MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Jan/Feb fraud - reduction of royalties coming  (Read 64313 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« Reply #125 on: March 11, 2011, 10:19 »
0
I guess they make up CDs and sell them in markets or on ebay, or run websites with free downloads making money off ads etc.
There's money to be made for people who don't have to put any effort into producing the images, and a nice way to launder some cash out of those stolen credit card number.


rubyroo

« Reply #126 on: March 11, 2011, 10:47 »
0
One kkthompson has deemed fit to make a short statement;

"I realize this is frustrating, but it is for us as well. Not being able to speak about it or explain our position makes everyone a little crazy.

BUT, when we are able to make a statement--believe me--you will understand why we're doing what we're doing.

Please be patient. That discussion could still be months away.

Kelly"


Still no apology of course __ or letter of resignation either.

Yes, I'm amazed (but shouldn't be) that there's no apology in there.  It's also incredible that they didn't total those figures for the people who lost out.  So sorry to hear that Sean lost so much.  Wow. :'(

Given how seldom KK turns up, I can't help feeling that this statement is aimed to quell the hoards who have started shouting for audits and class action lawsuits.

I'm afraid that on previous occasions when I've seen KK make statements alluding to something worthwhile coming along in the future, they've turned out to be trails of anticipation that led to a damp squib.

I'm not expecting anything different this time.  Sadly.

« Reply #127 on: March 11, 2011, 10:54 »
0
One kkthompson has deemed fit to make a short statement;

"I realize this is frustrating, but it is for us as well. Not being able to speak about it or explain our position makes everyone a little crazy.

BUT, when we are able to make a statement--believe me--you will understand why we're doing what we're doing.

Please be patient. That discussion could still be months away.

Kelly"


Still no apology of course __ or letter of resignation either.

He has *got* to go. Got to got to got to. If for no other reason than he exhibits no common sense or manners (where's our sincere and profuse apology, at the very least?) when it comes to running this company and communicating with the artists it represents.

His empty, blundering statements make my blood boil!

« Reply #128 on: March 11, 2011, 11:08 »
0
One kkthompson has deemed fit to make a short statement;

"I realize this is frustrating, but it is for us as well. Not being able to speak about it or explain our position makes everyone a little crazy.

BUT, when we are able to make a statement--believe me--you will understand why we're doing what we're doing.

Please be patient. That discussion could still be months away.

Kelly"


Still no apology of course __ or letter of resignation either.

He has *got* to go. Got to got to got to. If for no other reason than he exhibits no common sense or manners (where's our sincere and profuse apology, at the very least?) when it comes to running this company and communicating with the artists it represents.

His empty, blundering statements make my blood boil!

was this a recent quote related to the fraud?  I haven't been reading the thread at the IS forums much to keep up.

« Reply #129 on: March 11, 2011, 11:09 »
0
was this a recent quote related to the fraud?  I haven't been reading the thread at the IS forums much to keep up.

Yes, he posted this early this morning on the IS thread.

« Reply #130 on: March 11, 2011, 11:12 »
0
I'm just wondering ...
- my total loss (this month) is about 26 dollars = 5% of January sales (so the 1 in 20 rule goes for me too)
- my lowest figure in the fraudulent download list is 1,9 dollar
- my lowest sales in general (for XS size) is 0,20 dollars (average 0,25 dollars for XSmall)

Did the thieves only steal large sizes, or did Istock take back the full sales price instead of "just" our 15% royalty?

And one funny thing :  he/she stole one image twice   ;D

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #131 on: March 11, 2011, 11:15 »
0
what a bad PR move to pop in and say basically nothing. the unapologetic tone of his few words....uhhh. just made things worse. especially the 'promise' that we'll know more in a few months. are we supposed to f5 like Pavlovian morons waiting for simple answers regarding the security of our work?

I don't usually jump on Kelly's statements. he is what he is. I have no real idea what he does for iStock so I don't feel it's fair for me most of the time to comment on his work. but his statements today were like throwing acid in a gaping wound. bad move.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 11:19 by SNP »

vonkara

« Reply #132 on: March 11, 2011, 11:37 »
0
Again, why only Istock had fraudulent sales? If you own stolen credit cards, why you only steal images at Istock. How come Shutterstock, Dreamstime etc had absolutely none...

I mean with 300$ you can get a whole bunch of images everyday for 1 month at SS. What makes a theft buying only at Istock which is the highest priced agency, on a that large scale.

I don't know myself, but I find this pretty weird
« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 11:40 by Vonkara »

« Reply #133 on: March 11, 2011, 11:40 »
0
It could have something to do with their integrity.  Don't get mad get even. Istock has pissed so many people off, out of tens of thousands of artists that they've really really pissed off - we all can't be ethical can we?  Their attitude likely made someone snap and put them on their #1 enemy list.  They also do a lot of bragging about how much money they make and payout.  Puts them in a vulnerable position.  I've never heard Serban bragging about how much he's paid out to photographers this week.

lisafx

« Reply #134 on: March 11, 2011, 11:52 »
0
We're not going to get an apology.  An apology can be interpreted as legal admission of guilt. 

The very fact that Istock is being so cagey about this is a good indication they feel legally vulnerable on this one. 

Which should be an indication to us, their victims, that we may have a cause of action.  Certainly it's worth looking into. 

lisafx

« Reply #135 on: March 11, 2011, 11:54 »
0
I mean with 300$ you can get a whole bunch of images everyday for 1 month at Shutterstock. What makes a theft buying only at Istock which is the highest priced agency, on a that large scale.

Only place to get exclusive images is on Istock.  And high cost is irrelevant when you are shopping with someone else's money.

« Reply #136 on: March 11, 2011, 12:15 »
0
I mean with 300$ you can get a whole bunch of images everyday for 1 month at Shutterstock. What makes a theft buying only at Istock which is the highest priced agency, on a that large scale.

Only place to get exclusive images is on Istock.  And high cost is irrelevant when you are shopping with someone else's money.

But why are so many non-exclusives affected as well? I can see the exclusive argument but I was a victim in both cases as well as many others.

lisafx

« Reply #137 on: March 11, 2011, 12:26 »
0
Only place to get exclusive images is on Istock.  And high cost is irrelevant when you are shopping with someone else's money.

But why are so many non-exclusives affected as well? I can see the exclusive argument but I was a victim in both cases as well as many others.
[/quote]

One stop shopping?  Laziness?  Crappier security?  All three?

« Reply #138 on: March 11, 2011, 12:27 »
0
I just hope whoever is doing this is caught and we do find out what they were doing with our images.  I really can't understand why a thief that had access to so many stolen credit card details would use them to buy images from istock.  There must be lots of better ways to make money from credit card fraud?

« Reply #139 on: March 11, 2011, 12:38 »
0
I'm just wondering ...
- my total loss (this month) is about 26 dollars = 5% of January sales (so the 1 in 20 rule goes for me too)
- my lowest figure in the fraudulent download list is 1,9 dollar
- my lowest sales in general (for XS size) is 0,20 dollars (average 0,25 dollars for XSmall)

Did the thieves only steal large sizes, or did Istock take back the full sales price instead of "just" our 15% royalty?

And one funny thing :  he/she stole one image twice   ;D

This is disturbing. After their first money grab I thought - who on earth would go buy images if they have access to huge credit on stolen card(s)?
Ok let's consider scenario when the thiefs make CDs with stolen content and then try to sell them. This is bad enough - Istock just plain failed to protect our intellectual property, which is supposedly now available on some pirate sites; we might as well upload our images to Flickr. Taking 85% cut and not even be able to protect images? - this unprofessional in the least, and at the most plain criminal.
But then - if someone's making CDs, why do they buy different sizes of images???
And why buy the same images twice? Plus the scale of it - who'd have access to such credit? it's not just one or two cards (as it happens with DT or other agencies) - it's hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Them not saying anything at all on this issue makes me think the issue is internal, not external. Pissed off or fraudulent employee who had access to the right data. If it was a hacker why not say so? Security loopholes get exposed and fixed on the internet all the time. But I bet it's something nastier.
Any blogs out there on this matter? All of us should write about this - let everyone know what's going on with Istock. I think it's the only real power we have.

« Reply #140 on: March 11, 2011, 12:42 »
0
This sounds very fishy indeed. I'd very much like IS to comment why they think people commiting credit frauds are downloading images.

« Reply #141 on: March 11, 2011, 12:43 »
0
I just hope whoever is doing this is caught and we do find out what they were doing with our images.  I really can't understand why a thief that had access to so many stolen credit card details would use them to buy images from istock.  There must be lots of better ways to make money from credit card fraud?

How do we know that the credit card thieves aren't buying other things besides stock images? Maybe, as someone already mentioned, the credit card thief just happens to be a photographer or designer and stealing from istock is purely for fun? That they haven't stolen electronics, games, itunes, Starbucks coffee, whatever other things millions of people purchase on a daily basis?

« Reply #142 on: March 11, 2011, 12:56 »
0
I just hope whoever is doing this is caught and we do find out what they were doing with our images.  I really can't understand why a thief that had access to so many stolen credit card details would use them to buy images from istock.  There must be lots of better ways to make money from credit card fraud?

How do we know that the credit card thieves aren't buying other things besides stock images? Maybe, as someone already mentioned, the credit card thief just happens to be a photographer or designer and stealing from istock is purely for fun? That they haven't stolen electronics, games, itunes, Starbucks coffee, whatever other things millions of people purchase on a daily basis?

Purely for fun - not on this scale. We're talking about hundreds of thousands dollars here in image "purchases". Which could be explained by someone breaking into or having access to the Istock customers' credit card information and then having fun with it.

helix7

« Reply #143 on: March 11, 2011, 12:58 »
0
But why are so many non-exclusives affected as well? I can see the exclusive argument but I was a victim in both cases as well as many others.

One stop shopping?  Laziness?  Crappier security?  All three?

There's definitely something about istock that appeals to these thieves. It's no coincidence that some of the heavier fraud activity was during the announced week-long vacation in December. Knowing that few people would be in the office at that time, and possibly knowing of the vulnerability of istock and how they process credit cards, the fraudsters probably targeted istock specifically because they showed more weaknesses than other possible targets.

I think this all goes back to the same old single thing that is incomprehensible about istock: How is it that so many other companies easily do everything that istock claims is impossible to do? Why can so many other companies "sustain" themselves on much higher royalty percentages? Why can most other microstock companies either handle credit card security or absorb the cost of fraud themselves? All we ever hear from istock HQ is how they can't do this or that, they have no choice but to operate in this way, they have to cut rates for the future growth of the company, etc. Meanwhile most other microstock companies operate successfully in complete opposition to everything that istock says can't be helped, solved, or prevented.

« Reply #144 on: March 11, 2011, 12:59 »
0
I just hope whoever is doing this is caught and we do find out what they were doing with our images.  I really can't understand why a thief that had access to so many stolen credit card details would use them to buy images from istock.  There must be lots of better ways to make money from credit card fraud?

How do we know that the credit card thieves aren't buying other things besides stock images? Maybe, as someone already mentioned, the credit card thief just happens to be a photographer or designer and stealing from istock is purely for fun? That they haven't stolen electronics, games, itunes, Starbucks coffee, whatever other things millions of people purchase on a daily basis?

Purely for fun - not on this scale. We're talking about hundreds of thousands dollars here in image "purchases". Which could be explained by someone breaking into or having access to the Istock customers' credit card information and then having fun with it.

has anyone found a stash of the reported stolen images out in the "wild" yet?  

« Reply #145 on: March 11, 2011, 13:05 »
0
There's definitely something about istock that appeals to these thieves. It's no coincidence that some of the heavier fraud activity was during the announced week-long vacation in December. Knowing that few people would be in the office at that time, and possibly knowing of the vulnerability of istock and how they process credit cards, the fraudsters probably targeted istock specifically because they showed more weaknesses than other possible targets.

I had much heavier activity 1/10-1/14 or so.  I think that was the peak.

According to the mail.

« Reply #146 on: March 11, 2011, 13:05 »
0
I'm not sure this was mentioned but how long would that number of files take to download. It must be days?

« Reply #147 on: March 11, 2011, 13:11 »
0
There's definitely something about istock that appeals to these thieves. It's no coincidence that some of the heavier fraud activity was during the announced week-long vacation in December. Knowing that few people would be in the office at that time, and possibly knowing of the vulnerability of istock and how they process credit cards, the fraudsters probably targeted istock specifically because they showed more weaknesses than other possible targets.

I had much heavier activity 1/10-1/14 or so.  I think that was the peak.

According to the mail.

My downloads were also from 1/10, 1/14 and 1/19.

nruboc

« Reply #148 on: March 11, 2011, 13:11 »
0
I just hope whoever is doing this is caught and we do find out what they were doing with our images.  I really can't understand why a thief that had access to so many stolen credit card details would use them to buy images from istock.  There must be lots of better ways to make money from credit card fraud?

How do we know that the credit card thieves aren't buying other things besides stock images? Maybe, as someone already mentioned, the credit card thief just happens to be a photographer or designer and stealing from istock is purely for fun? That they haven't stolen electronics, games, itunes, Starbucks coffee, whatever other things millions of people purchase on a daily basis?

Purely for fun - not on this scale. We're talking about hundreds of thousands dollars here in image "purchases". Which could be explained by someone breaking into or having access to the Istock customers' credit card information and then having fun with it.



It's possible this is an inside job, and they're working on a prosectuion, thus explaining KT's cryptic message

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #149 on: March 11, 2011, 13:14 »
0
I just hope whoever is doing this is caught and we do find out what they were doing with our images.  I really can't understand why a thief that had access to so many stolen credit card details would use them to buy images from istock.  There must be lots of better ways to make money from credit card fraud?

How do we know that the credit card thieves aren't buying other things besides stock images? Maybe, as someone already mentioned, the credit card thief just happens to be a photographer or designer and stealing from istock is purely for fun? That they haven't stolen electronics, games, itunes, Starbucks coffee, whatever other things millions of people purchase on a daily basis?

Purely for fun - not on this scale. We're talking about hundreds of thousands dollars here in image "purchases". Which could be explained by someone breaking into or having access to the Istock customers' credit card information and then having fun with it.



It's possible this is an inside job, and they're working on a prosectuion, thus explaining KT's cryptic message

if it were an inside job, I'd have thought it would be easier the control once identified.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3244 Views
Last post September 13, 2010, 16:52
by madelaide
15 Replies
6623 Views
Last post May 21, 2012, 16:30
by CD123
21 Replies
5036 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 03:29
by MetaStocker
43 Replies
14308 Views
Last post January 21, 2014, 13:49
by sgoodwin4813
6 Replies
3725 Views
Last post June 22, 2018, 11:48
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors