Author Topic: Jan/Feb fraud - reduction of royalties coming (Read 64802 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #150 on:** March 11, 2011, 13:15 »

Quote from: Perry on March 11, 2011, 09:42

I'm starting to wonder what IS does for the 85% they keep?
Or that is more like 86.5% if the fraudulent purchases are included.

Their next plan is propably to give the contributors 0% and do nothing (except buing BMWs and Yachts for themselves)

IS lacks RESPONSIBILITY in every way.

It's more like 87.5%, because according to their calculations 15% of a 99c credit = 14c, so as a general rule of thumb you can knock 1% off your supposed commission level to account for their rounding down of percentages. This policy does not seem to be stated in any documents I am aware of having agreed to, which leads me to suspect that there is a strong possibility that it is illegal.
I do wonder what the difference in cash would be if an audit found that Sean Locke or Lisa FX had been systematically underpaid by between 2% and 5% for several years (since getting 19% commission instead of 20% is a 5% underpayment). I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be rather a large lump of cash.

John W. · « **Reply #151 on:** March 11, 2011, 13:17 »

Just a small slightly off-topic question:

Does anyone know if there were also Extended Licenses involved in these fraudulent purchases? Because I've been with IS for over a year and never had an EL with them and now have 2 within one week.

nruboc · « **Reply #152 on:** March 11, 2011, 13:19 »

Quote from: SNP on March 11, 2011, 13:14

Quote from: nruboc on March 11, 2011, 13:11
Quote from: Elenathewise on March 11, 2011, 12:56
Quote from: cclapper on March 11, 2011, 12:43
Quote from: sharpshot on March 11, 2011, 12:27
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.

Not if said inside employee disseminated account information to a third party who actually did the downloading. I agree with the person I quoted that this was done by hijacking legitimate IStock accounts. There is just no way I believe they let new accounts get away with this scale of fraud....oh wait this is IStock we're talking about...maybe...

cathyslife · « **Reply #153 on:** March 11, 2011, 13:21 »

Quote from: nruboc on March 11, 2011, 13:11

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 11, 2011, 12:56
Quote from: cclapper on March 11, 2011, 12:43
Quote from: sharpshot on March 11, 2011, 12:27
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

That could explain why they aren't talking about it...that doesn't explain why they keep draining funds from contributors and making them pay for the scam.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #154 on:** March 11, 2011, 13:24 »

Quote from: wolf on March 11, 2011, 13:17

Just a small slightly off-topic question:

Does anyone know if there were also Extended Licenses involved in these fraudulent purchases? Because I've been with IS for over a year and never had an EL with them and now have 2 within one week.

I hope not, there's no reason for a thief to want an EL, but I've also had two this month and I usually only get half-a-dozen a year, if that.

lagereek · « **Reply #155 on:** March 11, 2011, 13:32 »

Why and more important WHO? would need and find a profit in stolen images?

ShadySue · « **Reply #156 on:** March 11, 2011, 13:43 »

Quote from: wolf on March 11, 2011, 13:17

Just a small slightly off-topic question:

Does anyone know if there were also Extended Licenses involved in these fraudulent purchases? Because I've been with IS for over a year and never had an EL with them and now have 2 within one week.

I'm pretty sure I read of an EL being involved in the first batch of fraud (from Dec), irrational as it seems.

cathyslife · « **Reply #157 on:** March 11, 2011, 13:45 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 11, 2011, 13:43

Quote from: wolf on March 11, 2011, 13:17
Just a small slightly off-topic question:

Does anyone know if there were also Extended Licenses involved in these fraudulent purchases? Because I've been with IS for over a year and never had an EL with them and now have 2 within one week.
I'm pretty sure I read of an EL being involved in the first batch of fraud (from Dec), irrational as it seems.

I seem to remember something similar, but too lazy to wade back through the threads looking for it.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #158 on:** March 11, 2011, 13:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 11, 2011, 13:43

Quote from: wolf on March 11, 2011, 13:17
Just a small slightly off-topic question:

Does anyone know if there were also Extended Licenses involved in these fraudulent purchases? Because I've been with IS for over a year and never had an EL with them and now have 2 within one week.
I'm pretty sure I read of an EL being involved in the first batch of fraud (from Dec), irrational as it seems.

Those were the "free" legal guarantee ELs for Vettas and Agencys coming up when they were dl'd.

gostwyck · « **Reply #159 on:** March 11, 2011, 14:49 »

Quote from: nruboc on March 11, 2011, 13:11

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

Interesting point but I doubt it. If it were an 'inside job' then IS would have even less 'justification' for taking money from contributors.

I wouldn't credit KT with the ability to do 'cryptic' either. That's too advanced. He can do 'ham-fisted' and 'foot-in-mouth' though.

lisafx · « **Reply #160 on:** March 11, 2011, 16:10 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 11, 2011, 14:49

I wouldn't credit KT with the ability to do 'cryptic' either. That's too advanced. He can do 'ham-fisted' and 'foot-in-mouth' though.

Seems to have developed quite a mastery of "head up ass" too

jamirae · « **Reply #161 on:** March 11, 2011, 17:39 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 11, 2011, 16:10

Quote from: gostwyck on March 11, 2011, 14:49

I wouldn't credit KT with the ability to do 'cryptic' either. That's too advanced. He can do 'ham-fisted' and 'foot-in-mouth' though.

Seems to have developed quite a mastery of "head up ass" too

hahahahahaha!

caspixel · « **Reply #162 on:** March 11, 2011, 17:53 »

Here's a thought to people saying that iStocks legalese in the contract protects iStock from any kind of liability. Just because their contract states they are not liable doesn't necessarily mean it will hold up. People sign hold-harmless agreements for many activities, from horse-back riding to skiing, that state they are engaging in a high risk activity and they won't hold the ski resort, horse trainer, or other individuals liable, but I know there are cases where people have sued and been awarded settlements. Just recently, a judge allowed a complaint against a horse trainer to go forward for people whose daughter was killed at a horse show. And they blame the trainer. Heck, people who illegally trespass on someone's property and then get hurt on it have sued the property owners and won. So just because iStock's contract *says* they can't be held liable, doesn't mean it would actually *hold up* in court, especially with a very clever lawyer representing the contributors.

suemack · « **Reply #163 on:** March 11, 2011, 17:56 »

Trouble is that when you have a day with good d/l now, instead of celebrating you worry ... are they frauds or for real

ShadySue · « **Reply #164 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 11, 2011, 13:55

Quote from: ShadySue on March 11, 2011, 13:43
Quote from: wolf on March 11, 2011, 13:17
Just a small slightly off-topic question:

Does anyone know if there were also Extended Licenses involved in these fraudulent purchases? Because I've been with IS for over a year and never had an EL with them and now have 2 within one week.
I'm pretty sure I read of an EL being involved in the first batch of fraud (from Dec), irrational as it seems.

Those were the "free" legal guarantee ELs for Vettas and Agencys coming up when they were dl'd.

Ah, thanks for that clarification.

lisafx · « **Reply #165 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:05 »

Quote from: suemack on March 11, 2011, 17:56

Trouble is that when you have a day with good d/l now, instead of celebrating you worry ... are they frauds or for real

Yes! Absolutely! I have a nagging doubt every time I get a L or above sale now.

Risamay · « **Reply #166 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:18 »

Quote

Posted by PeskyMonkey:

No contract or agreement is ever water-tight in the eyes of lawyers Stacey.

Quote

Posted by stacey_newman:

sorry, but that's just silly.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=51

Actually, it's anything but. The best contracts or agreements often fall short of air-tight, and there are many such legal documents with holes that end up sinking said agreements in court. It often ends up being about whether or not someone is willing to take someone else to task (to court). Good lawyers are good at finding ways around and out of such binding situations. I know, because I know a few (but not in our area, I'm afraid).

Who knows if this contract is rock solid or not? And given the way things are going and the astronomical sums that are being clawed back (among all the other questions and concerns raised), is it not worth challenging in court or having - at the very least - OUR attorneys review it? Rather than just taking your word that it's silly to question or Getty's word or anyone's from HQ?

caspixel · « **Reply #167 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:25 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 11, 2011, 18:18

Quote
Posted by PeskyMonkey:

No contract or agreement is ever water-tight in the eyes of lawyers Stacey.

Quote
Posted by stacey_newman:

sorry, but that's just silly.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=51

Actually, it's anything but. A good contract or agreement is air-tight, but there are many such legal documents with holes that end up sinking said agreements in court.

Who knows if this contract is rock solid or not? And given the way things are going and the astronomical sums that are being clawed back (among all the other questions and concerns raised), is it not worth challenging in court or having - at the very least - OUR attorneys review it? Rather than just taking your word that it's silly to question or Getty's word or anyone's from HQ?

People sign hold-harmless agreements and get settlements all the time, like I said above. If challenged, iStock might just want to settle for $$$, just to keep their dirty little secrets from getting out (like how incredibly poor their book keeping is - is anyone in any doubt that their books are actually in order, especially considering the $0 royalties, missing EL bonuses, weird fluctuating account balances, etc, etc, etc).

iStock may regret ever using that "dirty little secret" slogan. They seem to have a lot of them. More every day.

fullvalue · « **Reply #168 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:29 »

The question isn't whether Istock can be held liable for misuse of the images when legally downloaded.

The question is did Istock properly perfom the duties due the contributor as outlined in the contract? Were they in any way negligent? If so, then what damages did their negligence cause.

Risamay · « **Reply #169 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:32 »

Quote from: fullvalue on March 11, 2011, 18:29

The question isn't whether Istock can be held liable for misuse of the images when legally downloaded.

The question is did Istock properly perfom the duties due the contributor as outlined in the contract? Were they in any way negligent? If so, then what damages did their negligence cause.

Hefty damages, no doubt. I mean, if folks like jhorrocks have the legal basis to sue for lost future earnings (which sounds completely reasonable to me), IS/Getty and the holding company (whoever ends up being ID'd as liable) is REALLY screwed:

Quote

Posted by jhorrocks:

I just finished reviewing all of my stolen files, and I'm almost too upset to sit here and type. I feel like I've been raped. 290 files ripped off and most likely being distributed for free on some torrent site. Those 290 represent the top-selling 4.6% of my portfolio. Forget about the money being handed back in the short term.. I'm disgusted at the long-term revenue loss. This is much bigger. And that's just my portfolio. I'm no mathemetician, but what's that calculation again about x% of your portfolio accounting for y% of revenue? Something like 10% of the content accounting for 50% of income? What ever the actual number is, it makes me sick. And that's not even considering all the expense in creating all the stolen images. F**K.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=49

caspixel · « **Reply #170 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:36 »

Quote from: fullvalue on March 11, 2011, 18:29

The question isn't whether Istock can be held liable for misuse of the images when legally downloaded.

The question is did Istock properly perfom the duties due the contributor as outlined in the contract? Were they in any way negligent? If so, then what damages did their negligence cause.

In my mind, I wasn't thinking they were liable for misuse of the images, sorry that was not clear. I was thinking they were liable for allowing the fraud to go on for so long due to their negligence. Clearly they are negligent. Just look at how quickly the other two agencies acted and tamped down on the fraud. Even iStock contributors were suspicious of the downloads...yet iStock continued to allow it to happen. Blows the mind...

lisafx · « **Reply #171 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:43 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 11, 2011, 18:36

I was thinking they were liable for allowing the fraud to go on for so long due to their negligence. Clearly they are negligent. Just look at how quickly the other two agencies acted and tamped down on the fraud. Even iStock contributors were suspicious of the downloads...yet iStock continued to allow it to happen. Blows the mind...

Yes, exactly. They were very clearly negligent. Publicly announcing that nobody would be watching the store for several weeks is grossly negligent, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Risamay · « **Reply #172 on:** March 11, 2011, 18:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 11, 2011, 18:43

Quote from: caspixel on March 11, 2011, 18:36
I was thinking they were liable for allowing the fraud to go on for so long due to their negligence. Clearly they are negligent. Just look at how quickly the other two agencies acted and tamped down on the fraud. Even iStock contributors were suspicious of the downloads...yet iStock continued to allow it to happen. Blows the mind...

Yes, exactly. They were very clearly negligent. Publicly announcing that nobody would be watching the store for several weeks is grossly negligent, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

+1

I think money spent on a third-party professional LEGAL opinion would be money well spent.

At this point, I know that folks are just talking and blowing off steam, but I hope this notion picks up with some weight as I'm sure a number of us would be willing to chip in and have a lawyer review all of this. That's peace of mind I'd hazard the lot of us would be willing to pay for, as trust in IS and its word is all but gone at this juncture. I trust nothing they tell me. Particularly nothing that comes directly from Kelly's mouth. And even Andrew now. I know they just use that poor sweet guy as their mouthpiece to soften blows. Though it's not really working that way, any longer. And hasn't for some time.

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #173 on:** March 12, 2011, 06:47 »

Which agencies other than iStock do this ? I get a couple deductions a month at Fotolia, occasionally Dreamstime takes back some money, but never experienced such removals with Shutterstock.
But NOTHING in this scale and I find it strange that anyone could get away with theft apparently accounting for 5% of a months turnover. It's just not okay.

Blufish · « **Reply #174 on:** March 12, 2011, 08:57 »

In my iffy bitty opinion, I think that the other major stock players have better security measures in place so this volume of fraud doesn't happen there like at IS. I think that is the only non-conspiracy theory that makes any sense

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Jan/Feb fraud - reduction of royalties coming (Read 64802 times)

BaldricksTrousers

John W.

nruboc

cathyslife

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

ShadySue

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

lisafx

jamirae

caspixel

suemack

ShadySue

lisafx

Risamay

caspixel

fullvalue

Risamay

caspixel

lisafx

Risamay

ThomasAmby

Blufish

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors