No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.

No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.

IS PCC even eligible? - I thought it was "no admin/inspectors/moderators" or maybe I was just wishing it to be that way. In any case, you're totally right.

Quote from: nico_blue on March 13, 2011, 20:18

No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.

IS PCC even eligible? - I thought it was "no admin/inspectors/moderators" or maybe I was just wishing it to be that way. In any case, you're totally right.

Just wishful thinking/hoping, I think. Although, I don't think they can avoid doing it that way. Mods & admins have absolutely no credibility . . . inspectors, I have less issue with -- barring the perennial woo-yayers. Got no use for them.

Quote from: SNP on March 13, 2011, 19:52

I've nothing against that, but in the context of the fraud, which I believe is all the conference call is about, I don't think it's vitally important. I'm not even sure whether the (top) Vector/Video/Audio/Flash contributors were affected proportionately to the (top) photographers by the fraud (?)

Oh, we vector contributors were affected, believe me. 
[/quote]

Right, sorry. I just checked on a few pages on the clawback thread and didn't see any vector-only contributors there.
Unrepresentative sample, poor science. 

No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.

I've already said flat out I'm not the right choice. though I've never had a conversation with you so I'm sorry you've made up your mind about who I am. in any case, it's not about me and I hope that the people chosen on the panel represent a wide group of contributors' interests in regards to the fraud.

Quote from: jsnover on March 13, 2011, 16:19

I'd be happy to participate in a conference call - no NDA - to discuss major contributor problems. Discuss is an operative word - i.e. not just listen. Problems plural is key as well - the clawback of funds and loss of control of our images is very important, but is only one of the major failings on the site at the moment. If they dont' fix search soon, the future doesn't look bright at all.

I think iStock is trying to deflect trouble rather than solve problems. I think they want to try and ratchet down the contributor discontent and aren't thinking about solving the problems as the way to do that.

I hope they're willing to revisit the sort of conference call they're willing to have. Going from "trust us" to "trust them" isn't much of a step forward IMO.

Very well said, agree with you 100%

+1

Quote from: jamirae on March 13, 2011, 16:17

Three words: class action lawsuit.  I am in if anyone can get it rolling.

Those are the only three words that matter at this point.  Lots of us will be on that bandwagon, I think.

+1

No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.

+1 to the power of infinity!

I agree with Karen
Even that I'm not happy with any of how things are being handled, lets not start speculating about the NDA as an "all bad" stuff.
An NDA can be as broad and extended as we can imagine; but it could also be very limited and specific about certain points.
As many have pointed in here, people like Sean will not fall easily for it, if it is fuzzy or shady.
I've signed several NDAs for sensitive projects that I've developed; and believe me, not all NDAs are as bad as they seem.
...I'm trying to be as objective and positive as I can be with all this.

We don't know what the NDA will/might entail. And therein lies part and parcel of the problem. Particularly as there is already a dire [and well-founded] dearth of trust in IS on the part of its contributor base - from Black Diamonds on down.

Why not share the information with everyone in the community of contributors? Why just a select 5 (and why only Exclusives?), who will then be bound to some degree of silence and secrecy by an NDA? Whatever these 5 are able to share with the rest of us, I'll just be wondering what they've been prevented from saying, according to the terms/teeth of the NDA. The NDA does nothing but further deteriorate trust in IS. What are they trying to hide? Tell all of us everything. Not a handful of 5 people who are then muzzled by a legal agreement. It doesn't matter that we can't know to what degree the NDA is binding. The point is that IS is asking these people to sign an NDA at all, if they are to participate in this conversation.

It's not rocket science why we should all be leery of this strange arrangement, conversation, and the NDA. Seems a desperate move and misguided attempt at damage control on the part of a guilty party (IS).

Which makes me think all the more that it's high time for: a) a formal, third-party audit of IS and, b) per the findings of said audit, pursuing/filing a class-action lawsuit.

I thought KK's idea was a nice way to reach out, but after further consideration it will likely result in a lose-lose situation for the Fab 5.

If the Fab 5 says Istock is being legit then the angry mob will say that Istock fooled them.

If they say that Istock hasn't done their job then they will likely fear the possible consequences of standing up to Getty and H&F.

In either scenario, the Fab 5 won't be able to explain their position.

This whole spin that the Fab 5 are going to be "the ears" of the community is so ridiculous. What use are their ears if they don't have mouths?

Really, I've been buying stuff at smaller sites with my CC, and in a couple of instances it has been rejected because "Your information differs with the information on the bank records" ...Is that so difficult to implement on Istock?

Happens to me as well, and what it does is make me remember to update my own information when I forget. I don't get angry about not being able to purchase, as much as I get annoyed at my own forgetfulness.

Surely buyers would understand the change in policy, given the rampant fraud? I know I would...

Quote from: eddyp on March 13, 2011, 21:13

*big snip*

Which makes me think all the more that it's high time for: a) a formal, third-party audit of IS and, b) per the findings of said audit, pursuing/filing a class-action lawsuit.

Absolutely!
An audit can't be that tough to get organized. Many peeps seem in for it, no one seems willing to get it started...
I have no clue how and where to start. No one here is an accountant? (or married to one or something?)