Author Topic: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties" (Read 99075 times)

Shelma1 · « **Reply #450 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:27 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2014, 10:12

Quote from: ShadySue on February 25, 2014, 09:54
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.

dingles · « **Reply #451 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:33 »

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.

ksgal · « **Reply #452 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:35 »

After reading thru the thread on the DepositPhoto/ShotStop debacle. 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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #453 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:48 »

Quote from: spike on February 25, 2014, 03:29

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 24, 2014, 23:28
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.

Ron · « **Reply #454 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:51 »

Could you get a court order to show the books?

Red Dove · « **Reply #455 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:52 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2014, 09:08

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #456 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:55 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2014, 09:08

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.

Ron · « **Reply #457 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:56 »

Quote from: Red Dove on February 25, 2014, 10:52

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.

MarcvsTvllivs · « **Reply #458 on:** February 25, 2014, 11:04 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2014, 19:20

Got my notice. Overpayment of $1571.00. Monthly recoupment $261.

It's going to hurt.

* you're good.

Tror · « **Reply #459 on:** February 25, 2014, 11:18 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 25, 2014, 10:48

Quote from: spike on February 25, 2014, 03:29
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 24, 2014, 23:28
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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #460 on:** February 25, 2014, 11:19 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 25, 2014, 10:55

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2014, 09:08
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

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).

ARTPUPPY · « **Reply #461 on:** February 25, 2014, 11:29 »

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
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.

Tror · « **Reply #462 on:** February 25, 2014, 11:45 »

Quote from: ARTPUPPY on February 25, 2014, 11:29

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
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.

jjneff · « **Reply #463 on:** February 25, 2014, 11:50 »

That is what it will take!!! Good Post

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #464 on:** February 25, 2014, 12:12 »

Quote from: Red Dove on February 25, 2014, 10:52

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.

Ploink · « **Reply #465 on:** February 25, 2014, 12:48 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 25, 2014, 12:12

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #466 on:** February 25, 2014, 13:24 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 25, 2014, 12:12

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.

ComfortEagle2095 · « **Reply #467 on:** February 25, 2014, 13:36 »

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #468 on:** February 25, 2014, 13:49 »

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #469 on:** February 25, 2014, 13:51 »

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/

michey · « **Reply #470 on:** February 25, 2014, 14:31 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 25, 2014, 10:55

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2014, 09:08
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...

vilainecrevette · « **Reply #471 on:** February 25, 2014, 14:43 »

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
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.

lisafx · « **Reply #472 on:** February 25, 2014, 14:50 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 25, 2014, 13:51

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/

Me too. Thanks for the link. Not that it will change anything, but good for people to know this is happening, I suppose.

Anyka · « **Reply #473 on:** February 25, 2014, 15:14 »

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).

Lucadp · « **Reply #474 on:** February 25, 2014, 15:18 »

Quote from: Anyka on February 25, 2014, 15:14

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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties" (Read 99075 times)

Shelma1

dingles

ksgal

Jo Ann Snover

Ron

Red Dove

Sean Locke Photography

Ron

MarcvsTvllivs

Tror

Jo Ann Snover

ARTPUPPY

Tror

jjneff

MichaelJayFoto

Ploink

Jo Ann Snover

ComfortEagle2095

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

michey

vilainecrevette

lisafx

Anyka

Lucadp

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors