but, IMO, it is something to think about, isn't it??
Of course it's something to think about. I assume that most of us who make a significant portion of our income in stock, and at istock in particular, are having to revisit this issue on a fairly regular basis.
The basic calculation is whether the money made is worth the BS put up with. Each time something like this happens more people decide it isn't.
But the fact that many contributors continue to submit to them doesn't in any way excuse or negate their negligence.
-
In reading this thread and related ones on the iStock forum I get the impression there is a lot of contributor mistrust toward iStock. I'm wondering, it that is the case, why would anyone continue to work for/with a company they didn't trust?
Let the negatives fly but, IMO, it is something to think about, isn't it??
They still make some of us money, but the line is getting thinner.
-
In reading this thread and related ones on the iStock forum I get the impression there is a lot of contributor mistrust toward iStock. I'm wondering, it that is the case, why would anyone continue to work for/with a company they didn't trust?
Let the negatives fly but, IMO, it is something to think about, isn't it??
Seems like the only micro company that anyone trusts around here is SS, so if you choose not to support subs (I know, it's not all subs) it's devil or deep blue sea. Or there are other companies which are probably trustworthy, but garner very few sales.
Anyway, former bigwig at iS (JJRD) said it was a 'new kind of trust' we should have with iS - one of several words iStock has redefined (others being mainly connected to time, like 'soon', 'tomorrow', 'next week', 'in due course')
-
Anyway, former bigwig at iS (JJRD) said it was a 'new kind of trust' we should have with iS - one of several words iStock has redefined (others being mainly connected to time, like 'soon', 'tomorrow', 'next week', 'in due course')
Didn't it ultimately turn out to be a kind of trust he couldn't stomach?
The question of continuing to sell at iS is now becoming very difficult. Even with the cuts they've inflicted, the earnings from there thrown into the overall pile make the difference between hobby earnings and a job for me. I need both iStock and SS to have an income that looks half-decent.
-
Anyway, former bigwig at iS (JJRD) said it was a 'new kind of trust' we should have with iS - one of several words iStock has redefined (others being mainly connected to time, like 'soon', 'tomorrow', 'next week', 'in due course')
Didn't it ultimately turn out to be a kind of trust he couldn't stomach?
I believe he was let go in that big 'letting go' event, whereafter things got even worse, but he continues to submit images regularly, and is still exclusive.
-
Dingles, I'm not sure anyone is missing the point. If the demand had come with a detailed transaction list (and an apology), and if the sum demanded seemed to make sense when compared with average earnings over the period then I suspect the anger would be much diminished.
The lack of detailed information and the fact that people say the amount being deducted appears to exceed the probable error make it unacceptable.
Like you, I've argued that if it was a mistake then they should have the money back. But this looks, from what is being reported, as if they are just piling another mistake on top of the first one - only this time the mistake appears designed to fill their pockets at the expense of the contributor. And, unlike the initial mistake, this one looks as if it is deliberate and calculated.
If it does turn out to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to secure monies in excess of those that are owed from thousands of people, then I feel sure that the lawyers have a word to describe it.
I get that, but that isn't real until IS provided the data. I was also referring to folks still jumping on the argument that IS should've recoup. It's all a poor argument until we have proof
On the contrary, it IS real until iStock provide proof. It is the ones helping themselves to money who have to demonstrate that it is justified, not the ones having money taken off them who need to show that it isn't.
All the accounts are in iStock's hands, not in ours. If there is a case for recouping money (and there probably is) then they should provide evidence of it, not just say "it's ours, we're helping ourselves".
-
Hard time for my finger this wk, after Depositphoto deactivation, I'm on with Istock.
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script works very well, thank you for your work.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339[/url])
It was a hard decision but I will close my account.
It may seem stupid but i feel so much better and proud of that.
If you haven't already closed it, perhaps you want to leave an image or two to keep the accountt open (so you keep access to your stats)?
I don't close it already, I just wait to reach the minimum payment with several images and I close it.
Even if I deactivate my images I don't like the idea they still have them. I hope (naively) if I close my account I have more chance than they delete my images definitively.
-
Hard time for my finger this wk, after Depositphoto deactivation, I'm on with Istock.
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script works very well, thank you for your work.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339[/url])
It was a hard decision but I will close my account.
It may seem stupid but i feel so much better and proud of that.
If you haven't already closed it, perhaps you want to leave an image or two to keep the accountt open (so you keep access to your stats)?
I don't close it already, I just wait to reach the minimum payment with several images and I close it.
Even if I deactivate my images I don't like the idea they still have them. I hope (naively) if I close my account I have more chance than they delete my images definitively.
I don't think it works that way. When I closed my account the first time and then went back, all my files were still there, even though I had deactivated all of them before closing the account.
-
Dingles, I'm not sure anyone is missing the point. If the demand had come with a detailed transaction list (and an apology), and if the sum demanded seemed to make sense when compared with average earnings over the period then I suspect the anger would be much diminished.
The lack of detailed information and the fact that people say the amount being deducted appears to exceed the probable error make it unacceptable.
Like you, I've argued that if it was a mistake then they should have the money back. But this looks, from what is being reported, as if they are just piling another mistake on top of the first one - only this time the mistake appears designed to fill their pockets at the expense of the contributor. And, unlike the initial mistake, this one looks as if it is deliberate and calculated.
If it does turn out to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to secure monies in excess of those that are owed from thousands of people, then I feel sure that the lawyers have a word to describe it.
I get that, but that isn't real until IS provided the data. I was also referring to folks still jumping on the argument that IS should've recoup. It's all a poor argument until we have proof
On the contrary, it IS real until iStock provide proof. It is the ones helping themselves to money who have to demonstrate that it is justified, not the ones having money taken off them who need to show that it isn't.
All the accounts are in iStock's hands, not in ours. If there is a case for recouping money (and there probably is) then they should provide evidence of it, not just say "it's ours, we're helping ourselves".
I think you misunderstood, I meant the accusations are not real until we have proof. So for now our focus should be obtaining our sales records for those months
-
I don't think it works that way. When I closed my account the first time and then went back, all my files were still there, even though I had deactivated all of them before closing the account.
Ouah, It's what I was afraid.
Thank for you feedback,
-
Your 1099 from 2014 will show the minus income so you'll show whatever is less then.
Ok, thinking about it, maybe not as I don't know if we receive 1099's from Canada as I just got back and have not gone through the pile of mail to see.
No, if you are in the US we don't get a 1099 from Istock, nor any other paperwork.
Only thing I can think of to do is to print out the e-mail and take to my accountant with next year's taxes...
Lisa- The IRS has a quick help phone number you can call for advice. It's easy to remember- just dial 1-800-AUDITME
-
Could it be that they messed up the emails with the amounts? Can you trust IS to sent out 9000 emails with the correct account linked to the correct clawback. Maybe they ffed that up and maybe thats why things dont add up?
-
I don't close it already, I just wait to reach the minimum payment with several images and I close it.
You don't have to wait. They'll send you your money even under minimal treshold + PP for actual and next month.
-
I'm pleased that after removing all my best images, I don't earn much with istock now and the amount they're taking back isn't too big. Can't imagine how bad this must be for the big earners there. I wonder how much they will be taking back from Yuri? They should at least give people some compensation for their enormous blunder but that's not how they operate.
-
Can they at least pay us janurary PP ?! GOD ! they says before the end of the month but it's " at the very end of the month ŧ
and of course they delete my post.
-
I'm pleased that after removing all my best images, I don't earn much with istock now and the amount they're taking back isn't too big. Can't imagine how bad this must be for the big earners there. I wonder how much they will be taking back from Yuri? They should at least give people some compensation for their enormous blunder but that's not how they operate.
Compensation? It would be a nice gesture to say forget about 25-50% of the commission grab for those who are over and above writing off the sub $10 - by way of saying "we cocked up, sorry, so we will take a larger share of the burden".
Unfortunately, the bean counters who make these decisions are the sort of people who would stop standing still in the middle of the Pamplona Bull Run to pick up an old penny.
-
they deleted my post concerning the feb (jan sold) PP too.
Smells like hell.
No uploading from my side for the next couple of months anymore
-
Just curious how Yuri is doing now and if he will make a next step.
-
Lisa- The IRS has a quick help phone number you can call for advice. It's easy to remember- just dial 1-800-AUDITME
LOL! I'll get right on that ;D
-
Today I checked my spam folder and there was a letter from iStockphoto:
Over Payment Total=$98.82
Monthly Recoup Amount=$16.47
Basically, I don't care about it since I closed my account on 19th of February. But I had about $95 balance on my account. And now after this over payment letter. They will pay me nothing. Of course, I should have some PP sales for a January. It's just ridiculus.
>:(
"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers."
--Aristotle
-
Why PP did not start today?
Bankruptcy?
-
Not sure if this was already posted.
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2014/02/getty-claims-to-have-overpaid-9000-istock-photogs-requires-repayment?src=SOC&dom=fb (http://www.popphoto.com/news/2014/02/getty-claims-to-have-overpaid-9000-istock-photogs-requires-repayment?src=SOC&dom=fb)
-
Complain to them, folks. Don't let their bullying get you down nor allow cynicism to smother your rage. Let us flood their Contributor Relations inbox with our words.
http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket.php)
they deleted my post concerning the feb (jan sold) PP too.
Smells like hell.
No uploading from my side for the next couple of months anymore
-
Explanation email from istuck received :)
Partner Program Recoupment Follow up - February 26, 2014
We hear your concerns over the recent recall of overpayments and we are sincerely sorry for having to inconvenience you in this way. While there will always be reason for adjustments in certain instances we also know that errors and adjustments have been all too common and we take responsibility for that.
Several months ago we took steps to address this, adding additional staff dedicated to managing iStock partner program royalties, and reviewing our systems and processes to improve on-time and accurate payment. To start, we reviewed the process for partner program and Getty Images royalties. This resulted in our notifying you on January 3rd and 9th that we had discovered inaccuracies with the partner program royalties for certain months that resulted in overpayments.
So you know, we also have some transaction corrections that will result in additional amounts being added to contributors accounts. Clean-up requires some work, but that work is in progress. The amount is not highbut the point is that we are making progress and for those who were asking; yes, our review is producing adjustments and in the contributors favor.
How the Partner Program royalty error occurred:
The overpayment issue was caused by a database numbering overlap which caused certain subscription downloads to be labeled as image pack downloads thereby resulting in a higher royalty rate being paid on those transactions. To arrive at our correction we identified the incorrectly labeled downloads and calculated the difference between the erroneous image pack royalty rate and the correct subscription royalty rate.
There was minimal impact with September partner program sales (royalty loaded in October) and a significant impact for October partner program sales (royalties loaded in November) when this issue was identified. The database issue was resolved prior to the reporting of the November partner program sales (royalties loaded in December).
Weve made a number of changes to how we process our royalty transfers and hope to improve upon them going forward. We appreciate all your patience and understand how frustrating this has been for everyone. We apologize for having to make these adjustments after the fact.
Sincerely,
iStockphoto LP
-
From their last email:
So you know, we also have some transaction corrections that will result in additional amounts being added to contributors accounts. Clean-up requires some work, but that work is in progress. The amount is not highbut the point is that we are making progress and for those who were asking; yes, our review is producing adjustments and in the contributors favor.
-
I don't care about apologies, I want my data. Every tracked sale, every royalty, every little dollar detail. And I want it NOW.
-
I got that one too. They can only atone by giving us our money. Whoever is responsible should pay for the loss. Not us. We made art, folks bought it, folks are using it and we deserve every penny. :(
Complain, complain, complain. Flood their inbox:
http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket.php)
Explanation email from istuck received :)
Partner Program Recoupment Follow up - February 26, 2014
We hear your concerns over the recent recall of overpayments and we are sincerely sorry for having to inconvenience you in this way. While there will always be reason for adjustments in certain instances we also know that errors and adjustments have been all too common and we take responsibility for that.
Several months ago we took steps to address this, adding additional staff dedicated to managing iStock partner program royalties, and reviewing our systems and processes to improve on-time and accurate payment. To start, we reviewed the process for partner program and Getty Images royalties. This resulted in our notifying you on January 3rd and 9th that we had discovered inaccuracies with the partner program royalties for certain months that resulted in overpayments.
So you know, we also have some transaction corrections that will result in additional amounts being added to contributors accounts. Clean-up requires some work, but that work is in progress. The amount is not highbut the point is that we are making progress and for those who were asking; yes, our review is producing adjustments and in the contributors favor.
How the Partner Program royalty error occurred:
The overpayment issue was caused by a database numbering overlap which caused certain subscription downloads to be labeled as image pack downloads thereby resulting in a higher royalty rate being paid on those transactions. To arrive at our correction we identified the incorrectly labeled downloads and calculated the difference between the erroneous image pack royalty rate and the correct subscription royalty rate.
There was minimal impact with September partner program sales (royalty loaded in October) and a significant impact for October partner program sales (royalties loaded in November) when this issue was identified. The database issue was resolved prior to the reporting of the November partner program sales (royalties loaded in December).
Weve made a number of changes to how we process our royalty transfers and hope to improve upon them going forward. We appreciate all your patience and understand how frustrating this has been for everyone. We apologize for having to make these adjustments after the fact.
Sincerely,
iStockphoto LP
-
^^ That information could surely have been made in the PP forum and in the original email sent out to those affected.
I see it is now in a PP thread. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359490&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359490&page=1)
I don't fully understand why at least that much of an explanation couldn't have been made in the first instance (3rd Jan).
-
From their last email:
So you know, we also have some transaction corrections that will result in additional amounts being added to contributors accounts. Clean-up requires some work, but that work is in progress. The amount is not highbut the point is that we are making progress and for those who were asking; yes, our review is producing adjustments and in the contributors favor.
I hate to say it, but this email actually makes me trust them less. There are other errors too? And come on, they found these errors on their own? Really? It had nothing to do with many contributors wondering aloud why their PP earnings dropped so drastically in November after such a fabulous October?
Now I don't trust any of their PP calculations from the get go. Are we supposed to trust that a company that's made so many mistakes and is finding more mistakes won't make even more mistakes correcting the mistakes?
-
From their last email:
So you know, we also have some transaction corrections that will result in additional amounts being added to contributors accounts. Clean-up requires some work, but that work is in progress. The amount is not highbut the point is that we are making progress and for those who were asking; yes, our review is producing adjustments and in the contributors favor.
I hate to say it, but this email actually makes me trust them less. There are other errors too? And come on, they found these errors on their own? Really? It had nothing to do with many contributors wondering aloud why their PP earnings dropped so drastically in November after such a fabulous October?
More likely reading all the contributors cheering about their suddenly much-improved month in October, when there was no reason for the increase in rpd. The volume of the cheering actually then made me waiver (momentarily) in my joy about not being in the PP.
-
Shelma, brilliant post! + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
-
Shelma, brilliant post! + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+1
-
A database numbering overlap? There's a phrase that goes along with "he misspoke himself" and "rightsizing" and other lovely euphamisms (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22470691)
This sounds as if they were merging the multiple sites' systems into one and the coding for image pack in the new combined system was the same as the one for subscription on the old; or that the conversion of old to new was done incorrectly. Whatever the specifics of the mistake, why wouldn't you keep an eye out for any anomalies in the first run or two after making changes?
Paul Cowan (Baldrick's Trousers) pointed out what turned out to be the problem November 13, so the statement saying that it was a review of processes that led to them finding this problem at the beginning of January is passing strange.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&messageid=6956518 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&messageid=6956518)
I'm glad they decided that they needed to say something about had happened, possibly as a result of PetaPixel picking up the story?, but they could have acknowledged this problem back in November if they'd been paying any attention to what their contributors were telling them.
-
I posted they should give us our money...and they deleted it. Losers.
^^ That information could surely have been made in the PP forum and in the original email sent out to those affected.
I see it is now in a PP thread. [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359490&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359490&page=1[/url])
I don't fully understand why at least that much of an explanation couldn't have been made in the first instance (3rd Jan).
-
I posted they should give us our money...and they deleted it. Losers.
Strictly speaking, it was never 'our' money, as 'we' hadn't earned it; but they made the very serious mistake, and didn't spot it at the time (how come?) not the contributors.
-
I posted they should give us our money...and they deleted it. Losers.
Strictly speaking, it was never 'our' money, as 'we' hadn't earned it; but they made the very serious mistake, and didn't spot it at the time (how come?) not the contributors.
True but we have no proof whether their amounts are correct....that's the sticking point. I don't mind paying them back what was wrongly attributed to me, but I sure as SH*T don't want to give them a penny more back from what I actually earned. As far as I'm concerned they give us what I say is "an uneducated guess with a bar room calculation on a cocktail napkin".
-
From the letter from iS...
There was minimal impact with September partner program sales (royalty loaded in October) and a significant impact for October partner program sales (royalties loaded in November) when this issue was identified.
This statement is contrary to what I saw in my PP numbers which makes me wonder about the reliability.
My October deposit was 2.5 times my highest monthly PP earnings and 4 times my average PP earnings.
My November deposit was insignificant, in fact, it was on par with my low average amount.
My clawback is about 35% of the high October amount
-
I guess I am in the minority, in that I am glad to be getting an explanation, and some acknowledgment that they are cleaning up their act. I have been posting here asking for those things and so have a lot of others and I am glad to see some response to our concerns.
Let me be clear. I would MUCH rather have the money, but did anyone seriously think that was going to happen?
-
Apologies are always appreciated , but this is only the first step.
but the error was made by iStock , this is the risk of doing business.
Istock has made ??mistakes and I do not see why I have to pay for his mistakes .
Istock will assume the burden of this failure . So this will be a GREAT incentive for it to NOT COMMIT more mistakes like that.
My job : to make images that may have market , load them (in their mode cumbersome and slow), I have this job done properly.
THEIR job : to sell my images , to correctly calculate royalties and distribute them in a timely manner . This work Istock has done wrong.
WHY I have to pay for a job that someone else has done wrong ?
They are mistaken his own work and I have to pay for this mistake.
If I 'm wrong in my work, I pay directly the consequences.
But what I did wrong in my work ? NOTHING
This mechanism that istock has put together is deeply wrong
I repeat, do not ever again shortly nullla and retire all of my images.
I do not understand why I have to be treated so badly by a microstock .
-
Istock is stealing!!! PP is on january 9. i have 100 sales and all are 0.28. Every other page i have one on demand download on 10 subscription sales!
They are stealing every day. Not only oktober.
-
why don't they(IS) just show us the detail of sales per days like other sites did?????that would be the most honest way and we contributors would never doubt you like these now ;)
-
Apologies are always appreciated , but this is only the first step.
but the error was made by iStock , this is the risk of doing business.
Istock has made ??mistakes and I do not see why I have to pay for his mistakes .
Istock will assume the burden of this failure . So this will be a GREAT incentive for it to NOT COMMIT more mistakes like that.
My job : to make images that may have market , load them (in their mode cumbersome and slow), I have this job done properly.
THEIR job : to sell my images , to correctly calculate royalties and distribute them in a timely manner . This work Istock has done wrong.
WHY I have to pay for a job that someone else has done wrong ?
They are mistaken his own work and I have to pay for this mistake.
If I 'm wrong in my work, I pay directly the consequences.
But what I did wrong in my work ? NOTHING
This mechanism that istock has put together is deeply wrong
I repeat, do not ever again shortly nullla and retire all of my images.
I do not understand why I have to be treated so badly by a microstock .
Why do you think its normal to keep money that isnt yours? Honest question. In my opinion, it doesnt work like that with any company.
If the taxman makes a mistake, you have to pay it back
When items in a store are priced differently, you pay the register price, even when its more expensive
When utilities make a mistake you have to pay them back.
I once was undercharged for my gas bill due to their error, and still needed to pay the money, I protested but all they did was give me payback scheme to soften the blow.
ETA: Being overpaid by your employer or a mistake from the bank will also be corrected and the money has to be returned.
-
After this kind of new i have a very weird boost in my sales, probably they are helping my sales to pay my debt...
-
It is not the problem oktober. November,december,january i sold 1000 images in PP, they were all 0.28$
Apologies are always appreciated , but this is only the first step.
but the error was made by iStock , this is the risk of doing business.
Istock has made ??mistakes and I do not see why I have to pay for his mistakes .
Istock will assume the burden of this failure . So this will be a GREAT incentive for it to NOT COMMIT more mistakes like that.
My job : to make images that may have market , load them (in their mode cumbersome and slow), I have this job done properly.
THEIR job : to sell my images , to correctly calculate royalties and distribute them in a timely manner . This work Istock has done wrong.
WHY I have to pay for a job that someone else has done wrong ?
They are mistaken his own work and I have to pay for this mistake.
If I 'm wrong in my work, I pay directly the consequences.
But what I did wrong in my work ? NOTHING
This mechanism that istock has put together is deeply wrong
I repeat, do not ever again shortly nullla and retire all of my images.
I do not understand why I have to be treated so badly by a microstock .
Why do you think its normal to keep money that isnt yours? Honest question. In my opinion, it doesnt work like that with any company.
If the taxman makes a mistake, you have to pay it back
When items in a store are priced differently, you pay the register price, even when its more expensive
When utilities make a mistake you have to pay them back.
I once was undercharged for my gas bill due to their error, and still needed to pay the money, I protested but all they did was give me payback scheme to soften the blow.
ETA: Being overpaid by your employer or a mistake from the bank will also be corrected and the money has to be returned.
-
I guess I am in the minority, in that I am glad to be getting an explanation, and some acknowledgment that they are cleaning up their act. I have been posting here asking for those things and so have a lot of others and I am glad to see some response to our concerns.
Let me be clear. I would MUCH rather have the money, but did anyone seriously think that was going to happen?
Well said ... but I don't want money that isnt mine, what I want is a better report of our sales.
This error is an opportunity to istock make better and detailed reports from all sales done in all of their agencies.
-
@Ron,
I agree with you to a certain point and that is Proper Explaination of each individual failure by the one who caused the mess.
-
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 (https://www.google.com/search?q=register+has+wrong+price)
-
I guess I am in the minority, in that I am glad to be getting an explanation, and some acknowledgment that they are cleaning up their act. I have been posting here asking for those things and so have a lot of others and I am glad to see some response to our concerns.
Let me be clear. I would MUCH rather have the money, but did anyone seriously think that was going to happen?
Their credibility level is a big fat 0. They might as well have said the money fell into our accounts from the 6th dimension, or whatever story they care to make up while thieving, if the peasants are gratefully groveling just from getting an extra email. "2 ez"
-
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 (https://www.google.com/search?q=register+has+wrong+price)
Ok, in Ireland register price is what you have to pay. Lower or higher.
-
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 (https://www.google.com/search?q=register+has+wrong+price)
OT the other day I got a 6 pack of milk and it should have been around 3 pounds but they charged me 6x3=18, the next day went to the supermarket and they replaced the 15 pounds, there was a lady behind me saying they can pay me the double if I ask because of their error, of course I haven't once that wasn't my goal, there are companies and companies, oh iStock where are you?
-
I posted they should give us our money...and they deleted it. Losers.
Strictly speaking, it was never 'our' money, as 'we' hadn't earned it; but they made the very serious mistake, and didn't spot it at the time (how come?) not the contributors.
But really strictly speaking they DO have some of "our money," since they're making smaller corrections in the contributors' favor, supposedly. So that means they've been underpaying us in some cases. Which cases? For how long? Beats me. No transparency whatsoever.
-
Apologies are always appreciated , but this is only the first step.
but the error was made by iStock , this is the risk of doing business.
Istock has made ??mistakes and I do not see why I have to pay for his mistakes .
Istock will assume the burden of this failure . So this will be a GREAT incentive for it to NOT COMMIT more mistakes like that.
My job : to make images that may have market , load them (in their mode cumbersome and slow), I have this job done properly.
THEIR job : to sell my images , to correctly calculate royalties and distribute them in a timely manner . This work Istock has done wrong.
WHY I have to pay for a job that someone else has done wrong ?
They are mistaken his own work and I have to pay for this mistake.
If I 'm wrong in my work, I pay directly the consequences.
But what I did wrong in my work ? NOTHING
This mechanism that istock has put together is deeply wrong
I repeat, do not ever again shortly nullla and retire all of my images.
I do not understand why I have to be treated so badly by a microstock .
Why do you think its normal to keep money that isnt yours? Honest question. In my opinion, it doesnt work like that with any company.
If the taxman makes a mistake, you have to pay it back
When items in a store are priced differently, you pay the register price, even when its more expensive
When utilities make a mistake you have to pay them back.
I once was undercharged for my gas bill due to their error, and still needed to pay the money, I protested but all they did was give me payback scheme to soften the blow.
ETA: Being overpaid by your employer or a mistake from the bank will also be corrected and the money has to be returned.
Hi Ron,
I do not understand the binomial:
you make a mistake -> I will pay for your mistake
This I really do not understand it.
Peace
-
Apologies are always appreciated , but this is only the first step.
but the error was made by iStock , this is the risk of doing business.
Istock has made ??mistakes and I do not see why I have to pay for his mistakes .
Istock will assume the burden of this failure . So this will be a GREAT incentive for it to NOT COMMIT more mistakes like that.
My job : to make images that may have market , load them (in their mode cumbersome and slow), I have this job done properly.
THEIR job : to sell my images , to correctly calculate royalties and distribute them in a timely manner . This work Istock has done wrong.
WHY I have to pay for a job that someone else has done wrong ?
They are mistaken his own work and I have to pay for this mistake.
If I 'm wrong in my work, I pay directly the consequences.
But what I did wrong in my work ? NOTHING
This mechanism that istock has put together is deeply wrong
I repeat, do not ever again shortly nullla and retire all of my images.
I do not understand why I have to be treated so badly by a microstock .
Why do you think its normal to keep money that isnt yours? Honest question. In my opinion, it doesnt work like that with any company.
If the taxman makes a mistake, you have to pay it back
When items in a store are priced differently, you pay the register price, even when its more expensive
When utilities make a mistake you have to pay them back.
I once was undercharged for my gas bill due to their error, and still needed to pay the money, I protested but all they did was give me payback scheme to soften the blow.
ETA: Being overpaid by your employer or a mistake from the bank will also be corrected and the money has to be returned.
Hi Ron,
I do not understand the binomial:
you make a mistake -> I will pay for your mistake
This I really do not understand it.
Peace
But you arent paying for their mistake. You just have to pay back what they OVERpaid. If it all is calculated correctly, you only pay back what they paid too much, you shouldnt be out of pocket, so you are not paying for their mistake.
Disclaimer: Assuming IS calculated the overpayment correctly.
-
It's not that unusual for companies to make a mistake, as Ron has pointed out above.
A few years back, we had a long-term savings account (that we put money into monthly) mature while we were on holiday.
It so happened, when we got back, we opened their third letter first, which was the one threatening us with legal action if we didn't pay them (whatever it was, certainly less than Ģ50) by return of post. Bit of a shock - hadn't realised the policy had matured until later on we found two letters, one telling us out policy had matured and enclosing a cheque, the second saying they've overpaid us by one month's savings and we had to pay it back. The legal threat was the third, and dated ten days after the first, and only four days after the second, telling us about the overpayment. In July, which is the peak month for Scots to go on holiday, so hardly unreasonable that we hadn't responded to their second letter within four days.
Of course, I internally vowed to have nothing to do with that company again (because of the 4-day legal threat, not because of their mistake) but yesterday I got a letter in telling me that they had taken over the storecard accounts of one of my store cards.
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 Ģ19k. 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 (I've spoken to three different reps since November, having dealt with one guy for c15 years previously; and the one I saw yesterday is starting with a different company on Monday.)
None of this defends iStock, but it's not an isolated case the say some people seem to think.
-
.
-
Annoying as paying back money they'd overpaid you is, think of how we regularly have to pay for their incompetance when they have a site outage and offer a credit value discount to recompense buyers.
In these cases, we lose a percentage of our legitimate earnings through their sheer negligence in putting up code which hasn't been properly tested. Morally and logically, they should take all the hit on that.
-
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 (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.
-
Apologies are always appreciated , but this is only the first step.
but the error was made by iStock , this is the risk of doing business.
Istock has made ??mistakes and I do not see why I have to pay for his mistakes .
Istock will assume the burden of this failure . So this will be a GREAT incentive for it to NOT COMMIT more mistakes like that.
My job : to make images that may have market , load them (in their mode cumbersome and slow), I have this job done properly.
THEIR job : to sell my images , to correctly calculate royalties and distribute them in a timely manner . This work Istock has done wrong.
WHY I have to pay for a job that someone else has done wrong ?
They are mistaken his own work and I have to pay for this mistake.
If I 'm wrong in my work, I pay directly the consequences.
But what I did wrong in my work ? NOTHING
This mechanism that istock has put together is deeply wrong
I repeat, do not ever again shortly nullla and retire all of my images.
I do not understand why I have to be treated so badly by a microstock .
Why do you think its normal to keep money that isnt yours? Honest question. In my opinion, it doesnt work like that with any company.
If the taxman makes a mistake, you have to pay it back
When items in a store are priced differently, you pay the register price, even when its more expensive
When utilities make a mistake you have to pay them back.
I once was undercharged for my gas bill due to their error, and still needed to pay the money, I protested but all they did was give me payback scheme to soften the blow.
ETA: Being overpaid by your employer or a mistake from the bank will also be corrected and the money has to be returned.
Hi Ron,
I do not understand the binomial:
you make a mistake -> I will pay for your mistake
This I really do not understand it.
Peace
But you arent paying for their mistake. You just have to pay back what they OVERpaid. If it all is calculated correctly, you only pay back what they paid too much, you shouldnt be out of pocket, so you are not paying for their mistake.
Disclaimer: Assuming IS calculated the overpayment correctly.
They take an extraordinary 85% to keep their house in order, so it should be extraordinarily in order. If even despite all of that things go wrong, it's negligence, so: swallow it. Like a good hoe. It all have been covered well in advance by that 85%.
-
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:
[url]https://www.google.com/search?q=register+has+wrong+price[/url] ([url]https://www.google.com/search?q=register+has+wrong+price[/url])
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.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/pricing/pricing_of_goods_and_services.html (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/pricing/pricing_of_goods_and_services.html)
If a retailer makes a mistake and the actual price for the item is more than that displayed the retailers have certain rights. They do not automatically have to sell you the goods at the price stated.
-
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 (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 :)
-
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 (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
-
Annoying as paying back money they'd overpaid you is, think of how we regularly have to pay for their incompetance when they have a site outage and offer a credit value discount to recompense buyers.
In these cases, we lose a percentage of our legitimate earnings through their sheer negligence in putting up code which hasn't been properly tested. Morally and logically, they should take all the hit on that.
Case in point....the search is currently borked. Add the word CAR to the main search box, select the drop-down CAR. No cars in sight in the resultant search.
-
Annoying as paying back money they'd overpaid you is, think of how we regularly have to pay for their incompetance when they have a site outage and offer a credit value discount to recompense buyers.
In these cases, we lose a percentage of our legitimate earnings through their sheer negligence in putting up code which hasn't been properly tested. Morally and logically, they should take all the hit on that.
Case in point....the search is currently borked. Add the word CAR to the main search box, select the drop-down CAR. No cars in sight in the resultant search.
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. ::)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 ... :'(
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
take a look http://petapixel.com/2014/02/25/istock-photographers-told-overpaid-will-pay-getty-back/ (http://petapixel.com/2014/02/25/istock-photographers-told-overpaid-will-pay-getty-back/)
-
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/world/europe/8202842.stm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8276221.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8276221.stm)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13621315 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 Ģ19k. 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.
-
Interesting blog post from an attorney about this very issue.
http://kbhilferlaw.com/how-to-negotiate-prepare-for-and-conduct-a-licensing-audit/ (http://kbhilferlaw.com/how-to-negotiate-prepare-for-and-conduct-a-licensing-audit/)
-
Well, my Jan PP was about $75 more than usual. Hope this is legit. I won't hold my breath, though.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
"We have removed a total of $-20.97 from your account."
That's a double negative, in other words, I am getting that money? :D
-
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?
-
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 (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
OK.. kept my gob shut throughout this debacle... but now that i've 'earnt' my $800 dollars (4 grand plus cut to IS) plus this month, Ron mate... how much can I spend and how much shall I keep tucked under my mattress for another 3 months just in case IS have another monumental mess up? Just asking ;)
-
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 (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
OK.. kept my gob shut throughout this debacle... but now that i've 'earnt' my $800 dollars (4 grand plus cut to IS) plus this month, Ron mate... how much can I spend and how much shall I keep tucked under my mattress for another 3 months just in case IS have another monumental mess up? Just asking ;)
about 4800 should be safe.
-
Well, I never got my announcement-mail from Istock (though I checked my spam box every day), but today they took 68,8 dollars from my account. So now I just have to do 68,8 x 6 to know what the missing e-mail had to say. 412,80 $. GREAT!
-
I requested payout before receiving the mail that they were taking the money out. My balance before they took the money out was showing as .76. I don't see any balance showing now - not negative numbers, not anything. Weird.
I assume either they will take it out of the request I made, or I should be in negative numbers at the moment.
-
Well, I never got my announcement-mail from Istock (though I checked my spam box every day), but today they took 68,8 dollars from my account. So now I just have to do 68,8 x 6 to know what the missing e-mail had to say. 412,80 $. GREAT!
Same here. They forgot to send me notification mail but not to RECOUP the money!
Grrrr I hate IS! >:(
-
I requested payout before receiving the mail that they were taking the money out. My balance before they took the money out was showing as .76. I don't see any balance showing now - not negative numbers, not anything. Weird.
I assume either they will take it out of the request I made, or I should be in negative numbers at the moment.
I too requested a cashout around an hour before I got the email confirming they were going to deduct money. Under "financials" my account is now showing a negative figure. I replied to their email stressing that they weren't to deduct anything from my account without an itemised explanation of their 'recoupment'. Of course, they just ignored it...along with the support ticket I sent a few days ago.
-
And my oh my, HOW FAST, EFFICIENT & ACCURATE TO THEIR PROMISE the clawback was......
-
Well, I never got my announcement-mail from Istock (though I checked my spam box every day), but today they took 68,8 dollars from my account. So now I just have to do 68,8 x 6 to know what the missing e-mail had to say. 412,80 $. GREAT!
Same here. They forgot to send me notification mail but not to RECOUP the money!
Grrrr I hate IS! >:(
Ditto didn't get a re-coupment email but they certainly managed to email to tell me they took $2.16 from the account and will for 6 months
the halfwits
-
I requested payout before receiving the mail that they were taking the money out. My balance before they took the money out was showing as .76. I don't see any balance showing now - not negative numbers, not anything. Weird.
I assume either they will take it out of the request I made, or I should be in negative numbers at the moment.
Ahh, you know you could have gotten the .76 as well, just type it after the dollar amount. ;)
I cashed out as well, right before they removed the money. On the Financials tabs it shows the negative amount.
-
Requested payout couple of hours ago and now my Account Balance: is $-56.31 USD was $-60.79 .
Bravo IS >:( you greedy mouse
-
In our 'class action' some time ago I deleted out of protest almost my entire (small) portfolio from IStock, with 10 images left. I hardly earned a thing, especially not around September and October. However, IStock is deducting $11.70 over the next six months - which is MORE than I actually made with them during the "overpaid" period ::)
-
In our 'class action' some time ago I deleted out of protest almost my entire (small) portfolio from IStock, with 10 images left. I hardly earned a thing, especially not around September and October. However, IStock is deducting $11.70 over the next six months - which is MORE than I actually made with them during the "overpaid" period ::)
Which is the best evidence to date that this is the equivalent of the "estimated meter reading" for energy bills instead of measuring your actual usage. Unless they are covering a broader period in this initial funds reversal than they said, no matter what they did in screwing up the books, you couldn't have reversed an amount larger than you were credited.
-
Somehow I believe you are giving them too much credit? ::)
the halfwits
-
I requested payout before receiving the mail that they were taking the money out. My balance before they took the money out was showing as .76. I don't see any balance showing now - not negative numbers, not anything. Weird.
I assume either they will take it out of the request I made, or I should be in negative numbers at the moment.
Like the IRS they will get you...
-
This is what I got from email.
We have removed a total of $-52.57 from your account. This is the first recoupment out of six.....
what???
-
I don't understand, the PP (the figure under the graph) for january are considering the recoupment or not?
-
-38.00
so frustrating
it's really hard to believe that they treat contributors this way.
-
I requested payout before receiving the mail that they were taking the money out. My balance before they took the money out was showing as .76. I don't see any balance showing now - not negative numbers, not anything. Weird.
I assume either they will take it out of the request I made, or I should be in negative numbers at the moment.
I did this and they made me negative,
-
I posted they should give us our money...and they deleted it. Losers.
Strictly speaking, it was never 'our' money, as 'we' hadn't earned it; but they made the very serious mistake, and didn't spot it at the time (how come?) not the contributors.
But really strictly speaking they DO have some of "our money," since they're making smaller corrections in the contributors' favor, supposedly. So that means they've been underpaying us in some cases. Which cases? For how long? Beats me. No transparency whatsoever.
If they've underpaid contributors (and it sounds like they have from their latest explanation where they say ". . . we also have some transaction corrections that will result in additional amounts being added to contributors accounts. . . our review is producing adjustments and in the contributors favor") -- then I don't know why they don't wait until they sort the whole thing out, rather than set up six monthly installments for each contributor involved, and then additional transactions to repay the money they underpaid? Seems like it would be cleaner to me. Because based on history, the potential is there that something will be screwed up along the way and they'll have to make a correction to a correction.
-
Do you think starting a petition to istock from all affected contributor can change something ?
-
Do you think starting a petition to istock from all affected contributor can change something ?
I doubt a written petition would do anything but make them laugh and end up in the round file, Ju-lee. They have shown time and time again that they simply and clearly do not care about their contributors, let alone what we think. They are in their own cone of silence. When we speak they cover their ears with their hands and say, "la la la la la la la la".........
-
If they've underpaid contributors -- then I don't know why they don't wait until they sort the whole thing out, rather than set up six monthly installments for each contributor involved, and then additional transactions to repay the money they underpaid? Seems like it would be cleaner to me.
Because "(50 x 6) - (2,5 x 3)" is a LOT more complicated for IS than "50x6" and THEN "2,5x3"
-
If they've underpaid contributors -- then I don't know why they don't wait until they sort the whole thing out, rather than set up six monthly installments for each contributor involved, and then additional transactions to repay the money they underpaid? Seems like it would be cleaner to me.
Because "(50 x 6) - (2,5 x 3)" is a LOT more complicated for IS than "50x6" and THEN "2,5x3"
lol
-
seems like everyone i know is affected. should be 9000 only.
is there anyone on this forum, who is selling via PP on iStock and who is NOT affected by this "backfire" action?
-
seems like everyone i know is affected. should be 9000 only.
is there anyone on this forum, who is selling via PP on iStock and who is NOT affected by this "backfire" action?
I am, but only because I removed enough files so I made barely over $10 in pp during that time.
-
is there anyone on this forum, who is selling via PP on iStock and who is NOT affected by this "backfire" action?
Me.
I only have 109 files left at iStock (I removed everything else February 2013), but I did get an EL via the Partner Program in October 2013 ($24.02) and I expected that to convert to a 28 cent sale. So far, no money gone and no e-mail either.
There are a ton of people with few files and few sales - experimenting with stock and not really trying to make it even as a part-time job - and the numbers of casual contributors overwhelm those who do this over the long haul. 16,000 dabbling vs 9,000 with real income seems plausible to me.
-
seems like everyone i know is affected. should be 9000 only.
is there anyone on this forum, who is selling via PP on iStock and who is NOT affected by this "backfire" action?
I am, but only because I removed enough files so I made barely over $10 in pp during that time.
Same here but i've only mad $1.20 since Sept (only 5 images remaining)
-
seems like everyone i know is affected. should be 9000 only.
is there anyone on this forum, who is selling via PP on iStock and who is NOT affected by this "backfire" action?
Me
With 819 files.
There was an astonishing $41.25 for one file on Jan 14 . . . . is this an example of "additional amounts being added to contributors accounts"? Don't know, its hard to track.
-
To my surprise, a few days after I sent the support ticket I received an excel file from Support, with all sales data: File ID, purchase date, original dollars received, revised dollars received and the difference.
So if you want your data, sending a support ticket should do the trick.
-
To my surprise, a few days after I sent the support ticket I received an excel file from Support, with all sales data: File ID, purchase date, original dollars received, revised dollars received and the difference.
So if you want your data, sending a support ticket should do the trick.
Wow! I'm amazed.
-
To my surprise, a few days after I sent the support ticket I received an excel file from Support, with all sales data: File ID, purchase date, original dollars received, revised dollars received and the difference.
So if you want your data, sending a support ticket should do the trick.
Received my csv too. It is almost unbelievable. The image IDs they sent really are my images! But that is nothing compared to the fact that the difference in royalties on the csv file actually matches up to the total amount they are taking away from me! Still can't believe they calculated it right. I always though they were getting the numbers from crystal ball. :o
More worrying are the numbers themselves... originally received $39.84 adjusted to $0.28 ??? How much did the customer pay then??? Don't like this at all :-\
(http://ecostockimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Screen-Shot-2014-03-03-at-10.29.24.png)
-
they want back $66.42 from me
the only thing that was going 'quite' well on IS was the partner program. now I understed why....
probably it was done on purpose to limit the escape of contributors from IS, giving them for some months false numbers and motivation to stay
-
More worrying are the numbers themselves... originally received $39.84 adjusted to $0.28 ??? How much did the customer pay then???
Best to look on the iS forums for this sort of info, which no-one here is liable to have.
According to Lobo:
"The overpayment issue was caused by a database numbering overlap which caused certain subscription downloads to be labeled as image pack downloads thereby resulting in a higher royalty rate being paid on those transactions. To arrive at our correction we identified the incorrectly labeled downloads and calculated the difference between the erroneous image pack royalty rate and the correct subscription royalty rate."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359490&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359490&page=1)
-
similar happend to me, Istock support send me the CSV, i see some ELs and some on demands sales convert to $0.28, and i ask why istock convert my els and ondemands into $0.28?
and this is the istock support answer:
" I'm not sure what you mean by ELs, as those are not part of PP. Essentially, the majority of Partner Program downloads are from subscriptions (the .28 royalties), not image packs.
Are you saying that prior to September you received a lot of image pack sales and now you are getting none? "
i donīt understand istock! they only will pay us $ 0.28 for each sale no matter if itīs an El or an ondemand!!!! ELs and ondemands are not part of PP????
Thinkstock have different Extended license too! please see the link http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/legal/license-information (http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/legal/license-information)
waiting istock replay...
-
similar happend to me, Istock support send me the CSV, i see some ELs and some on demands sales convert to $0.28, and i ask why istock convert my els and ondemands into $0.28?
and this is the istock support answer:
" I'm not sure what you mean by ELs, as those are not part of PP. Essentially, the majority of Partner Program downloads are from subscriptions (the .28 royalties), not image packs.
Are you saying that prior to September you received a lot of image pack sales and now you are getting none? "
i donīt understand istock! they only will pay us $ 0.28 for each sale no matter if itīs an El or an ondemand!!!! ELs and ondemands are not part of PP????
Thinkstock have different Extended license too! please see the link [url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/legal/license-information[/url] ([url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/legal/license-information[/url])
waiting istock replay...
I'm by no means an expert in the PP, but they don't use the term 'on demand', which I believe is SS terminology. They sell 'image packs' to those who don't want a sub.
What seems to have happened (I have no idea if it really happened, but it's what they're saying and it seems feasible) that a lot of subsription sales wrongly showed up as image pack sales because of some database coding foulup. That certainly would explain why so many people were reporting a lot of high priced downloads which they'd seldom had before, yet there was no reason why buyers should suddenly have started buying image packs in vastly increased numbers.
If a buyer really buys an image pack, you do get an enhanced payment; you can search out the details for yourself.
-
But they say: "ELs are not part of PP!!!"
-
But they say: "ELs are not part of PP!!!"
I've found in the past that CR reps aren't always up to speed.
Or they speedread your ticket and don't quite 'get' it. I've noticed this especially if you try to give background info about your issue (guaranteed to confuse them) or bring in two issues, no matter if closely intertwined.
I find the same with most companies' support, and suspect it's the way they're trained and the speed at which they have to work.
I've had at least five totally different answer to the same question from different reps.
Added: the EL situation appears very odd: you have to 'contact us' by phoning or emailling if you want one. Wonder how often that happens?
-
According to Lobo:
"The overpayment issue was caused by a database numbering overlap which caused certain subscription downloads to be labeled as image pack downloads thereby resulting in a higher royalty rate being paid on those transactions. To arrive at our correction we identified the incorrectly labeled downloads and calculated the difference between the erroneous image pack royalty rate and the correct subscription royalty rate."
So it's almost the same story as shotshop and depositphotos. The only difference is that Istock makes mistakes when they scam us.
-
According to Lobo:
"The overpayment issue was caused by a database numbering overlap which caused certain subscription downloads to be labeled as image pack downloads thereby resulting in a higher royalty rate being paid on those transactions. To arrive at our correction we identified the incorrectly labeled downloads and calculated the difference between the erroneous image pack royalty rate and the correct subscription royalty rate."
So it's almost the same story as shotshop and depositphotos. The only difference is that Istock makes mistakes when they scam us.
Not in any real sense.
Assuming both DP and iS are telling the truth:
In Shotshop, they get to keep any number of large value sales while you only get a sub sale, with the approval of DP: deliberate malice, with perhaps some stupidity/incompetence in thinking contributors would never find out, and if they did, they would just accept it.
With iS, it seems to be mostly total incompetence. No-one got the large value sale, it was an accounting/IT mistake. Whether there was any malice, e.g. saving money by letting too many IT people go or not hiring enough competent people, I couldn't possibly say.
-
But they say: "ELs are not part of PP!!!"
That's rubbish. I have an EL from October 2013 - or at least a payment that exactly matches up with the amount shown for "Thinkstock Extended License Image Pack 25" in this chart on iStock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule (http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule)
They have a "contact us" note on their web site - and I'd have sworn at one point they showed the prices for these extended license image packs on Thinkstock, but I don't have any screenshots to back that up.
-
Wow, I am shocked! I had wondered if these numbers were pulled out of thin air...
Though I don't like how this whole thing was handled, it's at least a relief to know the numbers match up. Maybe this new team dedicated to the PP know what they are doing and this sort of thing won't occur anymore.
-
Hi All,
They want about $700 from me and when I got the e-mail I was not a happy camper. The one upside is it made me check my sales at Istock ( stopped checking over a year ago ) and to my happy surprise my sales numbers are way up 75%+ from 2012. No new content added for some 6-7 years so I am happy to see sales still up in the 1K a month range from my 2100 images at Istock, passing or matching my Shutterstock sales for the first time in years. Used to be about $600 or so a month so bummer about the pay back but happy to see sales so strong at Istock this past year, I would never have imagined. My wife cashes the checks so I never know :)
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
I sent a ticket asking for a breakdown, the day I got the email? But no csv for me yet?
-
I cannot understand why you dont stop doing business with them. Dont you have any pride or principles?
-
I cannot understand why you dont stop doing business with them. Dont you have any pride or principles?
you still have portfolio at thinkstock Mr. Principles!
-
I cannot understand why you dont stop doing business with them. Dont you have any pride or principles?
Who do you suggest is a 'better' partner (for pride or principles), who actually also sells images?
-
Are we getting paid the correct amount for ELs through PP? If not I would like to know because I will be disabling my files if I am only getting 28 cents for ELs. Does anyone know?
-
Are we getting paid the correct amount for ELs through PP? If not I would like to know because I will be disabling my files if I am only getting 28 cents for ELs. Does anyone know?
How can any contributor answer that question unless they do a purchase to see how that item is recorded and paid?
As I mentioned above, I had an EL amount for a sale in October 2013 and it has not (at this point) been "corrected" to a 28 cent sale. But whether any other sales that I saw as 28 cent royalties should have been something else is something I have no data enabling me to check anything.
-
Are we getting paid the correct amount for ELs through PP? If not I would like to know because I will be disabling my files if I am only getting 28 cents for ELs. Does anyone know?
How can any contributor answer that question unless they do a purchase to see how that item is recorded and paid?
As I mentioned above, I had an EL amount for a sale in October 2013 and it has not (at this point) been "corrected" to a 28 cent sale. But whether any other sales that I saw as 28 cent royalties should have been something else is something I have no data enabling me to check anything.
Some contributors did that for the Depoitphotos Shotshop issue (purchased and then saw how it was recorded and paid). Why would they be less concerned for this deal? It would be about the same thing (getting paid a sub price when they customer bought in EL). Perhaps I should have been more specific. My concern is that this is intentional.
-
similar happend to me, Istock support send me the CSV, i see some ELs and some on demands sales convert to $0.28, and i ask why istock convert my els and ondemands into $0.28?
and this is the istock support answer:
" I'm not sure what you mean by ELs, as those are not part of PP. Essentially, the majority of Partner Program downloads are from subscriptions (the .28 royalties), not image packs.
Are you saying that prior to September you received a lot of image pack sales and now you are getting none? "
i donīt understand istock! they only will pay us $ 0.28 for each sale no matter if itīs an El or an ondemand!!!! ELs and ondemands are not part of PP????
Thinkstock have different Extended license too! please see the link [url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/legal/license-information[/url] ([url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/legal/license-information[/url])
waiting istock replay...
-
Are we getting paid the correct amount for ELs through PP? If not I would like to know because I will be disabling my files if I am only getting 28 cents for ELs. Does anyone know?
How can any contributor answer that question unless they do a purchase to see how that item is recorded and paid?
As I mentioned above, I had an EL amount for a sale in October 2013 and it has not (at this point) been "corrected" to a 28 cent sale. But whether any other sales that I saw as 28 cent royalties should have been something else is something I have no data enabling me to check anything.
Some contributors did that for the Depoitphotos Shotshop issue (purchased and then saw how it was recorded and paid). Why would they be less concerned for this deal? It would be about the same thing (getting paid a sub price when they customer bought in EL). Perhaps I should have been more specific. My concern is that this is intentional.
You'll just have to find a friend to try it out with.
Trouble is, you have to wait so long to find out ...
-
Ok, or I could just ask if anyone had ELs reported through PP in the last few months (which is where I was originally headed with this, not the buying and seeing if it was reported. Which, as you noted, would take too long.) So far all we have is a report from October 2013 of an EL that may or may not be corrected. Anyone have any since then? I sent a ticket asking for an explanation from iStock. It seems very odd for no ELs.
-
Ok, or I could just ask if anyone had ELs reported through PP in the last few months (which is where I was originally headed with this, not the buying and seeing if it was reported. Which, as you noted, would take too long.) So far all we have is a report from October 2013 of an EL that may or may not be corrected. Anyone have any since then? I sent a ticket asking for an explanation from iStock. It seems very odd for no ELs.
You can see the rate schedule on this page: click on the Partner Program tab:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule (http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule)
I have to say that I'm finding that ELs are well down (and, generally worth less) over the past year plus, even proportionately, compared to previous years, on iS. (I have no stats for PP.)
-
Ok, or I could just ask if anyone had ELs reported through PP in the last few months (which is where I was originally headed with this, not the buying and seeing if it was reported. Which, as you noted, would take too long.) So far all we have is a report from October 2013 of an EL that may or may not be corrected. Anyone have any since then? I sent a ticket asking for an explanation from iStock. It seems very odd for no ELs.
You can see the rate schedule on this page: click on the Partner Program tab:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule[/url])
I have to say that I'm finding that ELs are well down (and, generally worth less) over the past year plus, even proportionately, compared to previous years, on iS. (I have no stats for PP.)
Thank you. Hopefully without photos.com it will be less complicated.
-
Ok, or I could just ask if anyone had ELs reported through PP in the last few months (which is where I was originally headed with this, not the buying and seeing if it was reported. Which, as you noted, would take too long.) So far all we have is a report from October 2013 of an EL that may or may not be corrected. Anyone have any since then? I sent a ticket asking for an explanation from iStock. It seems very odd for no ELs.
You can see the rate schedule on this page: click on the Partner Program tab:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule[/url])
I have to say that I'm finding that ELs are well down (and, generally worth less) over the past year plus, even proportionately, compared to previous years, on iS. (I have no stats for PP.)
Thank you. Hopefully without photos.com it will be less complicated.
Yeah, but with stupid cheap payments for iStock subs, it's become more complicated again.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359606&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359606&page=1)
-
Ok, or I could just ask if anyone had ELs reported through PP in the last few months (which is where I was originally headed with this, not the buying and seeing if it was reported. Which, as you noted, would take too long.) So far all we have is a report from October 2013 of an EL that may or may not be corrected. Anyone have any since then? I sent a ticket asking for an explanation from iStock. It seems very odd for no ELs.
You can see the rate schedule on this page: click on the Partner Program tab:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule[/url])
I have to say that I'm finding that ELs are well down (and, generally worth less) over the past year plus, even proportionately, compared to previous years, on iS. (I have no stats for PP.)
Thank you. Hopefully without photos.com it will be less complicated.
Yeah, but with stupid cheap payments for iStock subs, it's become more complicated again.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359606&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359606&page=1[/url])
Ugh...no words other than expletives
-
I cannot understand why you dont stop doing business with them. Dont you have any pride or principles?
you still have portfolio at thinkstock Mr. Principles!
WHAT?
-
Jesus, its true. How do I disconnect from that?
-
Jesus, its true. How do I disconnect from that?
time to become exclusive, they are paying a lot more ;D
-
Jesus, its true. How do I disconnect from that?
Take out a support ticket.
CR is catching up; I got a reply to mine from 6th Dec on Thursday or Friday last week.
But of course they've had the inundation from the PP fiasco since then ...
-
28 cents??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
>:(
-
Jesus, its true. How do I disconnect from that?
If you had work on Stockxpert, that is called the Hemera collection. Make sure to tell IS that you want those gone too. I have duplicate images on TS.
-
I cannot understand why you dont stop doing business with them. Dont you have any pride or principles?
Pride doesn't pay your rent.
-
Why is everyone down on IS they are thinking ahead, hell they are thinking so far ahead they have a valentines collection up and ready for next year...innovators ::)
-
.
-
Sorry if it has been answered in the last 27 pages.
Have the stats on Istock for September and Ooctober been updated or are they still the "incorrect" stats.
-
Sorry if it has been answered in the last 27 pages.
Have the stats on Istock for September and Ooctober been updated or are they still the "incorrect" stats.
Still incorrect. They're busy with the Valentines page.
-
I cannot understand why you dont stop doing business with them. Dont you have any pride or principles?
Pride doesn't pay your rent.
True enough.
But since I am only a small fish, I could afford to pay for my principles and pride.
and I enjoyed it. I was simple, I wont pay 85% for that kind of mistreatment.
Had they only been polite, but the whole culture is so abusive, sneaky and greedy, and Im simply not going to support it.
-
They'll have St. Patrick's day up sometime in April...Easter is planned for mid-July
-
since I am only a small fish, I could afford to pay for my principles and pride.
and I enjoyed it. I was simple, I wont pay 85% for that kind of mistreatment.
That's not very principled, you know, standing by principles because it doesn't really hurt you to do so, and criticising people for not submitting to considerable suffering by doing the same as you.
Sorry. That's a definite moral fail.
-
Sorry if it has been answered in the last 27 pages.
Have the stats on Istock for September and Ooctober been updated or are they still the "incorrect" stats.
Still incorrect. They're busy with the Valentines page.
I have wondered how that will affect people's tax. There doesn't seem to be any official form correcting the error, they just say people earned this and then started taking it back without any accounting correction that I can determine.
-
From my understanding CR is providing this info by request. I'm sure it won't be a speedy response though.
-
I have to think iStock seems to be running on empty as far as staff goes...I doubt enforcement is a priority at all. Stock agencies just don't live up to their end of the deal. Hell they own the right to change the deal at any given time. They are a bunch of bullies constantly beating us up and taking our lunch money. ;)
-
Sorry if it has been answered in the last 27 pages.
Have the stats on Istock for September and Ooctober been updated or are they still the "incorrect" stats.
Still incorrect. They're busy with the Valentines page.
I have wondered how that will affect people's tax. There doesn't seem to be any official form correcting the error, they just say people earned this and then started taking it back without any accounting correction that I can determine.
I don't think it affects taxes. You just make less this year.
-
UPDATE: March 5, 2014
We will be sending detailed accounting of the royalty issue to each and every one of you over the next week. There are already some contributors who have received this information via the support tickets they sent in.
This will start sometime this week. We appreciate your patience and anticipate this will help further clarify what had occurred.
-
since I am only a small fish, I could afford to pay for my principles and pride.
and I enjoyed it. I was simple, I wont pay 85% for that kind of mistreatment.
That's not very principled, you know, standing by principles because it doesn't really hurt you to do so, and criticising people for not submitting to considerable suffering by doing the same as you.
Sorry. That's a definite moral fail.
Great post, Paul. Spot on.
-
* IS updated their front page...now what are we going to joke about :P
-
since I am only a small fish, I could afford to pay for my principles and pride.
and I enjoyed it. I was simple, I wont pay 85% for that kind of mistreatment.
That's not very principled, you know, standing by principles because it doesn't really hurt you to do so, and criticising people for not submitting to considerable suffering by doing the same as you.
Sorry. That's a definite moral fail.
There is no moral fail in that. Sometimes freedom comes at a price, I was lucky that my price was low and I could afford it. Others are not so lucky. So they have no choice other than to be slaves. It compares to how things were back in feudalistic times. Extreme abuse until the peasants made a revolution.
-
since I am only a small fish, I could afford to pay for my principles and pride.
and I enjoyed it. I was simple, I wont pay 85% for that kind of mistreatment.
That's not very principled, you know, standing by principles because it doesn't really hurt you to do so, and criticising people for not submitting to considerable suffering by doing the same as you.
Sorry. That's a definite moral fail.
There is no moral fail in that. Sometimes freedom comes at a price, I was lucky that my price was low and I could afford it. Others are not so lucky. So they have no choice other than to be slaves. It compares to how things were back in feudalistic times. Extreme abuse until the peasants made a revolution.
So those of us who need the revenue to put food on the table, pay bills and take care of medical expenses by not being able to just "pull out" of MS are slaves? You're whacked.
-
I got today "Partner Program Recoupment details". It seems like all sales I made with a royalty higher than 0,28(image packs, extended licenses) were cut down to 0,28. It is very strange!!!
-
Same here... They must have made another mistake. This is to strange ::)
-
I got today "Partner Program Recoupment details". It seems like all sales I made with a royalty higher than 0,28(image packs, extended licenses) were cut down to 0,28. It is very strange!!!
They have only listed the sales that have been cut down, you may have others at the better prices that are not mentioned in that list. Only a small percentage of my sales for those two months were listed, and all those were cut to 28c.
-
Today they paid me my full 15 dollars they owed me. No deductions. I am officially Istock free.