MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: lisafx on January 08, 2011, 12:24
-
Unusual buying activity on my Istock account today. I've sold 13 Larges, all for 2.40, and 8 XLs, all at $3.60.
This is absolutely unheard of for me on a Saturday. And the fact that they are all being purchased at the largest size, and for the same dollar amount makes it pretty clear it is the theft ring active again. Looks like they are done with the Vetta and Agency files, and now are coming after non-exclusive ports.
Anyone else noticing similar?
-
Thanks for the heads-up on this Lisa.
I've sold 5 images at IS today, all best-sellers. Nothing particularly unusual in that ... until I checked and discovered that they were all purchased in 'Large' and all at a commission of $2.40.
Is that the same rate as yours?
-
Yes, all at $2.40 large and $3.60 XL. >:(
-
I'm noticing an unusual amount of XLs licensed overnight, mostly old files. All at $1.20 a credit price.
Here's my greasemonkey script for seeing your last royalties on each files in my_uploads:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=258262&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=258262&page=1)
-
Yes, all at $2.40 large and $3.60 XL. >:(
That looks fairly conclusive then (mine were all purchased at the largest size available too).
-
I'm noticing an unusual amount of XLs licensed overnight, mostly old files. All at $1.20 a credit price.
Here's my greasemonkey script for seeing your last royalties on each files in my_uploads:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=258262&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=258262&page=1[/url])
Thanks for posting the link to your script. It is very useful. I will be sure to bookmark it so I can find it again :)
-
Maybe iStock has decided to give independents a boost towards next year's RC targets...
-
Wasn't the previous problem only with exclusive, Vetta, etc? It made me ownder if it was not some type of vengeance from an angry member or former member.
-
I have one of the sales today that was at the maximum size (L - it's an old file) at a $1.20 credit price. The sale was made at 1:20 this morning. The other sales for today are all smaller (good news and bad, I guess :))
I can't report one sale as a potential fraud, but if some of you have a bunch of them are you going to report it to IS?
-
had a XS minutes ago for 0.29$ (hope it isnīt fraudulent )
-
I've had five sales today, which isn't typical for a Saturday, but they are xs, smalls, mediums and larges, so no particular pattern. (I use Sean's script...thanks again Sean) On Thursday I had an EL, but not particularly out of character. I just figure buyers might be using up credits, hence the additional activity. Or maybe buyers are just buying non-exclusive files because they are cheaper. Who knows.
But I don't think I can report unusual activity, necessarily.
-
I can't report one sale as a potential fraud, but if some of you have a bunch of them are you going to report it to IS?
My sales today are quite unusual, so I am certain it was fraud. And yes, I sent a note to support around the same time I started this thread this morning. Haven't heard back yet, but MichaelJay, the Istock admin said that Support is aware of the issue.
-
Sadly, no one wants to steal my files ;D
I'm off the radar of the thieves. Is that good or bad, I don't know.
-
Same here jBarber.
On the one hand it's nice to not be a victim.... on the other... I have to wonder why no-one wants to steal my stuff! ;D
-
Based on several other contributors' comments in the IS thread, and my single suspect sale, home remodeling seems to have been the subject favored by this thief. I was happy, but my pride slightly wounded that the Boxing Day Heist didn't include any of my images :)
The idea that the image is probably going to end up on some server being downloaded for free is what really bugs me. Don't know how to get that fixed.
-
I noticed via DeepMeta that my 'files viewed' both on Thursday, then overnight Thursday/Friday were about three times the usual for 24 hours (i.e. I had about 6x the 'normal' views), but I had very few sales during these times. Maybe they were trawling, but found nothing of interest.
Which is, of course, fine by me, as I don't want my images being sold elsewhere with me getting nada.
-
I had five sales on a Saturday, which is totally unusual, but none related to home remodeling. I am hoping they were legit sales, because I just put in for payout.
-
I had 20 sales overnight fitting the profile. All largest size, in three specific series, all around $1.20 a credit.
-
Seeing this happening again is really sad. I feel for everyone who is having their images ripped off and are wondering and stressing where they might wrongfully show up and/or be used.
I guess the most dissapointing thing is knowing that iStock hasn't gotten any closer since Christmas weekend to stopping this and the question is if this is going to continue on the weekends for months to come.
I hope they really stand up to this issue and take a stand with better measures to prevent it along with better reassurances to contributors about it.
-
Have they still not realised that thieves operate 24/7, so they have to do so as well?
-
Have they still not realised that thieves operate 24/7, so they have to do so as well?
The situation appears to be in marked contrast to the way BigStock dealt with it (and that was over the Xmas period too). BigStock acted quickly, stopped the action of the thieves, kept us informed of events and adjusted our accounts, all in about 24 hours flat with no further issues reported. I think it probable that the same thieves would have been trying it on at other major agencies too (why wouldn't they?) but presumably were unsuccessful.
-
I thought Calgary was aware of it yesterday and was looking into it? Yet it's still happening? If other (lesser) agencies can deal with it, why can't the multi-million dollar leader of the industry deal with it as well? Maybe iStock needs to hire BigStock for consulting. Pathetic.
-
this one hasn't hit me, but I'm sure it's frustrating for those of you it is hitting. I'm really concerned about their IT/web programming strategies, or lack thereof. I don't fault the current techs so much as management for not having ample staff and provisions in place for this type of stuff. they're a huge, international web-based business. screwing with the website, major bugs lasting weeks on end, clients have restrictions on buying due to security breaches.....it's ridiculous.
they need to get their IT sh*t together.
-
Sadly, no one wants to steal my files ;D
I'm off the radar of the thieves. Is that good or bad, I don't know.
I'm with you, but that just tells me the thieves have good taste? :D
had a XS minutes ago for 0.29$ (hope it isnīt fraudulent )
Contrary to what some may say, your humor is appreciated! :D
-
don't worry. precedent has already been set and you get to keep the money and all the RCs. :)
-
don't worry. precedent has already been set and you get to keep the money and all the RCs. :)
And rightly so, as it's the deficiencies in their IT systems and security.
-
don't worry. precedent has already been set and you get to keep the money and all the RCs. :)
I don't think they get to keep the money. I think iStock keeps the money. ;)
-
don't worry. precedent has already been set and you get to keep the money and all the RCs. :)
I don't think they get to keep the money. I think iStock keeps the money. ;)
Last I read they were "thinking about" who got to keep the money. I took that to mean istock was keeping the money. :-\
-
don't worry. precedent has already been set and you get to keep the money and all the RCs. :)
I don't think they get to keep the money. I think iStock keeps the money. ;)
Last I read they were "thinking about" who got to keep the money. I took that to mean istock was keeping the money. :-\
oh, so as it stands right now, contributors get to keep the RCs and double those for all the Vetta images since it was during the "double RC promo" (right?) BUT.. the royalties have yet to be determined? Does iStock really think that people will be happy as long as they get to keep their RCs and that the contributors dont care about the (potential) loss of the royalty they got from the fraud?
-
don't worry. precedent has already been set and you get to keep the money and all the RCs. :)
I don't think they get to keep the money. I think iStock keeps the money. ;)
Last I read they were "thinking about" who got to keep the money. I took that to mean istock was keeping the money. :-\
oh, so as it stands right now, contributors get to keep the RCs and double those for all the Vetta images since it was during the "double RC promo" (right?) BUT.. the royalties have yet to be determined? Does iStock really think that people will be happy as long as they get to keep their RCs and that the contributors dont care about the (potential) loss of the royalty they got from the fraud?
That's what I understand. I could be wrong, haven't been keeping up too much.
-
don't worry. precedent has already been set and you get to keep the money and all the RCs. :)
I don't think they get to keep the money. I think iStock keeps the money. ;)
Last I read they were "thinking about" who got to keep the money. I took that to mean istock was keeping the money. :-\
oh, so as it stands right now, contributors get to keep the RCs and double those for all the Vetta images since it was during the "double RC promo" (right?) BUT.. the royalties have yet to be determined? Does iStock really think that people will be happy as long as they get to keep their RCs and that the contributors dont care about the (potential) loss of the royalty they got from the fraud?
That's what I understand. I could be wrong, haven't been keeping up too much.
That is my understanding as well. From what RogerMexico said, they get to keep the RCs, but the money was "another story", if I am remembering correctly.
-
well that does along with the iStock theory that "money doesn't make contributors happy" ;D
-
I'm really upset about this! It is 2pm on Monday and still no word about how HQ is handling this situation. Just checking my sales for Saturday, I made as much as a weekday, and nearly all are fraudulent purchases.
Like Joanne and Sean, my stolen images were construction related too. Looks like someone is putting together a CD of building themed images. If Istock doesn't manage to stop this from happening soon, they will most likely choose another subject next.
Gostwyck makes a great point - this happened for only a brief time at BigStock and was handled quickly and effectively, while we were kept informed. I am troubled that thieves seem to feel Istock is such an open and unprotected target. Also very troubling is that there has been no response to contributors concerning this massive theft of our property!
-
I'm so sorry this is happening to people. I feel bad for joking about my work not being good enough to steal. I'd actually be really distressed if this was happening to me, so I'm very sorry to hear that it's not over yet.
-
Yet another iStock epic fail.
-
There are so many outstanding issues - site bugs and various other things that have come up - that admin just doesn't seem to be staying on top of. I don't know if they're there in the office and looking at the forum traffic and just ignoring it; or so busy with some hair-on-fire other work that they aren't looking; or they've looked and don't see there's any issue but choose not even to say that in the forums.
It's pathetic that they can't even respond.
And as far as filling out support tickets, their recent tactic has been to close them as dealt with as long as they've said in some forum post that they will deal with it at some future (unspecified time).
The only announcement they seem to be on top of is that the new royalties will get implemented this week. Oh woopee!!
-
There are so many outstanding issues - site bugs and various other things that have come up - that admin just doesn't seem to be staying on top of. I don't know if they're there in the office and looking at the forum traffic and just ignoring it; or so busy with some hair-on-fire other work that they aren't looking; or they've looked and don't see there's any issue but choose not even to say that in the forums.
It's pathetic that they can't even respond.
And as far as filling out support tickets, their recent tactic has been to close them as dealt with as long as they've said in some forum post that they will deal with it at some future (unspecified time).
The only announcement they seem to be on top of is that the new royalties will get implemented this week. Oh woopee!!
Pathetic indeed. I am sure you are right that they are still sorting through the myriad disasters happening all at once.
As contributors, we all put the highest priority on the theft of our work, but from a management standpoint, I guess Istock just isn't that concerned about it. In which case, it will continue because the thieves know they have found an easy mark. >:(
Even more than the 5% royalty drop, this lack of security makes me hesitant to continue uploading there.
-
Does iStock really think that people will be happy (...)?
Yes.
-
I'm really upset about this! It is 2pm on Monday and still no word about how HQ is handling this situation. Just checking my sales for Saturday, I made as much as a weekday, and nearly all are fraudulent purchases.
Like Joanne and Sean, my stolen images were construction related too. Looks like someone is putting together a CD of building themed images. If Istock doesn't manage to stop this from happening soon, they will most likely choose another subject next.
Gostwyck makes a great point - this happened for only a brief time at BigStock and was handled quickly and effectively, while we were kept informed. I am troubled that thieves seem to feel Istock is such an open and unprotected target. Also very troubling is that there has been no response to contributors concerning this massive theft of our property!
Maybe IS has been "asking for it" by pushing their expensive imagery on their website as a kind of tempting bait for anyone who has a fraudulent credit card and a sales outlet where they can unload DVDs of pirated stuff for $1 per. This sales policy has evidently been a discouragement to their legitimate customers and an encouragement for thieves.
Long ago when I was in a developing country's capital city I visited the area which was notorious for selling pirated warez, just for chuckles. It was the extremely expensive software packages created by Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, etc. that were being pushed on the street, not the modestly priced stuff. Likewise, it's the outrageously priced Gucci stuff that's a magnet for knock-off competitors, not the stuff they sell in Walmart and Sears.
As for detecting fraudulent purchases ... you'd think that it would be easy to let any through anything by an established customer, optionally tagging it for later attention if it's at a suspiciously high volume or price tag. But anything high-volume or very expensive purchased by a NEW customer should get stalled, e.g. with an innocuous response, like, "we're sorry but this purchase has been momentarily delayed, you will be notified as soon as your file(s) are available for download." Also, you'd think by now that there would be some kind of pattern in location of the IP addresses from which fraudulent purchases are being made. If the IP address is from an out-of-the-way country but the billing address corresponding to the credit card is somewhere else then that should be another red flag. I don't see any reason why really simple scripts like this cannot be written in a few minutes, then the IT people work shifts to monitor the buying activity and jump all over any alarms that are triggered by their scripts. After all its only their livelihood that's at stake here, LOL.
-
Does iStock really think that people will be happy (...)?
Yes.
Do you think they give rats *** ? (apart from a select few who just have to be the pianists to shoot at). I always have the feeling over in HQ they refer to us as that bunch of whiners, or put up polls about how many angry replies their next announcement will bring . Pop in in the forums once inna while to soothe things (or just lock them up with a snarky comment) and do whatever fits them without any consideration whatsoever for the contributors (apart from another select few).
(im sorry, i'm not usually such a pessimist but all the things happening there since september are just...a surreal freaky show)
-
As for detecting fraudulent purchases ... you'd think that it would be easy to let any through anything by an established customer, optionally tagging it for later attention if it's at a suspiciously high volume or price tag. But anything high-volume or very expensive purchased by a NEW customer should get stalled, e.g. with an innocuous response, like, "we're sorry but this purchase has been momentarily delayed, you will be notified as soon as your file(s) are available for download." Also, you'd think by now that there would be some kind of pattern in location of the IP addresses from which fraudulent purchases are being made. If the IP address is from an out-of-the-way country but the billing address corresponding to the credit card is somewhere else then that should be another red flag. I don't see any reason why really simple scripts like this cannot be written in a few minutes, then the IT people work shifts to monitor the buying activity and jump all over any alarms that are triggered by their scripts. After all its only their livelihood that's at stake here, LOL.
^^That all makes perfect sense Pet Chia. The above steps should have already been implemented. But unfortunately that would require that TPTB at Istockphoto give a sh&t.
-
Lots of things sound simple until you consider the volume of transactions that can be generated by scammers running mindless scripts and programs. These guys can overwhelm a defense by simply generating more questionable transactions than IS, or any web company, could possibly review individually, leaving the agency with a choice of shutting down or letting all transactions complete.
Don't underestimate the difficulties a web seller like IS might face if they're being systematically attacked by crooks with technical skills and unlimited time.
-
Don't underestimate the difficulties a web seller like IS might face if they're being systematically attacked by crooks with technical skills and unlimited time.
But how come it is only IS that still appears to have this issue?
As a policeman once advised me (after a burglary) crooks are essentially lazy people, which is why they're not working properly like most of us, and will always go for the easiest target. He told me I just needed to make sure that my house had visibly more protection than my neighbours and the the thieves would choose theirs over mine.
-
iStock appears to be a special target here. Why would someone attack them specifically?
While it's obvious back then when the VETTA images were the target but now it affects even non-exclusives... ???
I'd assume there would be "easier" targets (agencies) that may not have extensive security measures to prevent fraud on this level.
OR... iStock has been slacking in terms of their purchasing security to begin with...
AFAIK, once these crooks get a hold of the credit card info they (can) get it along with the person's billing address etc. to have all necessary info available which makes it appear legit at first sight. Also they can easily mask their IP addresses to make it look like they are using an IP from the same city or neighborhood. It's all a piece of cake for those crazy tech freaks.
Usually the fraud victims don't know about the abuse of their credit card/identity theft until they read their statements or maybe get a call from their credit card company for suspicious buying behavior.
Now we can witness how major fraud causes hundreds and thousands of images being dumped into the "free" internet and the ramifications of that for the contributors who have been affected. Let's see how concerned iStock will be about that... :P
They probably reduce commissions to 10% across the board so they can sustain a working security system for their payment gateway.
-
Lots of things sound simple until you consider the volume of transactions that can be generated by scammers running mindless scripts and programs. These guys can overwhelm a defense by simply generating more questionable transactions than IS, or any web company, could possibly review individually, leaving the agency with a choice of shutting down or letting all transactions complete.
Don't underestimate the difficulties a web seller like IS might face if they're being systematically attacked by crooks with technical skills and unlimited time.
Somehow amazon (and other big web businesses) keep their doors open. There has to be someone they can hire or a consultant with whom they can consult. This isn't a problem unique to them, so they should be able to develop industry best practices in fraud prevention and detection.
Just like their best practices in software development, testing and deployment.... oh, they're still working on that....it'll be fixed - soon.
-
Somehow amazon (and other big web businesses) keep their doors open. There has to be someone they can hire or a consultant with whom they can consult. This isn't a problem unique to them, so they should be able to develop industry best practices in fraud prevention and detection.
That's a fair question. Amazon is a technological giant, and an industry leader. But I'll bet even Amazon gets scammed out of a TV or IPhone now and then. The difference is, when you scam a TV you get one TV, not some sort of master mold from which you can then make 1,000 TVs for resale.
I can buy music from Amazon as unprotected MP3s and re-sell it tomorrow on a black market. I could buy books and sell cheaply printed copies in Hong Kong. The musicians and authors would be unhappy, but would have little recourse against Amazon, even if I'd bought these things with a stolen credit card.
-
Somehow amazon (and other big web businesses) keep their doors open. There has to be someone they can hire or a consultant with whom they can consult. This isn't a problem unique to them, so they should be able to develop industry best practices in fraud prevention and detection.
That's a fair question. Amazon is a technological giant, and an industry leader. But I'll bet even Amazon gets scammed out of a TV or IPhone now and then. The difference is, when you scam a TV you get one TV, not some sort of master mold from which you can then make 1,000 TVs for resale.
I can buy music from Amazon as unprotected MP3s and re-sell it tomorrow on a black market. I could buy books and sell cheaply printed copies in Hong Kong. The musicians and authors would be unhappy, but would have little recourse against Amazon, even if I'd bought these things with a stolen credit card.
You are correct in what you are saying, but I am not willing to defend IS. I have been selling at IS since 2006 and as far as I know, nothing like this, on this grand scale, had happened. It seems to have come about, along with all the other deficiencies, with F5. That leads me to believe that there is a big hole somewhere in F5 regarding security. Nothing seems to have been tested before it got rolled out. To me, that is inexcusable.
IS didn't get scammed out of a few images now and then. It happened on a much grander scale, while everyone was off on vacation, and continues to happen.
-
I'm a software developer myself, and I also support a web site that sells products, so I go two ways on this. On one hand I have some understanding of the real complexities of today's scam-infested online world. On the other hand, I love a really big technology meltdown as much as anyone. :)
Ebay is a story with many parallels. On Ebay the big problem was scam sellers. Things got so bad for so long that people stopped buying and Ebay was getting known as a bad part of town. Ebay eventually made big changes, basically transferring a lot of the risk from buyers to sellers by using PayPal (which they own) as a broker to hold up payment to sellers until buyers indicated satisfaction. Now Ebay has a lot of angry, frustrated sellers.
It does seem like all sorts of things are going wrong at IS and their smarmy uber-coolness intersects perfectly with this unfolding disaster, making them look like a bunch of jerks. It's fun to speculate on what might be happening inside IS, and if I find out that my images are being dumped on 'free' sites I'll be just as angry as any of you.
-
"smarmy uber-coolness" - What a great turn of phrase! ;D
-
I just don't understand why BigStockPhotos was able to put a lid on this so fast and it's still going on at iStock.
-
I just don't understand why BigStockPhotos was able to put a lid on this so fast and it's still going on at iStock.
Me neither __ and nowhere else that we're aware of either.
Just remind me again how much we pay iStockphoto from our sales? No don't. It's not good for my blood pressure.
-
I'm a software developer myself, and I also support a web site that sells products, so I go two ways on this. On one hand I have some understanding of the real complexities of today's scam-infested online world. On the other hand, I love a really big technology meltdown as much as anyone. :)
I understand seeing the problem from both sides. For me, it's not that I particularly love the meltdown. I would have rather stayed at the % I was at and kept my images selling and making even more money, but that was just a pipe dream. I just can't, for the life of me, figure how all of this happens to this huge of an extent, to such a huge corporation, who by their own admission is making money.
Ebay is a story with many parallels. On Ebay the big problem was scam sellers. Things got so bad for so long that people stopped buying and Ebay was getting known as a bad part of town. Ebay eventually made big changes, basically transferring a lot of the risk from buyers to sellers by using PayPal (which they own) as a broker to hold up payment to sellers until buyers indicated satisfaction. Now Ebay has a lot of angry, frustrated sellers.
Funny you tell this story, I was one of those sellers. I sold my last imac on ebay. I understand the issues they were having and agree that a change needed to happen. But much like IS, when they instituted the change, it didn't work as it was supposed to. My item shipped, I had confirmation that the buyer received it. Days went by, the payment still did not get released. I managed to find some phone number somewhere to talk to support, and then they told me that I had to wait for the buyer to provide positive feedback before the pmt. would be released. So I contacted the buyer, they left positive feedback. I contacted support, still no release. Another week went by and I managed to get through to a supervisor, who immediately released the payment. By this time, 2 or 3 weeks had passed before I got paid. That's not right to treat the sellers that way, either.
It does seem like all sorts of things are going wrong at IS and their smarmy uber-coolness intersects perfectly with this unfolding disaster, making them look like a bunch of jerks. It's fun to speculate on what might be happening inside IS, and if I find out that my images are being dumped on 'free' sites I'll be just as angry as any of you.
smarmy uber-coolness...too funny! :D
-
iStock appears to be a special target here. Why would someone attack them specifically?
I'd imagine that news about iStocks long running history of complete incompetence at being able to do anything regarding IT issues has a major factor as to why they're being targetted.
Their reputation of supplier and customer relations doesn't exactly paint a glowing picture of how they view business either, so any potential thief must be viewing iStock as a litteral 'free for all' gold mine right now.
It wouldn't surprise me to find out this was all the result of HQ giving out their log in details to a nigerian scam email thinking their long lost uncle had left them $17.5m in a freak car accident.
-
Funny you tell this story, I was one of those sellers. I sold my last imac on ebay. I understand the issues they were having and agree that a change needed to happen. But much like IS, when they instituted the change, it didn't work as it was supposed to. My item shipped, I had confirmation that the buyer received it. Days went by, the payment still did not get released. I managed to find some phone number somewhere to talk to support, and then they told me that I had to wait for the buyer to provide positive feedback before the pmt. would be released. So I contacted the buyer, they left positive feedback. I contacted support, still no release. Another week went by and I managed to get through to a supervisor, who immediately released the payment. By this time, 2 or 3 weeks had passed before I got paid. That's not right to treat the sellers that way, either.
I think the intent of what they did was not to just clean up the action but to maximize the amount of money being held inside PayPal. They no doubt draw interest on all that cash float. If the buyer never leaves positive feedback they hold the money for a month - and then release it. Maybe. Or maybe not.
I had a bad seller experience too, waiting weeks for a payment - and I read some real horror stories on PayPal's forums - and decided to never again sell anything of value on Ebay. Hope they're happy with that.
-
snip
I had a bad seller experience too, waiting weeks for a payment - and I read some real horror stories on PayPal's forums - and decided to never again sell anything of value on Ebay. Hope they're happy with that.
Ditto here.
Getting back to the topic at hand, I do hope the "stolen" images don't appear on free sites. I guess exclusives and folks with Vetta will likely only know. I don't have much hope that the rest of the contributors will be given any such courtesy.
-
Getting back to the topic at hand, I do hope the "stolen" images don't appear on free sites. I guess exclusives and folks with Vetta will likely only know. I don't have much hope that the rest of the contributors will be given any such courtesy.
As usual, we will all have to look out for ourselves and eachother without counting on our "agent" to give us any info. ::)
-
What ever happened with this? Have people had money taken away from them for the suspected fraudulent downloads? It seems people are still reporting suspicious activity. There is the expected silence from iStock.
-
What ever happened with this? Have people had money taken away from them for the suspected fraudulent downloads? It seems people are still reporting suspicious activity. There is the expected silence from iStock.
So, if the credit card authorized the purchase, and they don't take the money back from IS (that's how it works), why would people have royalty money taken back? The cost of covering fraudulent use is just a business expense for the credit card companies.
-
What ever happened with this? Have people had money taken away from them for the suspected fraudulent downloads? It seems people are still reporting suspicious activity. There is the expected silence from iStock.
So, if the credit card authorized the purchase, and they don't take the money back from IS (that's how it works), why would people have royalty money taken back? The cost of covering fraudulent use is just a business expense for the credit card companies.
iStock said they were giving people the RCs, but the money was a different story. I was just wondering if anyone affected has cashed out or had money taken back from them for any of the suspicious purchases.
-
I've cashed out several times, and no money has been removed from my account. At this point, I'm going to assume the money will stay in my account for the fraudulent sales.
-
I've cashed out several times, and no money has been removed from my account. At this point, I'm going to assume the money will stay in my account for the fraudulent sales.
That's great. I'm glad that people are being allowed to keep the money. It's not your fault that the images were fraudulently downloaded. iStock is doing the right thing. Should make for a BME, right? :D
-
But credit card companies guarantee payment with an authorization even if fraudulent? If not, nobody would accept credit cards. So, why wouldn't iStock get to keep the money? The loser is the credit card company.
What ever happened with this? Have people had money taken away from them for the suspected fraudulent downloads? It seems people are still reporting suspicious activity. There is the expected silence from iStock.
So, if the credit card authorized the purchase, and they don't take the money back from IS (that's how it works), why would people have royalty money taken back? The cost of covering fraudulent use is just a business expense for the credit card companies.
iStock said they were giving people the RCs, but the money was a different story. I was just wondering if anyone affected has cashed out or had money taken back from them for any of the suspicious purchases.
-
I've cashed out several times, and no money has been removed from my account. At this point, I'm going to assume the money will stay in my account for the fraudulent sales.
Likewise. I certainly hope the money won't be removed down the line. I wonder if Istock even knows for sure which sales were fraudulent at this point.
My sales at IS in January have been so low, I shudder to think how low they would have been if you remove the fraud sales.
-
But credit card companies guarantee payment with an authorization even if fraudulent? If not, nobody would accept credit cards. So, why wouldn't iStock get to keep the money? The loser is the credit card company.
Someone who seemed to know about these things said credit card companies could take back the money on the grounds that istock would be held not to have verified the card holder properly (no signature check or something like that). I don't believe iS would just keep the money. I'll believe many bad things about them but not that.
-
I've cashed out several times, and no money has been removed from my account. At this point, I'm going to assume the money will stay in my account for the fraudulent sales.
Uh oh. You may end up owing iStock.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298482&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298482&page=1)
-
I've cashed out several times, and no money has been removed from my account. At this point, I'm going to assume the money will stay in my account for the fraudulent sales.
Uh oh. You may end up owing iStock.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298482&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298482&page=1[/url])
Yikes!!!!
-
Uh oh. You may end up owing iStock.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298482&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298482&page=1[/url])
(Amended post) As you were. Nothing to see here.
-
Uh oh. You may end up owing iStock.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298482&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=298482&page=1[/url])
(Amended post) As you were. Nothing to see here.
I think it was a false alarm.
-
Big sigh of relief, eh? ;)
-
Uh oh. Amounts are getting deducted now. For real.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299212 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299212)
I wonder how many of those reporting BME will have a different story to tell after all the royalties are taken back. What a shame.
-
I cashed out yesterday. Now I am at -0,60.
Suckers.
-
I've cashed out several times, and no money has been removed from my account. At this point, I'm going to assume the money will stay in my account for the fraudulent sales.
Guess I was wrong :( .
-
shouldn't they have insurance to cover this? I mean really. now that the images have been stolen, what is the contributor's compensation for that?
-
I donīt understand why this happens.. Ok all agencies do this but I have never payed because of a stolen card or other.. the bank always take all responsability.. got two sales from December 24 and 25th (5$ total)
-
Today iStock email me that they removed 15 fraud sales from my account.
All fraud sales are from December a month ago? Strange, it takes to long to find fraud sales. Not good at all!
-
My fraud sales were really weird. Two of dandelion clocks, which I'm sure you can find free all over the web and one of an obscure African bird species. Not at all 'typical'. I can hardly imagine they're going to gain much from trying to sell on the dandelion clocks!
-
I cashed out yesterday. Now I am at -0,60.
Suckers.
+1
I cashed out a week ago. Now I owe IS about $2.77. Woo-yay! Yeppers.
-
Today iStock email me that they removed 15 fraud sales from my account.
All fraud sales are from December a month ago? Strange, it takes to long to find fraud sales. Not good at all!
long? I had one for FT the other day and like 10 months later :P
-
I can't keep up with the thread. at iStock..
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222)
whatever happened to "money isn't going to make you happy" ?
I didn't think I had any fraudulent sales, but they found at least one of mine. I only lost $3 - so far. I can't believe the amounts being reported by some people. sad.. very sad.
-
Today iStock email me that they removed 15 fraud sales from my account.
All fraud sales are from December a month ago? Strange, it takes to long to find fraud sales. Not good at all!
long? I had one for FT the other day and like 10 months later :P
FT takes the money back too? jsut curious how other sites have reacted to this sort of thing.
-
Today iStock email me that they removed 15 fraud sales from my account.
All fraud sales are from December a month ago? Strange, it takes to long to find fraud sales. Not good at all!
long? I had one for FT the other day and like 10 months later :P
FT takes the money back too? jsut curious how other sites have reacted to this sort of thing.
yep two times here both sub sales.. got one at DT also
-
I just saw 'the email'.
They took $14.30 from my account.
I hope I didn't have any of these sales in Jan.
Feel really bad for Sean. He got hosed.
-
There is a separate thread concerning the email sent out. I thought I'd leave it as two threads as the conversation topic (started at least) as two slightly different things. Here is the other thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/clawback/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/clawback/)
-
-4$ :'(
-
Do they DL, ELs as well?
-
Do they DL, ELs as well?
From the big thread, apparently so, though who knows why. Apparently a few of those which were reported to users, and by them on the thread as unsold were ELs (because of that odd way iStock reports ELs).
-
To clarify, me "EL"s were all Vetta/Agency files with the legal guarantee "bug" from 12/21-23.
-
Pugh!!! its going from the ridiculous to the sublime.
-
Just got a chargeback from IS. Only one, so I guess that's good. Funny thing, it's for an "identity theft" shot. ;D
-
Just got a chargeback from IS. Only one, so I guess that's good. Funny thing, it's for an "identity theft" shot. ;D
Who said thieves don't have a sense of humor? :D
-
I've had DT refund monies for a small sale when the client meant, and re-paid for, a large. FT has taken back monies for a refund. It's a sale here or there. Not a weeks worth of sales in one hit.
I think the real point here is that agencies like BS were able to stop the fraud in hours while it took IS over a week. BS had minimal losses because of their timeliness, where as IS lost thousands because of their incompetence. We're now on our 3rd suspected case of fraudulent downloads at IS since Dec.
-
I think the real point here is that agencies like BS were able to stop the fraud in hours while it took IS over a week. BS had minimal losses because of their timeliness, where as IS lost thousands because of their incompetence.
It certainly is a stark contrast, isn't it?
-
I think the real point here is that agencies like BS were able to stop the fraud in hours while it took IS over a week. BS had minimal losses because of their timeliness, where as IS lost thousands because of their incompetence.
It certainly is a stark contrast, isn't it?
BS was on it quite quickly although I lost a lot more on BS than on IS.
We cannot be sure though if the attack on BS was of the same magnitude like IS.
I have the feeling that there was more "oomph" behind the IS attack, also in regards to stealing exclusive content. Therefore IS is a much more attractive target than BS.
-
Anyone else thinking that this could be another one of istock's "tests" to see how we react before making a more permanent policy change? They test price increases before launching them officially. Maybe they're testing out a policy on fraudulent charges.
DT already does this, charging all fraudulent purchases back to the contributor. istock might be looking at this as another way to get a few more bucks out of us on a regular basis.
-
Anyone else thinking that this could be another one of istock's "tests" to see how we react before making a more permanent policy change? They test price increases before launching them officially. Maybe they're testing out a policy on fraudulent charges.
DT already does this, charging all fraudulent purchases back to the contributor. istock might be looking at this as another way to get a few more bucks out of us on a regular basis.
interesting theory but I seriously doubt that. Too large of amounts to be a "test"
-
interesting theory but I seriously doubt that. Too large of amounts to be a "test"
It has also been humiliating, severely damaged their credibility and further eroded the confidence of contributors. They do like to dream up ever more devious means of charging customers more and paying contributors less but this one wasn't a planned evolution.
-
It has also been humiliating, severely damaged their credibility and further eroded the confidence of contributors. They do like to dream up ever more devious means of charging customers more and paying contributors less but this one wasn't a planned evolution.
They are probably thinking "*, I wish we'd come up with it", though. :D
-
interesting theory but I seriously doubt that. Too large of amounts to be a "test"
Maybe "test" wasn't the right word. Still, I'm wondering if maybe there is some discussion at istock HQ about whether or not they should make this a more regular policy. It may not have been a planed test, especially considering the size and scale of this incident, but it still could give way to a more permanent policy change. I could imagine some folks at HQ thinking, "We can get away with taking back funds for large-scale fraud, so why don't we take back funds for the smaller fraud charges, too?"
-
Possibly, but at some point they'll make themselves so painful to do business with that they will start to lose contributors. Especially if they can't keep sales up.
I think I said once before, the worse they treat us and the less we make, the easier it becomes to decide to leave (exclusivity or the site).
-
This whole fraud thing was bad enough but to me what makes it worse is after trying to voice your opinion on the forum, they sic their bulldog after you and ban you from the forums and sitemail. It's been over a week and every email I send to contributor relations goes unanswered. It's almost as if they want contributors to leave. I know for me my decision has been made already.
-
I have never had a CR email answered. They could not care.
-
This whole fraud thing was bad enough but to me what makes it worse is after trying to voice your opinion on the forum, they sic their bulldog after you and ban you from the forums and sitemail. It's been over a week and every email I send to contributor relations goes unanswered. It's almost as if they want contributors to leave. I know for me my decision has been made already.
It boggles the mind how stupid they are.
-
Possibly, but at some point they'll make themselves so painful to do business with that they will start to lose contributors. Especially if they can't keep sales up.
I think I said once before, the worse they treat us and the less we make, the easier it becomes to decide to leave (exclusivity or the site).
I don't think enough people would leave. We're talking about 90,000+ contributors. How many of them are actively aware of every change istock makes, every misstep and every underhanded trick they pull to take more from buyers and contributors? I think most contributors go on their merry way, ignoring the forums and blissfully unaware that some of these things take place, or at least not caring much and believing the pathetic explanations and excuses that HQ presents in their emails.
This is the thing that these companies have figured out over the years, that they can do whatever they want and the repercussions they face for their actions will be minimal. istock and fotolia cuts royalty rates and how many people quit? Maybe a couple hundred? Probably not even that many? Fotolia changes the rank levels. DT changes every fraudulent credit card sale back to contributors. istock keeps jacking up prices (anyone notice the increase in vector pricing a few weeks ago?). And what happens. No buyer exodus. No contributor strike. Barely a blip on the twitter feeds.
They can get away with murder and they all know it. It's why SS stopped giving regular pay increases. Why should they? Most people barely noticed that rates haven't risen as they did in the past.
And these companies are pulling it off brilliantly. They keep feeding us this B.S. about how it's because they need more money for marketing to sell our images and ultimately make us more money. Or that they need to do these things to ensure a profitable future for us and the company. Not everyone believes the lies, but enough people do and just hang in there and hope for the best.
And here's the really brilliant part of it. These companies have enough product to easily absorb any large loss of contributors, and they know it. If something major happened that inspired 10-20% of a company's contributors to leave, they still have more than enough product from the remaining 80-90% to carry on like nothing changed. Buyers would hardly notice a difference, they'd keep on buying and spending those credits, and in the meantime the company would go right on replacing those lost images with the latest batches of recent uploads from the folks who stayed on board.
That's microstock these days. These companies always had the upper hand. They always held the best cards in this game and we have always been at their mercy. The difference today is that everyone is significantly more aware of just how far they can push that advantage, and how much more they can take from us and keep for themselves.
-
Spot on as usual Helix! Frustrating as it is....
-
This whole fraud thing was bad enough but to me what makes it worse is after trying to voice your opinion on the forum, they sic their bulldog after you and ban you from the forums and sitemail. It's been over a week and every email I send to contributor relations goes unanswered. It's almost as if they want contributors to leave. I know for me my decision has been made already.
They DO want contributors to leave, especially if you are not a factory or top producer. They can't kick you out because that would be discrimination and I suspect grounds for a big lawsuit. So they employ the exact same tactics as all other companies. When you start to cost the company money, you don't produce enough, or they just want to get rid of you, they just make things as uncomfortable for you as they can, rather than just letting you go. That way, you get sick of the crap and leave, and it's on you, not them.
-
I think helix7 has it exactly. They don't really care whether "we" (with certain exceptions) stay or go. Plenty more where we came from. Plenty more who are pleased to get anything for a download, and don't argue the toss at every mistake and change. Really saying they care is like saying a whale cares about the plankton it feeds on.
The reality is that it's either "Stay and accept our terms" or "If you don't like it go away"
-
"They can't kick you out because that would be discrimination and I suspect grounds for a big lawsuit. "
I don't know why you'd think that. They could head in a certain direction and 'cut dead wood' if they wanted too. This is not some workplace with rules about age discrimination or something.
-
"They can't kick you out because that would be discrimination and I suspect grounds for a big lawsuit. "
I don't know why you'd think that. They could head in a certain direction and 'cut dead wood' if they wanted too. This is not some workplace with rules about age discrimination or something.
You are right, I misspoke. Both contributor and IS have the right to end the arrangement at any time, with proper notice. I'm just sick and tired of all the crap, and just on a rant. :o
But really, none of this IS BS affects me anymore, so I should just shut up. It's a beautiful day outside, it's time for me to get out from in front of this stupid computer and go keep it real. :)
-
And once again, another agency is quicker to react, more professional and more up-front about fraudulent purchases.
http://www.photoarchivenews.com/ (http://www.photoarchivenews.com/)
-
One of my photos just sold on IS and I got 14 cents. There's not much difference between that and 'theft' :-)
-
One of my photos just sold on IS and I got 14 cents. There's not much difference between that and 'theft' :-)
:)