Author Topic: Fraud going down at IS (Read 51715 times)

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #150 on:** December 29, 2010, 23:16 »

Hey There,

Thanks for the help all. I appreciate it.

Best,
Jonathan

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #151 on:** December 29, 2010, 23:42 »

Hi All,

If this is a scam and images have been purchased by illegal funds in the past it is always been the photographer that pays the price along with the agency. No sale is reported after the problems are fixed and those sales are removed from your revenue. I hope this won't be the case in microstock, I see this as a great chance for Istock to step up for their contributors who have been feeling a bit let down by the company as of late, I hope it ends up that way. My two cents.

Best,
Jonathan

ayzek · « **Reply #152 on:** December 30, 2010, 01:40 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 29, 2010, 17:04

@Jonathan, no this doesn't appear to have anything to do with ELs. The issue here is that some person or persons has downloaded many thousands of dollars worth of largest-available-size images, mainly from Vetta and Agency collections, using stolen credit cards. A read through this thread and the Istock one should tell you what you need to know

@Cathy, well stated on what KK should have said. But that would have required some humility, which is sadly lacking.

i dont have any image in vetta or exclusiveplus but i have also many sells. i think they bought mostly populer files.
Do you know that when they started to download? i just checked 1credit=1$ downloads in biggest size and i found they started in 17th Dec. and its contuniued till 26th.

Their description was very unfortunate.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #153 on:** December 30, 2010, 07:22 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 29, 2010, 23:42

Hi All,

If this is a scam and images have been purchased by illegal funds in the past it is always been the photographer that pays the price along with the agency. No sale is reported after the problems are fixed and those sales are removed from your revenue. I hope this won't be the case in microstock, I see this as a great chance for Istock to step up for their contributors who have been feeling a bit let down by the company as of late, I hope it ends up that way. My two cents.

Best,
Jonathan

You are way behind the curve ...

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=11
Posted By joyze:
In the past 6 days we have received a large amount of fraudulent purchases and downloads. We are working fervently to add new security measures to our purchasing process to prevent this from continuing or happening again. The implementations are happening as we speak.

While we don't normally correct royalties on fraudulent downloads, in this case, we will need to make an exception. We'll notify you next week of the royalty amount that will be adjusted from your account before we do so. Redeemed credits will also be corrected.

ShadySue · « **Reply #154 on:** December 30, 2010, 07:55 »

Quote from: BooKitty on December 29, 2010, 22:21

I thought KK's response was condescending, rude, immature and just a bit snotty. He may be under stress, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I think ( as previously mentioned) he could could use a PR person.

His official Spin Doctor is 'Roger Mexico', so I take all RM's half-informative posts with a big pinch of salt; but he's out of the building as he announced with great noise. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=285392&page=1
Maybe he was surreptitiously giving advanced notice of the strife which was to come.

Microbius · « **Reply #155 on:** December 30, 2010, 08:00 »

I hate this BS. This is something that has always bothered me about DT too.
We pay them a huge percentage to take care of the distribution of our work, but when they f*ck up on their security guess who gets the bill?
This is hardly going to encourage the agencies to take the protection of our work seriously is it?
You do wonder if they have any responsibilities at all in the business relationship we're supposed to have with each other.

cathyslife · « **Reply #156 on:** December 30, 2010, 08:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 30, 2010, 07:55

Quote from: BooKitty on December 29, 2010, 22:21
I thought KK's response was condescending, rude, immature and just a bit snotty. He may be under stress, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I think ( as previously mentioned) he could could use a PR person.

His official Spin Doctor is 'Roger Mexico', so I take all RM's half-informative posts with a big pinch of salt; but he's out of the building as he announced with great noise. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=285392&page=1
Maybe he was surreptitiously giving advanced notice of the strife which was to come.

Another person making light of the whole situation. Yeppers, merry ho-ho, and Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Holidays and all the rest of it. The new tagline for istock.

cathyslife · « **Reply #157 on:** December 30, 2010, 08:04 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 30, 2010, 08:00

I hate this BS. This is something that has always bothered me about DT too.
We pay them a huge percentage to take care of the distribution of our work, but when they f*ck up on their security guess who gets the bill?
This is hardly going to encourage the agencies to take the protection of our work seriously is it?
You do wonder if they have any responsibilities at all in the business relationship we're supposed to have with each other.

That would be a big fat no.

Artemis · « **Reply #158 on:** December 30, 2010, 08:42 »

When i checked the iS forums this morning there was a thread made by a contributor (whiteway) who also had 'fraudulent transactions'. He posted that when he googled his name today he got A LOT more hits than usual, all leading to what google calls 'attack sites' (if i recall the post correct).
Wanted to see the replies but there's no sign of the thread anymore... Ho ho ho indeed.

ShadySue · « **Reply #159 on:** December 30, 2010, 08:52 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 30, 2010, 08:00

You do wonder if they have any responsibilities at all in the business relationship we're supposed to have with each other.

no, No, NO - you clearly don't get it.
We have all the restrictive responsibilities, especially if exclusive, they have only rights.
We signed up to it in the artists' supply agreement http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php or http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php whereupon they exempt themselves of any repsonsibilies or liabilities, which may or may not hold water in Canada.
But note 16.4 says, "If all or part of any provision of this Agreement is wholly or partially unenforceable, the parties or, in the event the parties are unable to agree, a court of competent jurisdiction, shall put in place of such whole or part provision an enforceable provision or provisions, that as nearly as possible reflects the terms of the unenforceable whole or part provision."
Again another piece of bad writing. What on earth is "the parties or, in the event the parties are" meant to signify?
I wish, and have said it so often, that they'd pay the Plain English Society to rewrite all their legal stuff and all their announcements.

Maui · « **Reply #160 on:** December 30, 2010, 08:57 »

Quote from: Artemis on December 30, 2010, 08:42

When i checked the iS forums this morning there was a thread made by a contributor (whiteway) who also had 'fraudulent transactions'. He posted that when he googled his name today he got A LOT more hits than usual, all leading to what google calls 'attack sites' (if i recall the post correct).
Wanted to see the replies but there's no sign of the thread anymore... Ho ho ho indeed.

The thread is http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287042&page=1

ShadySue · « **Reply #161 on:** December 30, 2010, 09:04 »

Quote from: Artemis on December 30, 2010, 08:42

When i checked the iS forums this morning there was a thread made by a contributor (whiteway) who also had 'fraudulent transactions'. He posted that when he googled his name today he got A LOT more hits than usual, all leading to what google calls 'attack sites' (if i recall the post correct).
Wanted to see the replies but there's no sign of the thread anymore... Ho ho ho indeed.

I've had that since not long after I joined, on many sites, with the same surrounding text in several. It's probably done by a harvesting bot. I previously got it from Usenet and/or my personal website. I'm even down as having written user testimonials on things I've never even heard of, at least twice with my name and istockphoto underneath (randomly harvested, nothing to do with photography).

Artemis · « **Reply #162 on:** December 30, 2010, 09:23 »

Ah they moved the thread.
I have that too ShadySue, more with SS than others...my sleepy brain misinterpreted the post; i read this popped up after that attacks $:-\$

cathyslife · « **Reply #163 on:** December 30, 2010, 09:39 »

Quote from: Artemis on December 30, 2010, 09:23

Ah they moved the thread.
I have that too ShadySue, more with SS than others...my sleepy brain misinterpreted the post; i read this popped up after that attacks $:-\$

Yes, to the off-topic section where no one will see it, as Sirimo says it doesn't directly involve istockphoto.

jamirae · « **Reply #164 on:** December 30, 2010, 10:43 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 29, 2010, 23:42

Hi All,

If this is a scam and images have been purchased by illegal funds in the past it is always been the photographer that pays the price along with the agency. No sale is reported after the problems are fixed and those sales are removed from your revenue. I hope this won't be the case in microstock, I see this as a great chance for Istock to step up for their contributors who have been feeling a bit let down by the company as of late, I hope it ends up that way. My two cents.

Best,
Jonathan

my prediction: not gonna happen.

lisafx · « **Reply #165 on:** December 30, 2010, 10:44 »

Quote from: ayzek on December 30, 2010, 01:40

i dont have any image in vetta or exclusiveplus but i have also many sells. i think they bought mostly populer files.
Do you know that when they started to download? i just checked 1credit=1$ downloads in biggest size and i found they started in 17th Dec. and its contuniued till 26th.

Their description was very unfortunate.

I got a few questionable XXL sales during that time period too, but for the most part it still appears that Vetta and Agency were the most targeted.

jen · « **Reply #166 on:** December 30, 2010, 13:31 »

Quote from: SNP on December 29, 2010, 01:24

Kelly's post tonight was salt in the wound. I didn't appreciate being admonished for expressing concern. I'm tired of watching contributors getting their wrists slapped for reacting to poor communication. It is OUR work that fuels their business.

I agree with this 100%.

I'm tired of being addressed like ungrateful children. Kelly seems to have a pretty strong us vs. them mentality and it doesn't give me any hope that iStock will actually attempt to improve communication with contributors.

SNP · « **Reply #167 on:** December 30, 2010, 17:45 »

^ unfortunately we have some real winners communicating on behalf of 'all' contributors too...so frankly I think effective communication in the forums is unrealistic. I'd say many of us of with serious concerns go straight to one another to discuss, or straight to HQ with questions. I certainly don't look for any real answers in the forums these days. I just get the general idea of what's happening in the forums.

caspixel · « **Reply #168 on:** December 31, 2010, 11:08 »

So it appears, according to this thread: http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/odd-sales-pattern-here-too/msg177476/?topicseen#new, that there are some suspicious sales on another site. However, they seem to be catching the fraudulent activity almost immediately. Makes iStock look even more pathetically incompetent. And they are the biggest player in the microstock game!

jamirae · « **Reply #169 on:** December 31, 2010, 19:08 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 31, 2010, 11:08

So it appears, according to this thread: http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/odd-sales-pattern-here-too/msg177476/?topicseen#new, that there are some suspicious sales on another site. However, they seem to be catching the fraudulent activity almost immediately. Makes iStock look even more pathetically incompetent. And they are the biggest player in the microstock game!

that is exactly what I was thinking. heavy sigh.

caspixel · « **Reply #170 on:** December 31, 2010, 19:31 »

Quote from: jamirae on December 31, 2010, 19:08

Quote from: caspixel on December 31, 2010, 11:08
So it appears, according to this thread: http://www.microstockgroup.com/bigstock-com/odd-sales-pattern-here-too/msg177476/?topicseen#new, that there are some suspicious sales on another site. However, they seem to be catching the fraudulent activity almost immediately. Makes iStock look even more pathetically incompetent. And they are the biggest player in the microstock game!

that is exactly what I was thinking. heavy sigh.

Even MORE embarrassing to iStock is to see how BigStock has acted quickly to put a lid on the fraud and had people WORKING THROUGH THE HOLIDAYS to fix it. And how quickly they have shown their face right here on MSG to reassure worried contributors.

And just highlights even further the total arrogance of those at iStock, with their snippy retorts to contributors' concerns on the forums. And they wonder why people are freaking out on them. Duh!

BImages · « **Reply #171 on:** January 01, 2011, 00:09 »

These days, Istock look more like a chicken running with no head. It bangs from one wall to another...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fraud going down at IS (Read 51715 times)

Jonathan Ross

Jonathan Ross

ayzek

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

Microbius

cathyslife

cathyslife

Artemis

ShadySue

Maui

ShadySue

Artemis

cathyslife

jamirae

lisafx

jen

SNP

caspixel

jamirae

caspixel

BImages

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors