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

The terms of the NDA are a critical point in this issue.  In my day job we sign and have clients sign them regularly and they pertain to the project at hand, not disclosing proprietary information relating to materials, manufacturing process, ingredients and new products coming to market.  It doesn't restrict either party from discussing publicly available information or information that is standard to the industry.  If this NDA only restricts them from discussing the specifics of an investigation or new security measures, but does allow them to report that in their opinion they are statisfied with steps being taken and progress being made then it's a step in the right direction.  Of course if they come back and say that they don't like what they heard then watch out ISP - it won't be good. 

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.

I tend to agree, caspixel.

The cash cow is being threatened...of course they are going to pretend to do something. If they were honest, WHY WOULDN'T THE FRAUD ALREADY HAVE BEEN STOPPED! We aren't talking about fraud from just December, Jan. and Feb. As evidenced by the scam in the first post here about the fraud, it's been going on for years!

Here's the link, in case anyone wants to review:

http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062

If iStock wanted to communicate with contributors without alienating the community here's a novel idea - get somebody with an ounce of intelligence to explain what's happening on their forum that isn't made up of obvious PR created BS. Of course that's not what they want, they want five cheerleading dimwits who they can hoodwink with some corporate waffle that they know will then come back and tell everybody else things are just fine.

Too true!!

One other thing to consider, and I'm only whistling in the dark, is that the authorities might have needed iStock to let the fraud to on so that they could find the perp, because only then was there a chance of catching them and preventing the work which was stolen being passed on, e.g. on illegal DVDs, websites etc.

iStock got caught with their pants down over Christmas. that's when they should have stood up and implemented stronger security measures. Many websites these days accept credit card payments, its just the way business has evolved - the majority are as in the case with iStock 'card not present'. A simple thing like asking for the CSV number could help reduce this fraud. Bad enough we as contributors had to cover the loss the first time... but when they let it happen a second time? I see absolutely no reason why we should cover the loss this time. Their silence isn't helping matters with anyone, even if one emails them directly, their isn't a response. RCMP are apparently investigating, but we only have the word of iStock for this. They don't plan to recoup monies in the future? read it again...there's no guarantee in there that they wont. Credit card companies are extensively insured against fraud, at least my visa and MasterCard are - why then is the cost being forced onto the contributors? Its a substantial loss of earnings...sadly as time goes on, iStock is rapidly deteriorating and I think its days are numbered. They have shot themselves in the proverbial foot with their actions of the past twelve months

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2011, 12:51

One other thing to consider, and I'm only whistling in the dark, is that the authorities might have needed iStock to let the fraud to on so that they could find the perp, because only then was there a chance of catching them and preventing the work which was stolen being passed on, e.g. on illegal DVDs, websites etc.

That thought crossed my mind...that it was a sting operation. BUT if they agreed to that, I don't think they should have taken the money back from contributors. The other thing I have to wonder is why it was let on for so long and at such an extensive scale. Still smacks of incompetence and negligence more than anything else. Otherwise, why wouldn't the other affected sites have engaged in the investigation or a similar investigation?

I have no idea whether BigStock's quickly stopped fraud was of the same nature and by the same perps. (Anyone know?)
Alamy also had fraud, but it was totally different (hacking in to accounts by guessing passwords).
I didn't read about any others, but I seldom hop into the forums of the other groups unless I've time to kill.

Quote from: caspixel on March 13, 2011, 13:06

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2011, 12:51

One other thing to consider, and I'm only whistling in the dark, is that the authorities might have needed iStock to let the fraud to on so that they could find the perp, because only then was there a chance of catching them and preventing the work which was stolen being passed on, e.g. on illegal DVDs, websites etc.

That thought crossed my mind...that it was a sting operation. BUT if they agreed to that, I don't think they should have taken the money back from contributors. The other thing I have to wonder is why it was let on for so long and at such an extensive scale. Still smacks of incompetence and negligence more than anything else. Otherwise, why wouldn't the other affected sites have engaged in the investigation or a similar investigation?

I have no idea whether BigStock's quickly stopped fraud was of the same nature and by the same perps. (Anyone know?)
Alamy also had fraud, but it was totally different (hacking in to accounts by guessing passwords).
I didn't read about any others, but I seldom hop into the forums of the other groups unless I've time to kill.

I have to believe that there was an opportunistic reason that iStock was chosen.  I'd still bet on a security hole as a result of their F5 revamping that someone either knew about or discovered -- seeing how they handle site search and even "fixing" the uploads page, and I shudder to think of them dealing with security.  Fraud surely happens to every merchant, brick and mortar or internet, eventually -- but for this to go on this long and to this extent is something I've not heard of with others.  And their response/reaction certainly left much to be desired.  Was it Almay that sent the letter to all their contributors explaining that it happened and apologizing?  A little transparency goes a long ways.  And one of the others reported a fraud, but if I recall, it was stopped in two days. 

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2011, 12:51

One other thing to consider, and I'm only whistling in the dark, is that the authorities might have needed iStock to let the fraud to on so that they could find the perp, because only then was there a chance of catching them and preventing the work which was stolen being passed on, e.g. on illegal DVDs, websites etc.

That thought crossed my mind...that it was a sting operation. BUT if they agreed to that, I don't think they should have taken the money back from contributors.

Yes, exactly.  Istock should be eating this loss as the cost of doing business, and of failing to adequately secure the site.  The loss should not be passed on to contributors under any circumstances. 

But if there was a deliberate CHOICE made to let this continue, then it is even more unconscionable (and actionable) to make contributors pay for it. 

One other thing to consider, and I'm only whistling in the dark, is that the authorities might have needed iStock to let the fraud to on so that they could find the perp, because only then was there a chance of catching them and preventing the work which was stolen being passed on, e.g. on illegal DVDs, websites etc.

Not being an expert on Canadian law but I expect it's roughly the same as European law and if so there is no chance whatsoever that there was any kind of 'sting' operation, iStock do not own the property that was stolen with fraudulent credit cards, we do, and I for one was not contacted and did not give my permission for my property to be used in this way. There are many other factors that make this idea to be very very unlikely. Still fingers crossed, I could do with a free trip to Canada to testify in court
But this sort of speculation further adds to my point that iStock would do far better if they just came out and gave some details which they could quite easily do without jeopardising any investigation, the lack of info only leads me to believe it errs more of the side of complete incompetence on iStocks part that anything else.

Quote from: caspixel on March 13, 2011, 13:06

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2011, 12:51

One other thing to consider, and I'm only whistling in the dark, is that the authorities might have needed iStock to let the fraud to on so that they could find the perp, because only then was there a chance of catching them and preventing the work which was stolen being passed on, e.g. on illegal DVDs, websites etc.

That thought crossed my mind...that it was a sting operation. BUT if they agreed to that, I don't think they should have taken the money back from contributors.

Yes, exactly.  Istock should be eating this loss as the cost of doing business, and of failing to adequately secure the site.  The loss should not be passed on to contributors under any circumstances. 

But if there was a deliberate CHOICE made to let this continue, then it is even more unconscionable (and actionable) to make contributors pay for it. 

I don't even see how that could possibly be legal either. To use someone else's property in a sting operation without their permission, and then turn around and take the money back from the vendor? If they wanted to use your property in a sting operation, they should have BOUGHT it first.

doesnt iStock reserve the right to use contributor photos for whatever purpose in the agreement?? However I do agree that its unethical give that we have effectively lost an image sale and related income. With business practices like this no wonder corporate buyers are jumping a sinking ship

I don't even see how that could possibly be legal either. To use someone else's property in a sting operation without their permission, and then turn around and take the money back from the vendor? If they wanted to use your property in a sting operation, they should have BOUGHT it first.

[/quote]

I can't imagine that we gave away any rights to have our IP used in a sting operation, I don't care what the agreement says. I know that to have your images used for advertising, etc. you had to check the opt-in to promotional use, which I did not. I'm fairly certain in a legal situation, IP used for illegal purposes and sting operations would not be allowed.

Hi All,

 I kind of see it as if Wall Mart were robed one night and all their product were stolen they would not be able to go back to the companies products they represent and tell them sorry but we are not paying you for the last shipment you sent us because our store was robbed and we are not responsible for that theft so we are passing the cost on to you. Not an exact analogy but still similar.

Best,
Jonathan

To me, the only reason they'd be buying photos is that they have a vested interest in the business or a related business. What puzzled me was the repeated purchasing of the same image....buying several different images with which they can create a stock image cd or database available to others would make some sort of sense....

but out there somewhere, someone is laughing at the chaos they have created with this.....

from an even more obscure point of view....a hacker or hackers doing it just because they can?

no matter the scenario for why, at the end of the day, it remains that their was a severe lapse of security at iStock for which they're charging their contributors....they seem to have lost sight of the fact that their multi billion dollar business came about because of us in the first place....