Author Topic: Jan/Feb fraud - reduction of royalties coming (Read 64799 times)

Mantis · « **Reply #175 on:** March 12, 2011, 09:30 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 11, 2011, 04:40

I would really welcome a new owner of IS and preferably a "creative owner" someone who isnt a pawnbroker.

+1,000,000^

lisafx · « **Reply #176 on:** March 12, 2011, 12:23 »

Quote from: ThomasAmby 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.

Bigstock got hit around the same time. They put a stop to it in TWO DAYS!

gostwyck · « **Reply #177 on:** March 12, 2011, 12:37 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 12, 2011, 12:23

Bigstock got hit around the same time. They put a stop to it in TWO DAYS!

... and, as a result, I lost a tiny fraction of the amount that Istock are taking. That's what's galling. Our losses appear to be mostly due to negligence and/or ineptitude on Istock's behalf. Don't even mention how much of the sale price Istock keep for their 'services'.

I still have my doubts that this is the end of it. I get the impression that the hackers are simply streets ahead of Istock's bumbling idiots and they'll soon find another route through Istock's defences (if they haven't already).

lisafx · « **Reply #178 on:** March 12, 2011, 13:07 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 12, 2011, 12:37

I still have my doubts that this is the end of it.

So do I. I have had a pretty good week saleswise and I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that maybe all those sales are not legitimate. That's what's really scary about this whole situation - that the thieves were dormant most of the month of February, then came back on the 28th with a new flurry of fraud activity.

My fraud sales ceased on Jan 26th, then resumed on Feb 28th. Why should I assume they aren't still happening now?

lisafx · « **Reply #179 on:** March 12, 2011, 13:45 »

A thought I just had... Perhaps the reason that Istock announced this clawback a week in advance was to see what, if anything, we were going to do about it.

Would the organizing of an audit or a class action lawsuit cause them to rethink the wisdom of this theft of funds from their contributors?

gostwyck · « **Reply #180 on:** March 12, 2011, 14:25 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 12, 2011, 13:45

A thought I just had... Perhaps the reason that Istock announced this clawback a week in advance was to see what, if anything, we were going to do about it.

Would the organizing of an audit or a class action lawsuit cause them to rethink the wisdom of this theft of funds from their contributors?

I think that they only real reason that they gave a week's notice was to allow 'easy payment' arrangements to be made if necessary.

With the amount of money at stake, particularly for exclusives, an audit has to be necessary. My own 'refunds' are quite suspicious and mean that on one Saturday for example I was only left with two 'real' downloads. Really? I haven't had a 'two download day' since the f*cking old king died.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #181 on:** March 12, 2011, 16:48 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 12, 2011, 14:25

Quote from: lisafx on March 12, 2011, 13:45
A thought I just had... Perhaps the reason that Istock announced this clawback a week in advance was to see what, if anything, we were going to do about it.

Would the organizing of an audit or a class action lawsuit cause them to rethink the wisdom of this theft of funds from their contributors?

I think that they only real reason that they gave a week's notice was to allow 'easy payment' arrangements to be made if necessary.

With the amount of money at stake, particularly for exclusives, an audit has to be necessary. My own 'refunds' are quite suspicious and mean that on one Saturday for example I was only left with two 'real' downloads. Really? I haven't had a 'two download day' since the f*cking old king died.

Wow nice catch. I am usually too lazy to look at details like this - but people reporting here that some images got downloaded twice or unrealistically low number of downloads per day does makes you think that Istock explanation of this has nothing to do with reality.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #182 on:** March 12, 2011, 17:45 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 12, 2011, 13:45

A thought I just had... Perhaps the reason that Istock announced this clawback a week in advance was to see what, if anything, we were going to do about it.

Would the organizing of an audit or a class action lawsuit cause them to rethink the wisdom of this theft of funds from their contributors?

I think you have a better chance of getting them for systematic underpayment of commissions from "rounding down" the payment per credit to the nearest cent below the agreed commission rate. Someone said in a thread a long time ago that iStock has been rounding down ever since they stopped paying fixed commissions per sale. Nobody contradicted that. If every sale you have had in the last three or four years has paid an average almost a penny less then it should have done, how many dollars have you lost? At least that would give a good chance of recovering audit costs even if you can't prove anything on the latest clawback. Claiming losses for negligence would obviously involve a lawsuit rather than an audit.

caspixel · « **Reply #183 on:** March 12, 2011, 18:54 »

OMG, this has got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard from iStock, in response to someone inquiring about the CC fraud, posted in the forum:

I was told by customer service, and again I'm just repeating what I was told, that these frauds were in the nature of tests. Possibly to see if the cards were working.

I can't even believe they are trying to sell that sh*t. No one would buy THOUSANDS of dollars of photos just to 'test' a card. iStock has hit a new low with their lies I think. I'm sure it's their way of trying to cover up their liability for the loss of future contributor profits from those files. I mean, if the thieves are just 'testing' the cards, they aren't really going to do anything with the photos, right? The transparency of that reasoning is about the only thing that is transparent over there at the moment.

gostwyck · « **Reply #184 on:** March 12, 2011, 19:08 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 12, 2011, 18:54

OMG, this has got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard from iStock, in response to someone inquiring about the CC fraud, posted in the forum:

I was told by customer service, and again I'm just repeating what I was told, that these frauds were in the nature of tests. Possibly to see if the cards were working.

I can't even believe they are trying to sell that sh*t. No one would buy THOUSANDS of dollars of photos just to 'test' a card. iStock has hit a new low with their lies I think. I'm sure it's their way of trying to cover up their liability for the loss of future contributor profits from those files. I mean, if the thieves are just 'testing' the cards, they aren't really going to do anything with the photos, right? The transparency of that reasoning is about the only thing that is transparent over there at the moment.

... and of course you can only 'test' if cards are working properly if you only download best-selling images, Vetta and Agency at their largest size available. Always. Otherwise the 'test' wouldn't be valid. Right?

caspixel · « **Reply #185 on:** March 12, 2011, 19:47 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 12, 2011, 19:08

Quote from: caspixel on March 12, 2011, 18:54
OMG, this has got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard from iStock, in response to someone inquiring about the CC fraud, posted in the forum:

I was told by customer service, and again I'm just repeating what I was told, that these frauds were in the nature of tests. Possibly to see if the cards were working.

I can't even believe they are trying to sell that sh*t. No one would buy THOUSANDS of dollars of photos just to 'test' a card. iStock has hit a new low with their lies I think. I'm sure it's their way of trying to cover up their liability for the loss of future contributor profits from those files. I mean, if the thieves are just 'testing' the cards, they aren't really going to do anything with the photos, right? The transparency of that reasoning is about the only thing that is transparent over there at the moment.

... and of course you can only 'test' if cards are working properly if you only download best-selling images, Vetta and Agency at their largest size available. Always. Otherwise the 'test' wouldn't be valid. Right?

Exactly!

They must still think people are on the Kool-Aid or something and that the contributors will believe any old cock and bull story. Their disdain for the contributors couldn't be more obvious.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #186 on:** March 12, 2011, 21:01 »

If it weren't for the systematic targetting of Vetta (December) and flamers (Jan/Feb) I might buy the argument that credit card scammers were testing stolen card numbers to see if they were valid. Based on a little online reading (i.e. I don't have any professional connection with card processing or security) scammers look for sites with real time processing to see if they have a live one. Then they move on to spend on something big with physical product.

The big caveats with this would have to be that they were using each card just once and then moving on to another card for another file (i.e. there was a big fraud because there were tons of cards being tested). I thought that the credit prices reflected large bundles in some of the December frauds, but in checking my list of January frauds, the credit price (a) wasn't the same on sales made the same morning or evening and (b) wasn't the minimum, indicating smaller bundles.

Obviously I don't know if there were lots of cards or a few involved as IS shared no info with us on this. And I can't see why they'd have gone for Vetta or flamers unless they somehow thought that buying from the front of the search results might attract less attention?

For me, the big scary part is the end of February frauds (I didn't have any after Jan 24th) which suggests that IS is still vulerable.

jamirae · « **Reply #187 on:** March 12, 2011, 22:07 »

Wait a minute. Am i missing something? If they want to test the card they buy credits. End of story. They dont go on and start downloading files. The cc transaction was done when they bought the credits.

caspixel · « **Reply #188 on:** March 12, 2011, 22:27 »

Quote from: jamirae on March 12, 2011, 22:07

Wait a minute. Am i missing something? If they want to test the card they buy credits. End of story. They dont go on and start downloading files. The cc transaction was done when they bought the credits.

Yup. And why buy the biggest credit packs? Why not buy the smallest one if you are just "testing"?

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #189 on:** March 12, 2011, 22:46 »

Un-flippin-believable!

Good thing I'm banned from posting over there because I'm sure I'd have posted something that'd get me banned

What a bunch of horse poop!

I would DEMAND an AUDIT!

I don't believe them.

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #190 on:** March 12, 2011, 23:22 »

IMO an AUDIT needs to determine why the 16,000,000 download 'display bug' still exists.

Some examples here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1819074
and here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1259118
and here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=570106
and here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=717739

Seems SO ODD to me that all of these examples above are also folios that are not active (no uploads since at least 2009). These are only the ones I've found with the 'bug'. I personally take issue with 'display glitches / bugs' being said to be the cause of figure errors that are seemingly data-base driven... it begs me the question where the matching entry/errors are to make it all 'balance' in what appears to me to be a data-base driven accounting enviroment.

KB · « **Reply #191 on:** March 13, 2011, 00:00 »

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on March 12, 2011, 23:22

Seems SO ODD to me that all of these examples above are also folios that are not active (no uploads since at least 2009). These are only the ones I've found with the 'bug'.

Here's one from an active contributor:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1121071

lagereek · « **Reply #192 on:** March 13, 2011, 01:35 »

Is it done on purpose? I mean the site is so incredibly full of bugs, glitches, faults, one gets the impression its almost supposed to be there?

?
a small team of data engineering nerds could fix all this in half an hour! so whats the problem? what are they waiting for? the man in the moon?

ShadySue · « **Reply #193 on:** March 13, 2011, 07:16 »

Can't see if this has been posted above, but here's what KKT is offering now:

"OK, here’s what we’re going to do.
We’re going to take a few people (maximum 5?) and ask them to sign NDAs. Then we'll have a conference call this week about what's going on. They can be the ears of the entire community and see if we're doing anything out of the ordinary.
I'm going to lock this thread. Someone can start a new one where they nominate people they'd like to speak with us. They will need to be exclusive members. Nominate away.
KKT"
(end of now-locked clawback thread)
Nominations of exclusives can be made here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=1
(Provided the NDA isn't just a 'gagging order'.)

Blufish · « **Reply #194 on:** March 13, 2011, 08:38 »

Very interesting. Sean (and jsnover!), if you don't want to do this, you better speak up now; almost every post nominated you! Personally, I suspect that they are trying to pacify the angry mob. The NDA ensures no one talks out of school and selecting only exclusives is the way to enforce it.

I would love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting! I hope for everyone that is affected that something actually gets accomplished with this meeting. Can't decide if I should hold my breath or not.

SNP · « **Reply #195 on:** March 13, 2011, 08:50 »

I think it's a good move and seeks to create a bridge of communication between HQ and contributors in a language that won't further alienate the community. I don't think the NDA will prevent truthful reactions to information, even if details can't be disclosed. in any case, it's a good step. very simple and smart. could backfire I suppose if everyone chosen then comes back with negative feedback.

ShadySue · « **Reply #196 on:** March 13, 2011, 09:04 »

Quote from: SNP on March 13, 2011, 08:50

I think it's a good move and seeks to create a bridge of communication between HQ and contributors in a language that won't further alienate the community. I don't think the NDA will prevent truthful reactions to information, even if details can't be disclosed. in any case, it's a good step. very simple and smart. could backfire I suppose if everyone chosen then comes back with negative feedback.

If the feedback were negative, that wouldn't be a backfire. That would be either an indication of what iStock could do to improve, or if more serious, maybe a wake-up call to those who rake in our money.
(BTW, I voted by SM to Kelvin who assures me my vote will count, so the rest of the LOBOtomised have that option.)

caspixel · « **Reply #197 on:** March 13, 2011, 10:05 »

Quote from: SNP on March 13, 2011, 08:50

I think it's a good move and seeks to create a bridge of communication between HQ and contributors in a language that won't further alienate the community. I don't think the NDA will prevent truthful reactions to information, even if details can't be disclosed. in any case, it's a good step. very simple and smart. could backfire I suppose if everyone chosen then comes back with negative feedback.

What makes you think there would be any feedback at all? They are signing a NDA.

I personally can't believe anyone would fall for this. It's clearly an attempt by iStock to muzzle its most prominent critics. They knew that was who was going to nominated. And look! Everyone did exactly as they expected. Brilliant play by iStock. Truly.

The NDA may mean that the five representatives may never post anything critical about iStock again, effectively muzzling yet another contributor advocate. I can't believe people are going along with this! Besides, who would sign anything coming down from iStock HQs. Just look at their crummy ASA with is vague wording that puts you guys on the hook for the fraud!

Don't do it, people. Don't do it. My gut tells me it's bad news. And my gut has been right about so much at iStock since it was bought out by Getty.

Blufish · « **Reply #198 on:** March 13, 2011, 10:27 »

The NDA will most likely be applied only to what is discussed at the meeting.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #199 on:** March 13, 2011, 10:31 »

Quote from: SNP on March 13, 2011, 08:50

I think it's a good move and seeks to create a bridge of communication between HQ and contributors in a language that won't further alienate the community. I don't think the NDA will prevent truthful reactions to information, even if details can't be disclosed. in any case, it's a good step. very simple and smart. could backfire I suppose if everyone chosen then comes back with negative feedback.

I think it's a lousy move. Like I mentioned in the other thread, this should be open to everyone as it impacts the entire community. Lack of transparency only gets companies in trouble. iStock would make a great case study at any business school on how not to run a business.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Jan/Feb fraud - reduction of royalties coming (Read 64799 times)

Mantis

lisafx

gostwyck

lisafx

lisafx

gostwyck

Elenathewise

BaldricksTrousers

caspixel

gostwyck

caspixel

Jo Ann Snover

jamirae

caspixel

Pixel-Pizzazz

Pixel-Pizzazz

KB

lagereek

ShadySue

Blufish

SNP

ShadySue

caspixel

Blufish

jsmithzz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors