Author Topic: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties" (Read 102306 times)

jefftakespics2 · « **Reply #50 on:** January 04, 2014, 17:56 »

Quote from: panicAttack on January 04, 2014, 12:37

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!

lisafx · « **Reply #51 on:** January 04, 2014, 18:52 »

Quote from: gillian on January 04, 2014, 07:58

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.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #52 on:** January 04, 2014, 18:57 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 04, 2014, 18:52

Quote from: gillian on January 04, 2014, 07:58
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.

dingles · « **Reply #53 on:** January 04, 2014, 19:10 »

Transparency would be nice...all I Can Say is....crap!

Pixart · « **Reply #54 on:** January 04, 2014, 21:23 »

Quote from: jrwasserman on January 04, 2014, 17:56

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.

marthamarks · « **Reply #55 on:** January 04, 2014, 21:34 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 04, 2014, 17:41

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.

marthamarks · « **Reply #56 on:** January 04, 2014, 21:36 »

Quote from: jrwasserman on January 04, 2014, 17:56

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.

panicAttack · « **Reply #57 on:** January 04, 2014, 22:15 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 04, 2014, 13:32

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!

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #58 on:** January 04, 2014, 22:40 »

Quote from: marthamarks on January 04, 2014, 21:34

Quote from: JPSDK on January 04, 2014, 17:41
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.

PZF · « **Reply #59 on:** January 05, 2014, 04:15 »

Quote from: panicAttack on January 04, 2014, 12:37

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?

cidepix · « **Reply #60 on:** January 05, 2014, 05:00 »

Oldhand · « **Reply #61 on:** January 05, 2014, 05:41 »

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...

Ron · « **Reply #62 on:** January 05, 2014, 06:24 »

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.

Oldhand · « **Reply #63 on:** January 05, 2014, 06:36 »

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..

Ron · « **Reply #64 on:** January 05, 2014, 07:35 »

You are right, I meant if they cook the books, an audit might not bring that to the surface.

jefftakespics2 · « **Reply #65 on:** January 05, 2014, 09:19 »

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?

KB · « **Reply #66 on:** January 05, 2014, 10:01 »

Quote from: jrwasserman on January 05, 2014, 09:19

All public corporations are audited

Getty is privately held, so their accounting is NOT subject to mandatory auditing.

jefftakespics2 · « **Reply #67 on:** January 05, 2014, 10:17 »

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #68 on:** January 05, 2014, 11:24 »

Quote from: Ron on January 05, 2014, 06:24

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.

Ron · « **Reply #69 on:** January 05, 2014, 11:27 »

Agree. On a side note, did the Lobo work for IS already, or is he a Getty asset?

ShadySue · « **Reply #70 on:** January 05, 2014, 11:37 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 05, 2014, 11:24

Quote from: Ron on January 05, 2014, 06:24
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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #71 on:** January 05, 2014, 11:38 »

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

Ron · « **Reply #72 on:** January 05, 2014, 11:43 »

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.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #73 on:** January 05, 2014, 15:51 »

Quote from: Ron on January 05, 2014, 11:27

Agree. On a side note, did the Lobo work for IS already, or is he a Getty asset?

Novel use of the term "Asset"

ShadySue · « **Reply #74 on:** January 05, 2014, 16:00 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 05, 2014, 15:51

Quote from: Ron on January 05, 2014, 11:27
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties" (Read 102306 times)

jefftakespics2

lisafx

mlwinphoto

dingles

Pixart

marthamarks

marthamarks

panicAttack

mlwinphoto

PZF

cidepix

Oldhand

Ron

Oldhand

Ron

jefftakespics2

KB

jefftakespics2

Mantis

Ron

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

Ron

Pauws99

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors