MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: jamirae on March 09, 2011, 17:13
-
In case you all missed it:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=1)
From RogerMexico (aka Andrew)
A week from today we will be doing another lump removal of royalties attributed to verified fraudulent downloads that occurred in January and February 2011. Today we are sending out an email to everyone affected, detailing the downloads affected and the amounts that will be removed for each one. We will remove these royalties on March 16.
The bulk of the unauthorized downloads in question took place in January. Since then we have seen a significant reduction in fraud. The amount of royalties removed for February was only about 10% of January.
We know how difficult it is to find out that royalties were fraudulent a month after the fact. We do not plan to do another mass pull of royalties like this again.
-
I'm speechless.
-
In case you all missed it:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=1[/url])
From RogerMexico (aka Andrew)
We do not plan to do another mass pull of royalties like this again.
How are they able to not pull royalties in the future, if they can't do it now?
Or does this imply that this pull of royalties was planned?
edit: Oh, I wasn't totally speechless after all...
-
crap
-
"We do not plan to do another mass pull of royalties like this again."
Again as in [never] ever? Or again as in because they don't anticipate any additional fraud? Or because they realize what a load of crap it is to do it at all, again. Or ever.
That statement leaves more questions than reassurance or answers.
-
And yet another confirmation for me to not join that site.
-
How are they able to not pull royalties in the future, if they can't do it now?
I doubt very much that it is an act of generosity on their part. They probably think that they've installed enough additional measures to prevent it happening on the same scale again and continued further deductions would simply damage their own credibility more than the loss of the money. When individual contributors start reporting losses in the thousands of dollars it's not good PR for Istockphoto and it must also be a green light to every would-be hacker out there.
-
^ I don't think IS cares a s*it about what we contributors complain.
-
They have to pay for the last istockalypse somehow!
This is off-topic but I think semi-related.
Last month, I got a .70 charge on my car insurance. A one-time, this-month-only charge. So I called my agent and asked what that could possibly be for. Typically, if you get an increase, the increase stays from then on. And a piddly little .70? She hemmed and hawed around and just kept repeating it was just an increase. I could see she wasn't going to explain it. My thinking? How much extra money do you think State Farm Insurance would bring in in one month if they just charged all of their policyholders $.70? It's easy to slip pennies by the masses. No one will complain.
Sound pretty familiar.
-
They have to pay for the last istockalypse somehow!
This is off-topic but I think semi-related.
Last month, I got a .70 charge on my car insurance. A one-time, this-month-only charge. So I called my agent and asked what that could possibly be for. Typically, if you get an increase, the increase stays from then on. And a piddly little .70? She hemmed and hawed around and just kept repeating it was just an increase. I could see she wasn't going to explain it. My thinking? How much extra money do you think State Farm Insurance would bring in in one month if they just charged all of their policyholders $.70? It's easy to slip pennies by the masses. No one will complain.
Sound pretty familiar.
That's a scam that has been going on for a while now at many companies.
-
"We do not plan to do another mass pull of royalties like this again."
Again as in [never] ever? Or again as in because they don't anticipate any additional fraud? Or because they realize what a load of crap it is to do it at all, again. Or ever.
That statement leaves more questions than reassurance or answers.
I read that to mean that at the moment, they don't have plans to pull any because they are not seeing massive amounts of fraudulent downloads in late Feb or March so far, but I don't doubt for a moment that if they see large amounts of fraudulent downloads in the future they won't hesitate for a moment to revive that dormant plan and will pull back more royalties without a second thought.
-
"We do not plan to do another mass pull of royalties like this again."
Again as in [never] ever? Or again as in because they don't anticipate any additional fraud? Or because they realize what a load of crap it is to do it at all, again. Or ever.
That statement leaves more questions than reassurance or answers.
I read that to mean that at the moment, they don't have plans to pull any because they are not seeing massive amounts of fraudulent downloads in late Feb or March so far, but I don't doubt for a moment that if they see large amounts of fraudulent downloads in the future they won't hesitate for a moment to revive that dormant plan and will pull back more royalties without a second thought.
I hope someone pigeon-holes them into a concrete answer, because it's BS that we should have read into policy like this what we will, rather than *know* exactly what is meant.
-
what do you expect from a liar? You discuss how a liar should behave if he was not a liear...that's as interesting as the discussions with a dungheap why a dungheap shout better not stink, dicussed with the dungheap.
But for shure...discussing this in this way here is a better investment in time than to do images and upload them at IS.
-
You know, when I read this I don't even know what to say anymore. I jumped a few years ago after a lot of himming and haaaing to go exclusive becaus eit was supposed to be better. And I have to say the first year or 2 were decent. But the stuff that has been going on since the fall has me about a pube away from dropping the crown. I didn't get hit too bad during the first one, but with Jan and Feb being the way they were, it is just another slap in the face from iStock. Hopefully this one won't be too bad, because in all honesty Feb was the worst month I had in YEARS.
I am really debating dropping the crown at this point, but what I am scared of is that my files are going to get absolutely burried and never see the light of day again. That, and the fact I don't know if I can stomach giving them 84% of the cut by going non-exclusive again.
On the other hand, you know things don't look good when you see old school iStockers bailing either... It almost seems like the old saying, even the rats are jumping ship.
-
Apparently it's too much trouble for them to get to it today. Looks like it's going to be tomorrow according to mr. mexico.
-
I'm finding particularly entertaining at least one contributor who, during the first round, claimed they felt wrong about keeping the money and that they didn't mind giving it back because it wasn't theirs to begin with. And now ...
sh*tty. I hope you're indeed able to prevent this kind of thing en masse. I understand it's probably a fine balance between protecting our images while not making customers jump through hoops to buy from iStock. I'm glad you're looking at changing the policy for situations involving fraud that contributors end up paying for in lost work and lost income already received. let's hope the measures you put in place make royalty refunds unnecessary in future.
What a flip-flop! :D
ETA: My bad. It's back to the status quo in record time - with some impressive inner-post acrobatics, to boot!
I think this fraudulent activity has been dealt with relatively fairly. though I believe contributors should receive some compensation for the inconvenience. I discussed this with a friend tonight. in hashing it out, I used an analogy that the gallery where my work is sold gave thieves my work because they paid with bad cards. in addition to losing my work, which is now out there on the black market...I am told by the gallery owner that I need to pay them back royalties on the bad purchase of my work.
I hope TPTB understand that many contributors won't accept this again. we want to feel our work is safe above all else. and we're already paying you as our agent to ensure that is the case.
I certainly don't want to keep fraudulent royalties. I don't believe fraud should be positively reinforced in any way. and at least from my POV, it's not the money that bothers me. it's the insecurity I now feel whenever I get sales, and the insecurity I feel about my work being stolen. I don't want to keep paying for mismanagement of my work. and I think it's fair to say that the second wave of royalties refunds is a big red flag, as if the first one wasn't. anyways, I'm sure it's no picnic on the HQ end either. guess it is what it is.
BI-WINNING!
-
Anybody remember the last piece of GOOD news from IS? I can't.
-
Anybody remember the last piece of GOOD news from IS? I can't.
If your Getty its never been better....
-
I think the critical part of that statement is "We don't plan to..."
Plans can change ;)
-
I think the critical part of that statement is "We don't plan to..."
Plans can change ;)
Yes, I think it means that this has been dealt with now so there won't be any more surprises from Dec/Jan/Feb but if a major fraud happens again next month it's a whole new ball game.
-
I...hate...them...so....much
-
Anybody remember the last piece of GOOD news from IS? I can't.
If your Getty its never been better....
If you're Hellman & Friedman, owners of Getty, it's better still....
-
Wow, how did I miss this thread yesterday? The good news just keeps rolling in.
BTW, anyone besides me seem to recall they claimed the fraud problem had been resolved in January? Can't find the original fraud thread, so no way to double check my memory...
-
Someone made the comment in the istock thread that these guys don't know how to run a business. I think they're actually brilliant businessmen. In what other industry can you treat your suppliers so badly and have them still keep coming back for more?
I get an increasingly sickening feeling dealing with istock and being a contributor there. I'm in no position financially to cut ties with any of the microstock companies I work with, but I'm certainly not contributing anything new to istock ever again. What an absolutely disgusting group of people they are.
I can handle a lot. You can't be in microstock without a thick skin, between how these companies treat us, the industry perception that we're contributing to the demise of professional stock imagery, etc. I've never been someone who took any of it personally or thought about leaving this business. But istock is certainly making it hard to not feel like an idiot for doing business with them. And today is no exception. Now I get to wait for that email to hit my inbox and tell me how much money they'll be taking back from me.
-
Wow, how did I miss this thread yesterday? The good news just keeps rolling in.
BTW, anyone besides me seem to recall they claimed the fraud problem had been resolved in January? Can't find the original fraud thread, so no way to double check my memory...
They did claim it the same way now they are claiming this: "We do not plan to do another mass pull of royalties like this again."
I don´t want to see another fraud going on, but if there is, I doubt they won´t pull off royalties.
All changes in the recent months have an incredibly short term view imo. They sure increase $$ numbers quickly but in the medium to long term many decissions seem plain wrong. I think there is little doubt the fund is preparing its exit, sell out or IPO, but what happens if they don´t manage to get a good deal? What will happen when numbers start going against them?
It is not easy to sink the Titanic, but once a hole is made you can be sure that it will sink unless you repair it quickly. You won´t notice much at the beginning, it will just slow down a bit, loose a bit of heigth, then slow a bit more, water is closer to the board, the ship stops, bow gets closer to the water, now the bow is in the water, glup.
The difficult thing is knowing where we are.
-
It is not easy to sink the Titanic, but once a hole is made you can be sure that it will sink unless you repair it quickly. You won´t notice much at the beginning, it will just slow down a bit, loose a bit of heigth, then slow a bit more, water is closer to the board, the ship stops, bow gets closer to the water, now the bow is in the water, glup.
Great analogy.
-
It is not easy to sink the Titanic, but once a hole is made you can be sure that it will sink unless you repair it quickly. You won´t notice much at the beginning, it will just slow down a bit, loose a bit of heigth, then slow a bit more, water is closer to the board, the ship stops, bow gets closer to the water, now the bow is in the water, glup.
Great analogy.
+1
Is that a string quartet I hear playing...?
-
It is not easy to sink the Titanic, but once a hole is made you can be sure that it will sink unless you repair it quickly. You won´t notice much at the beginning, it will just slow down a bit, loose a bit of heigth, then slow a bit more, water is closer to the board, the ship stops, bow gets closer to the water, now the bow is in the water, glup.
Great analogy.
+1
Is that a string quartet I hear playing...?
Must be time to push Roger M. out again to re-arrange a few deck chairs.
-
Emails have been sent out. Check your inboxes. Reports are starting to show up on the IS thread just a few minutes ago. Go luck to everyone.
-
Emails have been sent out. Check your inboxes. Reports are starting to show up on the IS thread just a few minutes ago. Go luck to everyone.
Just had mine. Looks like their going to screw me for another $45.
-
Emails have been sent out. Check your inboxes. Reports are starting to show up on the IS thread just a few minutes ago. Go luck to everyone.
Just had mine. Looks like their going to screw me for another $45.
Lovely. That's just wiped more than 5% off my January total (from AFTER the time we were told it had all been sorted out).
Can we assume that one download in every 20 in Jan was therefore fraudulent? That's incredible! It would surely mean millions of files being stolen. I think this demands something more than a nonchalant "we're not planning to do it again" from HQ.
-
Just got mine. They're taking $3.60 from my account. About a day's worth of earnings for me, these days (and that's on a good day)! Boo, iStock.
-
Lovely. That's just wiped more than 5% off my January total (from AFTER the time we were told it had all been sorted out).
Can we assume that one download in every 20 in Jan was therefore fraudulent? That's incredible! It would surely mean millions of files being stolen. I think this demands something more than a nonchalant "we're not planning to do it again" from HQ.
Very, very similar % for me too. It is starting to look as if about 5% of Istock's 'earnings' in January were in fact fraudulent. The situation is truly dire __ not just the fraud but how much the genuine sales have actually dropped. The word 'tailspin' somehow comes to mind.
-
They're taking about $4 from me. I only have $1.14 in my account, so I am back in the hole again.
Posted by: Microbius
I...hate...them...so....much
Me too.
-
$11.40 from me. I'm just relieved that it wasn't the EL that rescued my Feb from total disaster.
Sorry for all those who have been hit; but I fear some will have lost really significant amounts, as happened last time.
-
A friend just wrote that they're taking over $800 from their IS account. Gah!
-
Was it this thread where we were discussing a lack of criticism from Black Diamonds?
As I said, Sean is the most willing to speak up and out, but others absolutely do chime in from time to time.
Like now:
Wow, I have to look forward to a $786.64 deduction next week... [sarcasm] Thanks istock! [/sarcasm]
What type of proof do we have that these are fradulent downloads that occurred other than istock's word which really doesn't mean much these days...
That was nico_blue here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=18 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=18)
And here's sodafish on page 17:
Seriously iStock. You are the one that should protect out work, that's why we pay you more than 60%. You failed and now WE have to pay for it? This will not be forgotten very soon.
And duncan1890 on page 19:
Could not even total it up for us pathetic
Looks like I will get hit for $1851.70 (if I added it up correctly) thats miles more than last time.
Currently have no trust or confidence in istock
And sdominick on page 22:
Wow. $1259.98. This...is...just...wrong.
And 4x6 on page 24:
I too have been here since 2002 and also briefly worked for istock. I too like this place better back in the old days when Bruce was around.
And jhorrocks on page 27:
RE: $3,008.36 clawback. Could be worse. I could be Sean. Yes, very serious indeed. This has got to stop. Every passing week gives me less and less motivation to shoot and upload. Alpaca farming sounds pretty good right about now.
-
What assholes. Seriously. They send me an email with long 3-page list of "unauthorized" downloads that they gonna charge me back for and don't even give me the total!!! What is it - too much work to calculate how much money you're going to deduct from my earnings? Sh*theads. I am so pissed. One more thing like that and I am out of there. Screw the money.
-
And tell me the old Kelvin's tone (sans badge) would not have been entirely different from this:
Only $40 here to pay back, but comiserations to everyone who got hit.
-
wow. this is more than last time that's for sure. I got hit with about $15 worth.. too lazy to add it all up.
did they ever give assurances that they have this working so that it won't happen again??
-
Looking at some of the huge amounts people are losing, I just can't understand how these fraudulent sales over a long period weren't being noticed.
Have none of TPTB at iStock or Getty got any shame at all. They aren't taking any hits in their paypackets, I'll bet.
:-(
-
Even worse for me this time - $75.39 (last time was $46.34). Words can't describe how pissed off I am right now.
I had my best month ever in June 2010 and since then my downloads and earnings have been in free fall.
I'll give them until the end of April to see some improvements otherwise I'm dropping exclusivity for certain.
-
What assholes. Seriously. They send me an email with long 3-page list of "unauthorized" downloads that they gonna charge me back for and don't even give me the total!!! What is it - too much work to calculate how much money you're going to deduct from my earnings? Sh*theads. I am so pissed. One more thing like that and I am out of there. Screw the money.
I thought it was just me. I have to total up that long list myself? The e-mail says there will be a total, but not on mine. Complete BS.
-
I got my letter today and I don't even have a port anymore! Where are they going to take the money from??
I was telling my brother about what happened and felt that it was just amazing what they are doing to their bread and butter. I said either Getty is making a deliberate effort to scuttle iS, or iS is just as stupid and greedy as they appear. I can only assume that they think because they are the number one microstock site, no one of any consequence is going to defect, so f**k the ones that do. Well, that will work only to a point. I don't think Calgary has come to that realization just yet. When they do, it will probably be too late.
-
I got my letter today and I don't even have a port anymore! Where are they going to take the money from??
I was telling my brother about what happened and felt that it was just amazing what they are doing to their bread and butter. I said either Getty is making a deliberate effort to scuttle iS, or iS is just as stupid and greedy as they appear. I can only assume that they think because they are the number one microstock site, no one of any consequence is going to defect, so f**k the ones that do. Well, that will work only to a point. I don't think Calgary has come to that realization just yet. When they do, it will probably be too late.
If you still have your account open, it will show as a negative. I left my account open and only have 5 pics in my port now and after the first round I was in the hole for a while. I sold an image which put me back in the positive, but now I am in the hole again.
-
I got my letter today and I don't even have a port anymore! Where are they going to take the money from??
I was telling my brother about what happened and felt that it was just amazing what they are doing to their bread and butter. I said either Getty is making a deliberate effort to scuttle iS, or iS is just as stupid and greedy as they appear. I can only assume that they think because they are the number one microstock site, no one of any consequence is going to defect, so f**k the ones that do. Well, that will work only to a point. I don't think Calgary has come to that realization just yet. When they do, it will probably be too late.
They'll probably sue you or turn you over to a collection agency which will cost them more than if the just let it fly just to prove their point....and for next years tax deduction....lol
-
Got the deductions as well. Only my best sellers were downloaded...
-
I'm only losing 8 bucks but it completely blows my mind how they're treating this. How can they take THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS from certain people and the effing CEO can't even be bothered to deliver the news himself?! Just... what? I don't even know what else to say.
-
This is how we should reply to them:
Hello iStockphoto
(Your Name) has recently been affected by an unusual amount of verified, unauthorized credit removals. These are instances where credits have been removed using credit card fraud as an excuses, which iStockphoto will not or cannot verify to the suppliers. Due to the nature of Internet-based business, iStockphoto is responsible for securing my intellectual property, and has failed to do so.
We will be taking the step of charging back to iStockphoto royalty amounts resulting from loss of business associated with the theft of our images.
On March 17 we will send to iStockphoto a bill for the estimated loss of future royalties attributed to the theft of our intellectual property that occurred in November, December 2010 and January and February 2011.
Below we have included a list of the files that were part of these verified thefts (as provided by iStockphoto), the date they occurred, as well as the total estimated future royalties lost. This billing will take place on March 17, 2011.
If you have any questions about the methods used to compile these figures, please contact us in Contributor Relations, at (your e-mail). The amount involved, we will be due and payable at the time of invoice.
Thank you,
(Your Name)
-
Given the Jan/Feb clawback is much bigger than the one for December frauds (for me, and reading the forum for other people too), it makes Mr. Great Communicator Thompson's post in December (http://www2.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742) even more irritating.
My numbers were forutnately small - $71 - but much bigger than December where I only had one file in the "fraud pile".
-
Given the Jan/Feb clawback is much bigger than the one for December frauds (for me, and reading the forum for other people too), it makes Mr. Great Communicator Thompson's post in December ([url]http://www2.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url]) even more irritating.
I have ranted about that post in length to too many people IRL, haha. All of my non-photographer friends know all about Kelly Thompson's "you should thank us for working over Christmas break" post. It's just unbelievable.
-
108 Fraudulent sales here, for a total of 309.90. Not as bad as some of the Vetta & Agency exclusives, but pretty bad, just the same. This one's gonna hurt. >:(
I just revised my January stats. Take out the fraudulent sales and I am -21% on Istock compared to Jan 2010!! :o
-
... and still people overthere are screaming for answers and asking for fair treatments and hoping istock will try to gain it's contributors trust back. Geez c'mon, isnt it obvious by now... THEY DONT GIVE AN EFF! The community is as good as gone and thats how they want it to be, the more divided and scattered we are, the better for them and the more they can get away with.
They make me vomit; every vein screams to ditch the greedy arrogant *insult removed* and stick by my principles, but for now i cant go without the income. ARGH! (no new stuff for them tho)
I like the idea of requesting an audit (pretty sure some stinking puddles would be opened). Would it really be that expensive if we do it with a couple of peeps? It sounds pretty do-able and about the only thing we can do without having to get very organized in a mass-pull-portfolio action or something alike...
Maybe we should post in an accountant forum for some more info..
-
I like the idea of requesting an audit (pretty sure some stinking puddles would be opened). Would it really be that expensive if we do it with a couple of peeps? It sounds pretty do-able and about the only thing we can do without having to get very organized in a mass-pull-portfolio action or something alike...
I made a comment about an audit in the angry-thread but I don't actually know how we could even go about doing that. Is that possible if they're a private company?
-
Somebody please explain to me here - how do I know they are not just putting this money in their pockets? Where is the proof of fraudulent downloads?
If it was here and there, like with dreamstime or bigstock, it seems reasonable. When it is on this scale and all at the same time for so many contributors, it seems highly suspicious. I need proof and detailed explanation of what happened and where exactly the 200 bucks that will be deducted from my account will go. Where is accountability? As far as I know they are partying on this money like there is no tomorrow.
-
I like the idea of requesting an audit (pretty sure some stinking puddles would be opened). Would it really be that expensive if we do it with a couple of peeps? It sounds pretty do-able and about the only thing we can do without having to get very organized in a mass-pull-portfolio action or something alike...
I made a comment about an audit in the angry-thread but I don't actually know how we could even go about doing that. Is that possible if they're a private company?
It always used to be part of the contract (and i presume it still is) that you could pay for an audit to check sales figures.
-
OMG
-
I like the idea of requesting an audit (pretty sure some stinking puddles would be opened). Would it really be that expensive if we do it with a couple of peeps? It sounds pretty do-able and about the only thing we can do without having to get very organized in a mass-pull-portfolio action or something alike...
I made a comment about an audit in the angry-thread but I don't actually know how we could even go about doing that. Is that possible if they're a private company?
It always used to be part of the contract (and i presume it still is) that you could pay for an audit to check sales figures.
I'm really a virgin when it comes to this sort of stuff... if we request an audit would they have to open their whole financial books? What info would we get..? Only whether there are irregularities, or more detailed info?
Many more questions but worth looking into imho...
-
I like the idea of requesting an audit (pretty sure some stinking puddles would be opened). Would it really be that expensive if we do it with a couple of peeps? It sounds pretty do-able and about the only thing we can do without having to get very organized in a mass-pull-portfolio action or something alike...
I made a comment about an audit in the angry-thread but I don't actually know how we could even go about doing that. Is that possible if they're a private company?
It always used to be part of the contract (and i presume it still is) that you could pay for an audit to check sales figures.
This?
15 c) Any and all disputes arising out of, under or in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation, its validity, interpretation, performance and breach, shall be submitted to arbitration in Calgary, Alberta, pursuant to the rules of the Arbitration Act (Alberta) in effect at the time arbitration is demanded.
-
Sooo, they only steal at Istock... right
Isn't this weird there is a designer who only downloaded files from Istock with a stolen credit card ??
-
Given the Jan/Feb clawback is much bigger than the one for December frauds (for me, and reading the forum for other people too), it makes Mr. Great Communicator Thompson's post in December ([url]http://www2.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url]) even more irritating.
I have ranted about that post in length to too many people IRL, haha. All of my non-photographer friends know all about Kelly Thompson's "you should thank us for working over Christmas break" post. It's just unbelievable.
C'mon everyone, you know the deduction of money doesn't make you unhappy.
Get out there and do some merry ho-hoing.
-
From what I've seen in the forums, most people including me are near double of last time. I think istock is lying to us again... its not like its the first time either. Seems like for all their 'hard work' (which no one knows a single detail about) in december to address the problem they are either grossly incompetent or don't care.
-
If an audit takes place, count me in, I will support.
-
Given the Jan/Feb clawback is much bigger than the one for December frauds (for me, and reading the forum for other people too), it makes Mr. Great Communicator Thompson's post in December ([url]http://www2.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&messageid=5474742[/url]) even more irritating.
I have ranted about that post in length to too many people IRL, haha. All of my non-photographer friends know all about Kelly Thompson's "you should thank us for working over Christmas break" post. It's just unbelievable.
C'mon everyone, you know the deduction of money doesn't make you unhappy.
Get out there and do some merry ho-hoing.
I have an old school iStock friend who hasn't been active in a few years, but I still update him on what's going on. All he does now is shake his head.
-
From what I've seen in the forums, most people including me are near double of last time. I think istock is lying to us again... its not like its the first time either. Seems like for all their 'hard work' (which no one knows a single detail about) in december to address the problem they are either grossly incompetent or don't care.
I'm leaning more towards "we need more money, weren't there a bunch more fraud purchases in Jan and Feb, wink, wink".
-
From what I've seen in the forums, most people including me are near double of last time. I think istock is lying to us again... its not like its the first time either. Seems like for all their 'hard work' (which no one knows a single detail about) in december to address the problem they are either grossly incompetent or don't care.
I think they're all of the above: Liars, incompetent, and don't care.
If an audit takes place, count me in, I will support.
Absolutely! Some of us have been asking for this for some time now. Before I had my forum privileges revoked, I remember participating in a discussion of that nature on the IS forums.
Audit, and - perhaps - class-action lawsuit. Because something ain't right (so many things, really), in a major way.
-
wondering when a whistle blower is gonna emerge from the inner circle of Istock/getty, * that would be some interesting reading
-
If an audit takes place, count me in, I will support.
Me too. Can't think of a better use of what $ they have left me.
-
Somebody please explain to me here - how do I know they are not just putting this money in their pockets? Where is the proof of fraudulent downloads?
Absolutely. It looks like pretty much every large or above download I had in January was labeled as "fraud". And coming from different size credit packs. They have provided absolutely no proof of this.
If I was one of the exclusive BDs losing $3k, $5k, etc., I would probably be on the phone with my attorney right now.
-
It's more than $5K. Yes.
Holy Hell, Sean. I am so sorry.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=24 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=24)
-
If I was one of the exclusive BDs losing $3k, $5k, etc., I would probably be on the phone with my attorney right now.
+1
-
If I was one of the exclusive BDs losing $3k, $5k, etc., I would probably be on the phone with my attorney right now.
+1
Maybe Yuri would share his legal team with those people who lost the most for a class action?
-
Posted by nico_blue:
Who is getting fired? The standard of response of "we are working on it/we will look into it/we will fix it" isn't going to cut it on this one.
+1
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=26 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=26)
And +1 to your comment too, Sue. RE: Yuri sharing his legal team for a class action.
-
I like the idea of requesting an audit (pretty sure some stinking puddles would be opened). Would it really be that expensive if we do it with a couple of peeps? It sounds pretty do-able and about the only thing we can do without having to get very organized in a mass-pull-portfolio action or something alike...
I made a comment about an audit in the angry-thread but I don't actually know how we could even go about doing that. Is that possible if they're a private company?
It always used to be part of the contract (and i presume it still is) that you could pay for an audit to check sales figures.
This?
15 c) Any and all disputes arising out of, under or in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation, its validity, interpretation, performance and breach, shall be submitted to arbitration in Calgary, Alberta, pursuant to the rules of the Arbitration Act (Alberta) in effect at the time arbitration is demanded.
---------------------------
There is audit language in the Getty-through-Istock contract, but don't think its in the Istock contract
-
Got the deductions as well. Only my best sellers were downloaded...
Last time was $10, this time over $30. My best sellers as well. Isn't that comforting, to know that someone has illegal and free copies of your best selling images? Granted, they could probably steal them elsewhere (i.e. somewhere they are being used), but still.
-
Somebody please explain to me here - how do I know they are not just putting this money in their pockets? Where is the proof of fraudulent downloads?
Absolutely. It looks like pretty much every large or above download I had in January was labeled as "fraud". And coming from different size credit packs. They have provided absolutely no proof of this.
If I was one of the exclusive BDs losing $3k, $5k, etc., I would probably be on the phone with my attorney right now.
I would be too. If a person is the victim of a crime (and anyone getting money clawed back from iStock is), that person still gets a police report or incident report, even if it's a case that they are still investigating and can't divulge some details. In the last months, besides the fraud and the site screw-up, they've had people that were fighting to collect subscription royalties, people with $0 royalty downloads, extended license bonuses, and I don't know what all. So I don't know why they expect that people will just accept their story of a fraud without the slightest bit of proof, given the history of these payment problems. I hope someone does force an audit on them.
-
The Getty contract has an audit requirement, but AFAIK not the iStock ASA.
However, the Getty audit provision is pretty lame (i.e. very favorable to Getty and not contributors)
"4.7 Audit Rights. You may employ a certified accountant or licensed
financial advisor to audit payments made to you during the previous 36
months, at your expense unless the audit reveals that Getty Images has
underpaid you by more than 7.5%, in which case Getty Images will
reimburse you for the actual and reasonable auditor’s fees. Getty Images
will honor one audit request per calendar year, upon 60 days notice. If an
underpayment is discovered in an audit, Getty Images will pay
Contributor interest based on the average one month LIBOR rate for the
period under audit on the amount due from the date payment was due,
correct the books and records, and will pay any amounts due (subject to
any applicable Royalty Deductions) within 30 days after the amount due
is finally determined. In the event that an audit reveals any overpayment
to Contributor, Contributor agrees that Getty Images may deduct the
overpayment from Contributor’s earnings."
Note the 60 day notice requirement. If something untoward were going on, two months is lots of time to tidy it away where it can't be found. Seems pretty toothless to me.
-
Even in an audit situation, I'm sure you would only be given access to your sales data, which, in effect means that unless there's an error in the math, you would have no case. I doubt that you would be given a chance to see all the sales for everyone for a time period, as this can be protected as "trade secrets". IN other words, your only recourse is to stop selling at istock. As if they care.
-
Got my email today. You'd think there would be some consistency in price of credits across the various downloads that were fraudulent. We have absolutely no recourse. Nice. What a rewarding relationship this is becoming. Can't wait to get reamed once again on March 17.
-
I am in for a class action or audit or whatever... Can't drive this right now though, bad time.
-
Jonathan Klein, Getty Images | MIDEM Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ennlPjrHC1s#ws)
Interesting interview here. Piracy and cannibalization are mentioned.
-
Jonathan Klein, Getty Images | MIDEM Interview ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ennlPjrHC1s#ws[/url])
Interesting interview here. Piracy and cannibalization are mentioned.
No wonder he's so excited about where the industry is. He just cut our take, and Getty is raking in a fortune off of our sweat and blood.
-
It's more than $5K. Yes.
Holy Hell, Sean. I am so sorry.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=24[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=24[/url])
Sorry to hear that Sean.
I strongly hope other high profile exclusives will ask for an audit themselves. This needs to be investigated on a large scale.
-
It's more than $5K. Yes.
Holy Hell, Sean. I am so sorry.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=24[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=24[/url])
Holy hell x2. OMFG. I can't believe how calm he is. I think I'd be out of my mind with rage.
-
By his clipped responses over there, I personally think he is everything but calm. But yea, OMFG.
-
By his clipped responses over there, I personally think he is everything but calm. But yea, OMFG.
Let's call it 'restrained' then. I'd be raging like a freaking lunatic and would most certainly have been banned.
What I also find interesting is that many people are saying this time it was more than the last, only iStock is claiming it wasn't as much. Hmmm...
-
...What I also find interesting is that many people are saying this time it was more than the last, only iStock is claiming it wasn't as much. Hmmm...
Are you insinuating that iStock may not tell the truth? :o How dare you ::)
-
Jonathan Klein, Getty Images | MIDEM Interview ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ennlPjrHC1s#ws[/url])
Interesting interview here. Piracy and cannibalization are mentioned.
No wonder he's so excited about where the industry is. He just cut our take, and Getty is raking in a fortune off of our sweat and blood.
I would go a little deeper. What does Istock say about Thinkstock which is a different business model? What has Istock said about the fraud despite reported downloads on Feb 28? What does he say in general terms about these things?
-
I got my letter today and I don't even have a port anymore! Where are they going to take the money from??
I was telling my brother about what happened and felt that it was just amazing what they are doing to their bread and butter. I said either Getty is making a deliberate effort to scuttle iS, or iS is just as stupid and greedy as they appear. I can only assume that they think because they are the number one microstock site, no one of any consequence is going to defect, so f**k the ones that do. Well, that will work only to a point. I don't think Calgary has come to that realization just yet. When they do, it will probably be too late.
They'll probably sue you or turn you over to a collection agency which will cost them more than if the just let it fly just to prove their point....and for next years tax deduction....lol
For the grand total of $1.08? I wouldn't put it past them! It will be interesting to see. I have no portfolio and don't plan to add any files. I have 7 credits in my account, which I am tempted to spend right soon.
I posted this on iS but don;t think it will last there, but has anyone thought about contacting the Canadian attorney general or the Dept. of Justice? Or would it have to go through the US because of Getty? Just a thought.
-
that sucks Sean. brutal. $5K....holy sh*t.
-
Geez! I see a red thread here or shall I say a classic Getty move. Noticed? lately everything bad tend to happen to IS? true or not, it just seam to happen, right? if its not one downer its another.
The move is that some time during 2011, IS will cease to exist, Getty will probably close it down or amalgamate it into something else and now it just simply paves the way for this move.
Sad!
-
I just watched Klein's interview. pretty good spin suggesting that Getty allows artists to retain copyright. um, as though it's their decision.
Klein nonchalantly threw in the cannibalization of images with the descriptor, "and that's okay" by comparing image theft to music piracy. comparisons to the music industry are so opportunistic. on paper you could compare almost any two web-based industries to some extent. but the music and image content industries are fundamentally different, with entirely different types of customers and entirely different modes of end usage. there are a lot of major musicians in the world today who understand that their greatest asset is the exclusive nature of their product, even if only for a short period of time after a new release. it truly is up to us as artists to advocate for ourselves and our work. but that means doing so professionally and in an organized fashion. not reactively and in a way that makes us look ridiculous. we're business people as much as we're artists. you want a porsche with all its quality, bragging rights and bells and whistles. well, you don't get porsches out of sweatshops.
it's very frustrating to see executives telling me that they value my work so much that they want it for less, AND they think I shouldn't value my work enough to get upset over it.
I'm an admitted idealist. I can't help but think that it doesn't have to be this way. I know there are a lot of amazing artists in administrative positions within agencies. I hope they understand that as an artist, I'm going to protect my nest egg, not Getty's. artists are a necessary evil in business. we're a thorn in the side of CEOs everywhere and one in particular it seems. if they could get monkeys to take good pictures, we'd probably be out of work altogether. and it doesn't have to be that way. Getty needs to take a stand and attach value to our work by protecting it. make customers proud of buying our product over a lesser-quality product. create demand for a better product. market us as a better product. prove we're a better product and ensure the production of a better product by keeping their producers happy. that's where the sustainability is for all of us.
-
^ They used to hire
monkeys, er students, to shoot assignments for them and they would retain all the rights.
But I guess that business model was unsustainable, since they can pay us so much less :-\
-
Jonathan Klein, Getty Images | MIDEM Interview ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ennlPjrHC1s#ws[/url])
Interesting interview here. Piracy and cannibalization are mentioned.
As his lips were moving, this was all I could think of:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-audio-15393376-sound-artist-s-sh-t.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-audio-15393376-sound-artist-s-sh-t.php)
-
-Snip-
I'm an admitted idealist. I can't help but think that it doesn't have to be this way. I know there are a lot of amazing artists in administrative positions within agencies. I hope they understand that as an artist, I'm going to protect my nest egg, not Getty's. artists are a necessary evil in business. we're a thorn in the side of CEOs everywhere and one in particular it seems. - Snip -
In my opinion, we are over a barrel if we are exclusive or independent. Any agency can change the royalty structure at any point. An agency has to come along that decides it wants to pay us fairly and it has to be large enough that it can't be purchased. The only company that would fit this criteria that might be interested is Google but the microstock market would likely have to be much larger for them to be interested.
-
I found myself drifting too - but I was becoming fixated on the little white stain on his cardigan.
I didn't realise he was South African until I just heard him speak. I thought every article I'd read said he was English (not that it matters - I was just surprised).
-
sure, Getty is just the obvious agency in this situation. my point is also that migrating between agencies in order to force fairness in the treatment of contributors is probably too small a move. going non-exclusive isn't enough. if anything is going to change things, it will be a truly organized movement by artists to protect the value of our work. and that means consolidating efforts and sticking to it, even with temporary income losses taken out of principle. I don't see that happening. so if Getty or any other agency wants to pioneer the movement by making a public statement by fairly valuing its producers, by all means they should do it and brag about it all they want. I don't care if their principles become one of their commodities, as long as the motivation behind the principles is sound and just and our work is valued as it should be.
-
Closing down! its a classic, the Getty plan is to close it down, forget any other speculations.
-
@SNP
For an organized movement by artists to work, the top 20% which likely makes 80% of the money would need to be independent so they could protest rate changes in solidarity. I just don't see the exclusive black diamonds jumping ship until the ship has sunk. If it sinks. It's just too much work to upload thousands files to 10+ websites.
-
Would it matter if they closed it down? Surely all the contributors would disseminate across other agencies and the buyers would follow. The contributors would just make their income elsewhere, and the buyers would still get what they want. They certainly wouldn't suddenly be paying mid-stock or trad-stock prices at Getty just because Getty dumped the microstock model.
For that reason, I don't see why it would be logical for them to close it down.
The only way that would make sense to me is if they plan to snap up and close down every microstock agency in existence. My hope is that the other agencies will stand firm and not sell out to them, on principle.
-
@SNP
For an organized movement by artists to work, the top 20% which likely makes 80% of the money would need to be independent so they could protest rate changes in solidarity. I just don't see the exclusive black diamonds jumping ship until the ship has sunk. If it sinks. It's just too much work to upload thousands files to 10+ websites.
I agree. that's the problem. and that's why if/when I choose to remove exclusivity...it will not be with any idyllic notions of things being fabulous elsewhere. I think the whole industry is watching and Getty has its eye on monopolizing microstock. together we have some power, but you're right, only with the big wigs on board. that's a lot of income to risk without a strong mobilization of content and without the commitment from major contributors.
-
Would it matter if they closed it down? Surely all the contributors would disseminate across other agencies and the buyers would follow. The contributors would just make their income elsewhere, and the buyers would still get what they want. They certainly wouldn't suddenly be paying mid-stock or trad-stock prices at Getty just because Getty dumped the microstock model.
For that reason, I don't see why it would be logical for them to close it down.
The only way that would make sense to me is if they plan to snap up and close down every microstock agency in existence. My hope is that the other agencies will stand firm and not sell out to them, on principle.
No youre misunderstanding! when I say closing-down, I mean Getty will probably amalgamate them into something else, poor IS, has always been a thorn in the side and here is a brillant paving the way chance.
Seen it a thousand times over the past 20 years. Same pattern.
-
Closing down! its a classic, the Getty plan is to close it down, forget any other speculations.
I don't think this is true. but I'll certainly apologize if you're correct. they've pushed far too many growth initiatives (albeit poorly) to indicate intent to close the site.
-
I dont believe in the 'selling scenario' either. Selling the most well known and best selling milk cow in the industry and let it become a competitor again? makes no sense to me...
close it down so the MS customer base hups over to the competitors (not TS)? makes just as little sense... then again very little of what they do makes sense of course...
-
NO! not selling! amalgamating the whole mess into lets say TS or Punchstock, whatever.
-
I'm speechless. We pay over 80% in commissions for IS to take care of the selling part of the business, and not only they don't control the frauds, when they happen they pass all the damage to the contributor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this even legal?!
-
Everywhere I look these days on the net I'm seeing ads for Thinkstock. Used to see ads for iS .... but rarely anymore
-
Asking for an audit , if agreed by istock, would normally drive to an agreement in which, if the audit goes all right and nothing is found to be wrong, the contributors would pay the expenses of it. Otherwise it should be istock to pay. They would probably also set a certain amount of money to differentiate everyday business accounting errors with “fraud” . For example, silver sub sales are not payed correctly, we have raised tickets, they have told us they would address the problem and nothing has happened yet and I don't expect anything to happen, the amount is probably too low.
What could be done IMHO was to ask for legal proof of the fraud. I don't think they can pull off royalties without legally demonstrating that the illegal DL have taken place and the actions that are being carried away to i)prosecute fraudsters, ii)solve the problem, iii)protect our IP, iv)insure the company against future frauds, etc.
BTW: istock is a cash cow and its numbers have saved the crisis pretty well. It is a business that gets paid in advance (in cash) and pays suppliers with delay. It finances itself pretty well. I don't think merging it with other companies is the idea but a sell out or more likely IPO. The problem is getting a good price for it. Money is still very cautious and looking for bargains in the market. Credit doesn't flow with ease to the companies and many are still in distress. Mainly those are the companies being traded in the market right now. Difficult to believe that istock is in such problems when it is clearly short in manpower, don't think overheads can't be that high. The moment for big operations when everything is bought at any price is not here yet. Same for the IPO, you need consumer confidence to be higher, you need to sell shares to common people to achieve a successful IPO and we are not at that moment either.
In fact it seems to me that they are trying two things at the same time. What I said about istock and remaining in the sector with Thinkstock, etc. That could explain why they are driving base micro buyers to them. They know the business and have seen this company grow. At the beginning you need to offer content a low prices, and get loyal buyers. As the content gets better they rise prices and also get more selected buyers, and the story repeats.
There is one saying in private equity. It is easier to sell two companies and double what you invested in each one than selling only one company and getting the same profit.
-
I think RayW's suggestion of contacting the Canadian attorney general or dept of justice is a valid avenue for someone to seriously explore. It would force them to reveal the police reports (if any) and other valuable information
I'm not involved in this, but have been watching closely. I feel for all of you. Truly.
-
It looks like everything they have done in the past few years is geared towards selling the site. I think it would be madness to merge istock with Getty but I thought they were crazy closing StockXpert. I just don't understand why they have allowed so many serious problems to happen with istock when they seem to be working towards selling it off. I don't think they want to kill istock but their incompetence has astonished me. Wouldn't they get a much better price for a site with few problems that had reasonably satisfied buyers and suppliers? Surely potential buyers are going to want to pay a lot less for a site that has a tarnished reputation?
-
I got around 200$ of fraudolent sales in Jan....at least according to istock as I have to assume they are not fooling me!
They didn't even provide a total so I had to do the math by myself!!
Count me in for an audit.
Other than wondering which action istock is taking against this fraud, what I really don't understand is why they take our money back! Aren't credit card companies and istock insured?
It's like pretending that Visa or Mastercard claims money back from a shop owner because his customer paid with a cloned credit card. I never saw this happening and in all honesty I can't believe different rules apply to istock.
Some years ago I had my natwest debit card cloned but they refunded me all the money that have been stolen from my account.
-
I would really welcome a new owner of IS and preferably a "creative owner" someone who isnt a pawnbroker.
-
Oh, c'mon now, play fair.
They have to claw back the money they need to fund the staff junket in London.
I'm afraid the little credibility they they may have retained disappeared with their integrity when I found the staff are staying in a London hotel which costs, at minimum, double the amount [1] of the place I stay in central London, which is perfectly adequate and very central.
That's just wasteful and rubbing our noses in it.
[1] and that seemed to be some sort of special deal [2], still double and upwards the cost.
[2] through a link on the lypse thread. 'Probably' iStock are getting a kickback from the hotel from delegates booking that 'special rate'.
-
By his clipped responses over there, I personally think he is everything but calm. But yea, OMFG.
Let's call it 'restrained' then. I'd be raging like a freaking lunatic and would most certainly have been banned.
What I also find interesting is that many people are saying this time it was more than the last, only iStock is claiming it wasn't as much. Hmmm...
No, Andrew said that February was 10% of January, which it was, because it looks like the fraudsters went on vacation 2/1-2/27.
I'm not sure what an audit will reveal. They presumably have a list of rejected numbers, it's easy enough to cross-reference those with the accounts that used them and list all the downloaded images for those accounts.
-
Well, I think an audit would reveal quite a bit.
Yesterday I watched my total sales number increase and decrease several times when no sales were happening. Why?
With all of the site problems are we really supposed to believe the finances (our finances) are being properly managed? Even if it's not intentional, I wonder how many sales figures errors there are. And commission errors that, unless contributors notice the problem, fall through the cracks.
-
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.
-
... They presumably have a list of rejected numbers, it's easy enough to cross-reference those with the accounts that used them and list all the downloaded images for those accounts.
What, IS had the list before or after the fact? Well, obviously they had a list after the fraud was committed, duh, but that's mostly happening this way, that card holders are unaware until sh!t happens. So this scenario is not different than any other fraud happening anywhere online.
What I don't get, is the sheer amount this time. As someone previously threw some numbers out there this could have been a volume of over $3 million. I'm sure IS has a good revenue stream going on a daily basis but those numbers are coming from new signups alone?
Does IS really have these many new customer sign-ups so it wouldn't raise a red flag for such a sales volume or are they like "Thank god that more people are buying, let's just hope it's not fraudulent charges".
And again why is this happening at IS only on such a large scale?
I could bet that there are many other agencies out there that have the same security (or less) in place for new signups and nothing of this scale happened there.
At this rate, I'm expecting another wave of charge backs by April or May. It doesn't appear that IS has learned from the first big wave in December. Why would it change now...?
-
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.
...and utter,utter, bullsh*t. There doesnt exist a valid reason for doing this.
-
Anyone else notice that Kelly's title is still COO and not CEO? He was never promoted to CEO. It's poorly thought out answers like the crap he posted just a short while ago that speak volumes to his poor leadership ability. It's no wonder no one at Getty has promoted him. I wouldn't either. In fact, I think (as another istocker stated in the forums as well), they need a good cleaning at the top levels of iStock. Things are clearly not going right and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the person running the show there. He's not cut out for the job.
-
Anyone else notice that Kelly's title is still COO and not CEO? He was never promoted to CEO. It's poorly thought out answers like the crap he posted just a short while ago that speak volumes to his poor leadership ability. It's no wonder no one at Getty has promoted him. I wouldn't either. In fact, I think (as another istocker stated in the forums as well), they need a good cleaning at the top levels of iStock. Things are clearly not going right and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the person running the show there. He's not cut out for the job.
I suspect this post may 'disappear' very soon in reply to KKT's post:
Posted by Ildi_Papp
"I doubt that. Besides not telling why you took back the royalties back from constributors, which you most likely refer in this specific posts, you do a lot of things (as the CEO or at least as part of iStock administration team), which are beyond any reasonable explanation, which will make me understand, why are you doing those.
You can fold it into lot's of soft logical phrases made out of empty words, which will sound like the voices of politicians desiring to get reelected, to shortly afterwards lead the people, who "understood" these words, into the next crisis.
That's about all you can do and that is what you get paid for anyway. You are the one who led the loyal long-term constributors of iStock into falling download numbers and being confronted with disgruntled customers leave or opening frustrating threads in the discussion forum.
Can't you see that iStock is practically falling apart, even though your salary might rise? Or is it that iStock is for you just a sum of numbers, which somehow determine your salary, while for most of the constributors it is something different?
Here is one possible guess, why you are doing this: The copyright holder is the constributor and maybe from definition of law you need the copyright holder to have a "loss" to make it possible to sue or pursue the thieves, because maybe if the copyright holder got payed by you (and the copyright holder), you cannot do anything (within court) against the "thieves".
This explanation although still does not explain, how download patterns as from sjlocke can stay unnoticed in your iT department. That of course is only right, if the downloads weren't made from old accounts and splitted over hundreds accounts using hundreds of different credit card numbers. Although you might have found it unusual in that case that suddenly hundreds of new accounts are opened, filled with thousands of dollars and starting to download files in high amounts right away.
But i am pretty sure your find another meaningless explanation for that too. Or you just could invent another one.
... boring. Go to a university, learn how to program and help to fix the search. Or sit down at a phone and do customer support. In these cases you at least do something useful, which would make sense to pay your salary for."
-
... They presumably have a list of rejected numbers, it's easy enough to cross-reference those with the accounts that used them and list all the downloaded images for those accounts.
What, IS had the list before or after the fact? Well, obviously they had a list after the fraud was committed, duh, but that's mostly happening this way, that card holders are unaware until sh!t happens. So this scenario is not different than any other fraud happening anywhere online.
No, I was saying that an audit would not reveal anything that we don't already know as the process of making those lists of purchases should be relatively straightforward.
-
Jonathan Ross - other thread:
Hi All,
It seems slightly unbalanced that our credits are covering their mistakes. I wouldn't mind if it was a one time deal but are we going to start seeing these every month or two? Must be awesome to own a company that when you don't conduct your business in a proper manner that it doesn't cost you a cent, I want to own a company like that Cheesy
Best,
Jonathan
Exactly, this sounds like a risk free business opportunity. Maybe iStock is the pioneer of this kind of operations.
Simply do whatever you want and hand down the losses to your suppliers since obviously it's their fault that the buyers didn't pay.
Saying it like that, it sounds pretty weird. lol.
-
No, I was saying that an audit would not reveal anything that we don't already know as the process of making those lists of purchases should be relatively straightforward.
I don't disagree on what you are saying, I'm just skeptical about the unverified situation of "what we know".
We know as much as iStock wants us to know. Or are they completely straight forward with us?
Would they have to fear an audit by Lise Gagne, Yuri or you? We won't know until an audit is done and everything was in order.
As long as this is not happening, there will be plenty of room for speculations and conspiracy theories.
Transparency is the key and we all know there is none.
They lied to buyers and they lied to us in the past.
Before, IS had the reputation of screwing things up on a larger scale most of the time they came up with something new (web site revamps, search "improvements" the list is long and we know it) but now they keep having a severe financial situation going on that couldn't affect us any more directly and still (although the second time now, even on a larger scale) nothing is done to protect themselves or us.
By now IS should have gotten insurance for such events but you know what? I think no insurance is going to approve them once they see what abunch of semi-pros are running the security there. I'm stunned.
-
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.
-
I really cannot understand how these fraudulent purchases work. If I register myself at IS with fake credit card, what woudl I benefit from buying a lot of images from different contributors?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
This sounds very fishy indeed. I'd very much like IS to comment why they think people commiting credit frauds are downloading images.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I'm not sure this was mentioned but how long would that number of files take to download. It must be days?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Why and more important WHO? would need and find a profit in stolen images?
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D
-
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 ;D
hahahahahaha!
-
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.
-
Trouble is that when you have a day with good d/l now, instead of celebrating you worry ... are they frauds or for real
-
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.
-
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.
-
Posted by PeskyMonkey:
No contract or agreement is ever water-tight in the eyes of lawyers Stacey.
Posted by stacey_newman:
sorry, but that's just silly.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=51 (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?
-
Posted by PeskyMonkey:
No contract or agreement is ever water-tight in the eyes of lawyers Stacey.
Posted by stacey_newman:
sorry, but that's just silly.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=51[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=51[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=49)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
I would really welcome a new owner of IS and preferably a "creative owner" someone who isnt a pawnbroker.
+1,000,000^
-
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!
-
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).
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1819074)
and here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1259118 (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1259118)
and here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=570106 (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=570106)
and here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=717739 (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.
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1121071)
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=1)
(Provided the NDA isn't just a 'gagging order'.)
-
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.
-
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 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.)
-
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.
-
The NDA will most likely be applied only to what is discussed at the meeting.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Agree -- since 1997, and I've had to sign NDAs with every client, agency or company I've worked for. They're kind of a way of life these days. I'm sure their admins and inspectors have to sign one. I would expect the iStock Chosen Five to have to sign something like that -- but it would be wholly unfair and wrong if it was broad enough to prohibit them from giving their opinion or from speaking their mind in the forums, provided they don't disclose proprietary information, or information that is part of an on-going investigation with law enforcement authorities (if they are even involved - I don't know if iS has ever definitively stated that they are). If they refuse to sign it . . . well, that will say something right there.
-
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 (http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-403-265-3062)
-
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.
Just for a change why don't you put some thought into your comments instead of what looks like a 'hope the iStock management read this grovelling statement' type reply. How could this possibly be a "bridge of communication between HQ and contributors" the contributors are being asked to sign a NDA ::)
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.
-
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!!
-
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.
Just for a change why don't you put some thought into your comments instead of what looks like a 'hope the iStock management read this grovelling statement' type reply. How could this possibly be a "bridge of communication between HQ and contributors" the contributors are being asked to sign a NDA ::)
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.
I'm not on the side of TPTB, but knowing of someone whose (small, UK) business went under [1], several years ago, because of credit card fraud (originating in the Far East - Thailand, IIRC) which police and his credit card transaction company said there was nothing he could have done to prevent, I'm willing to cut them a little slack on the fraud business. (Yeah, I know, easy for me to say, who hardly lost anything.) If what they've been telling us so far is true, then it is an ongoing investigation and they will not be at liberty to tell the full story until it's all sorted, which could be months or years down the line. IF what they're saying is the truth, I guess his is the only way they can relay this message to the masses.
[1] which though a very small company had an incredible ripple effect on several others when it went down, eventually being a considerable contributory factor in their demise.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
They have shot themselves in the proverbial foot with their actions of the past twelve months
As kelvinjay once said (pre-badge), not only have they shot themselves in the foot, but they then reloaded and shot themselves in the OTHER foot. I miss that guy. He's no where to be seen these days. :(
-
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.
-
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.
I'm with you and I agree. I don't CARE about the fraud details.
Contributors SHOULD NOT have to pay for the credit card fraud, period! Nowhere else does that happen. Now that top gun contributors are making threats and talk of class action lawsuits and audits are being bantied, of course TPTB are going to appear to extend a reachout. Bottom line...5 people telling me things are OK does not change ANYTHING! Contributors are still getting money taken back!
The fraud can continue for however long they need it to to catch the b*stards. That still doesn't justify taking money from contributors!
edited in bold to clarify
-
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.
-
I have no idea whether BigStock's quickly stopped fraud was of the same nature and by the same perps. (Anyone know?)
Well, we know it took place during the exact same time period. In fact, when it BigStock got hit, it coincided exactly with a lull in fraud activity at Istock after the staff got back from Christmas holidays. We also know it was the same sales pattern - largest available size, and around the same daily quantity (judging from my fraud sales) as the ones at Istock. It went on for two days, then stopped. And resumed at Istock.
Do we know for sure it was the same people? No. The sites may know, but all we have to go on is deductive reasoning, which points to the same group.
-
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 have no idea whether BigStock's quickly stopped fraud was of the same nature and by the same perps. (Anyone know?)
Well, we know it took place during the exact same time period. In fact, when it BigStock got hit, it coincided exactly with a lull in fraud activity at Istock after the staff got back from Christmas holidays. We also know it was the same sales pattern - largest available size, and around the same daily quantity (judging from my fraud sales) as the ones at Istock. It went on for two days, then stopped. And resumed at Istock.
Do we know for sure it was the same people? No. The sites may know, but all we have to go on is deductive reasoning, which points to the same group.
Yup, seems to.
-
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 :D
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.
-
what I find laughable though is this.......
great, the brass at iStock obviously realize the wheel on the wagon are * loose right now....bad PR, lost finances (not on their part)....the silence has been deafening which in turn has only fueled the fire so to speak....so the have the brainstorm to have a conference call.....with 5 members????? I'm sorry, how many contributors are there on iStock?? 5 isn't even a representative figure by comparison. While there are time zones etc to take account of, I'm sure contributors would be more than happy to oblige....and then there's the NDA. These are are pointed out earlier, common business practice... Ive beta tested action sets and always have to sign one. I would hope that the iStock NDA would relate to legal proceedings or details related to the investigation which wouldn't be common knowledge, which at a later date could have bearing on any criminal proceedings. Anything more than that and this conference call is just a farce designed to quell the quickly brewing firestorm
-
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]
-
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.
-
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
Oh, I'm sure the wording is vague on that issue, like everything else, but I think that is related to promotional purposes, not choosing to allow theft in a sting operation.
-
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
-
I always find it strange that someone would bother with fake credit cards to buy photos. I think of many other things I'd grab first, especially when you look at the number of pirate sites full of stock photos. last time I look Heroturko was pushing the big 4 for traffic. why not just grab a pirate copy if that is your inclination.
-
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....
-
I always find it strange that someone would bother with fake credit cards to buy photos. I think of many other things I'd grab first, especially when you look at the number of pirate sites full of stock photos. last time I look Heroturko was pushing the big 4 for traffic. why not just grab a pirate copy if that is your inclination.
There's always the 'disgruntled employee' or 'pissed off contributor' theories.
-
...What I also find interesting is that many people are saying this time it was more than the last, only iStock is claiming it wasn't as much. Hmmm...
Are you insinuating that iStock may not tell the truth? :o How dare you ::)
In my personal experience, there was more supposed fraud this time than last. Obviously on a much smaller scale than a black diamond. I'm really sorry to hear this Sean. I hope you can mitigate some of these losses with legal backing, and perhaps an independent audit.
-
If everyone that has a 5D Mark II interviews a contributor about this whole fiasco, I'll edit all of the footage into a documentary! Maybe if we're on TV iStock will pay attention! ;D
-
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
-
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
Ugh. Sucks you can't just be happy, huh? But very. I'd be very worried.
-
Ugh. Sucks you can't just be happy, huh? Yep.But very. I'd be very worried. I am.
:(
-
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
Dont worry! They got it fixed now. Tomorrow is the last clawback. Right?
-
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1)
-
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1[/url])
You gotta be kidding me,...AGAIN.... well at least they get to keep them this time, the Admin said no more clawbacks...
-
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1[/url])
You gotta be kidding me,...AGAIN.... well at least they get to keep them this time, the Admin said no more clawbacks...
Actually admin said no more Mass clawbacks. Nothing to stop them doing it on an individual basis.
-
Actually admin said no more Mass clawbacks. Nothing to stop them doing it on an individual basis.
They said they had *no plans* for anymore mass clawbacks. Of course, they are probably not planning on anymore mass fraud either.
-
So we got royaltee cut, now we have to wonder if our XL downloads are legit. "They" have done a good job at making people believe that being paid in microstock is wrong
-
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
I don't understand why people keep posting these threads in the forums like a lighting rod. Why not just keep quiet rather than draw attention and give them yet another excuse to investigate more deeply and take more money away.
-
Is there GST / HST or PST collected when credit packages are bought?
-
Yes, proper Canadian taxes are added to Canadian purchases.
-
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1[/url])
You gotta be kidding me,...AGAIN.... well at least they get to keep them this time, the Admin said no more clawbacks...
the thread you posted isn't an official confirmation of unusual dls. they also did a search/best match push of some kind, which could explain increased sales. I have had my BWE by far and felt very concerned. but I've opened a support ticket just in case.
-
Yeah I had quite a few XLs dls myself yesterday and its worrying. However this Heke guy told Sean his XLs, were OK, so I hope mine are.
;D there is always a silver lining!
-
Actually admin said no more Mass clawbacks. Nothing to stop them doing it on an individual basis.
They said they had *no plans* for anymore mass clawbacks. Of course, they are probably not planning on anymore mass fraud either.
I don't believe anything I read from admin any more. I'm sure they will do whatever it takes to maximize their profits. If they are still receiving fraudulent payments, I will be shocked if there isn't another clawback.
-
finally got a reply to the email I sent to contributor relations (I emailed directly as opposed to going through the iStock webform)....rather strongly voiced my dissaproval over the clawback of earnings a second time...and the fact that it happened again. My reply? well to me its all a bunch of spin.....shouldnt have expected much less I suppose
Hello Christopher,
Thank you very much for your message and sorry for the delay in response.
We are currently taking many precautions protect your files and to ensure that our Contributors files are not being used illegally online or elsewhere. Kindly note it is in your best interest as well as iStockphoto's that we do this. We continue to draw on both our own knowledge and help from outside sources to develop new solutions. We continue to draw on both our own knowledge and help from outside sources to develop new solutions as well as improve old ones.
Christopher, if you do see any files being used illegally online please e-mail our Compliance Enforcement Team at [email protected]
As per your message, if the amount withdrawn is going to affect you negatively you can e-mail [email protected] and have the royalty removal broken up over a 6 month period.
With your request to only use PayPal or restricting purchases to Direct Deposit or Payment Card Transfer – via credit card this would be nearly impossible as many of our buyers are worldwide. There are certain countries that do not have Interact or PayPal placing these restrictions on buyers could impact sales.
In iStock’s original e-mail we state that iStockphoto is responsible for refunding any full purchase like this to the card holder's financial institution; therefore iStock does foot the bill. The refund issued is the full amount that was paid out to iStock – a portion of which was paid out in royalties. Kindly note that we cannot pay out royalties from funds that did not exist in the first place. We are not issuing this royalty removal to penalize artists within the iStockphoto site.
To clarify the fraud on the site occurred in the following manner: Someone uses credit cards to purchase credits on our site. These purchases are authorized by the credit card company, but not authorized by the credit card holder. The Fraudster then downloaded images using the credits. We actively find these fraudulent purchases and close the accounts. At the same time, customers discover charges on their credit card that they did not authorize. The customer notifies the Credit Card Company, who then in turn removes the transaction amount from iStockphoto because it was a “card not present” purchase. This is what was occurring. As there has been some confusion regarding the word “unauthorized” we want to make it clear that the Credit Card transactions were authorized by the bank, but were not authorized by the actual card holders themselves. There is no typical insurance that will safeguard against this type of fraud.
We understand the disappointment and frustration this has caused. It is not an easy time right now. We are working hard to safeguard the site from this kind of problem.
Ordinarily, iStock does not take back royalties after verifying a fraudulent download. However, because of the scale of this fraud, we have to take the unfortunate step of removing royalties. Any royalties attributed to your account from verified fraudulent downloads will be removed March 17, 2011.
I apologize for any inconvenience this causes.
Sincerely,
Alyshia
Contributor Relations
iStockphoto
Toll Free: 1-866-478-6251
PH: (403) 265-3062
-
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
I don't understand why people keep posting these threads in the forums like a lighting rod. Why not just keep quiet rather than draw attention and give them yet another excuse to investigate more deeply and take more money away.
Yes, right. Because if we ignore it then it will just go away.
-
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
I don't understand why people keep posting these threads in the forums like a lighting rod. Why not just keep quiet rather than draw attention and give them yet another excuse to investigate more deeply and take more money away.
Yes, right. Because if we ignore it then it will just go away.
Very simply.... now we all dont know if a sale is genuine or not, more so when we see a spat of sales like that which in the past two instances have turned out to be fraudulent sales. Of course one is going to worry... how long can we afford to have income generated from these sales clawed back.
Do people honestly think that if we dont mention anything about large sales trends on a forum that iStock wont notice? that they're not (we hope) watching and verifying that the sales are genuine....
Ironically, although I take Lisa's reply to be a somewhat sarcastic comment, I think it reflects how many of us think iStock seems to have been dealing with this to date
-
Yeah I had quite a few XLs dls myself yesterday and its worrying. However this Heke guy told Sean his XLs, were OK, so I hope mine are.
;D there is always a silver lining!
Do you think they would tell the guy who was nominated to represent the community that there were more fraudulent downloads the day before the big call?
If it was fraud, I think they're going to cover it this time :)
-
Do people honestly think that if we dont mention anything about large sales trends on a forum that iStock wont notice? that they're not (we hope) watching and verifying that the sales are genuine....
Ironically, although I take Lisa's reply to be a somewhat sarcastic comment, I think it reflects how many of us think iStock seems to have been dealing with this to date
Yes, I was being sarcastic :). And you make an excellent point about how Istock is dealing with these problems.
-
Regarding this reply I wonder what other security measures they take besides card number, card holder's name and the 3-digit security code on the back of the card.
Since the criminals obviously don't have the physical card (most likely), wouldn't that be just an open invitation for credit card theft?
At the gas station I have to enter my billing ZIP code to authorize the transaction. Why couldn't there also be a pin for credit cards like they use on debit cards?
Sure, I assume that lists of stolen credit cards contain even the billing ZIP code information, it would just make it a bit harder and also the price higher for criminals who want to purchase such stolen information.
I understand you can't stop it from happening just make it a lot harder so there are less cases of this happening.
The credit card system now is so weak, the credit card companies should eat their own losses and not the companies that delivered goods or services. If goods or services haven't been delivered, then they can take it back IMO.
-
Erm... isn't the call happening today? I thought it was starting at 7am Calgary time today but maybe I misread. Or maybe the five shop stewards are giving the management a hard time :o
-
For now, using that CSV is supposed to be security on cards....obviously its a flawed system when it comes to transactions where the card is not physically present. My mastercard that I had prior to moving to Canada from Ireland in 2005 already had the chip[ on it, and was a separate pin to the one on the magnetic stripe. Legally I don't think iStock could ask for your PIN number... I also feel the majority of people would refuse to provide that information.
For subscription holders, I think they could implement a system similar to that of Paypal when a credit card is added to the account; a small charge is debited to the card, usually something between 11c and $1...the money is never actually taken but I'm assuming the CC company authorizes the transaction or whatever behind the scenes. What puzzles me is Paypal can provide insurance for payments / purchases online.... what stops iStock from implementing a similar system.
I have to admit that its the first time I've heard of hearing about entering your zip code.... but I totally agree with you when you say it needs to be a lot harder in order to prevent it happening. CC fraud is costing these companies hundreds of millions each year....
what gets me is that even if the people perpetrating the crime are caught....they get a small sentence that's practically a slap on the wrist and probably never serve the full sentence either...
as for that conference call.... I think iStock know they need to quiet the unrest and will hand out enough spin to make people quiet down....I dont think for a moment that we'll get any relevant information that will show an end to this fiasco
-
I have to admit that its the first time I've heard of hearing about entering your zip code.... but I totally agree with you when you say it needs to be a lot harder in order to prevent it happening. CC fraud is costing these companies hundreds of millions each year....
I've been to gas stations where they ask for your zip.
There's a thread up now...
-
There's a thread up now...
Thank you for that post.
-
I have a merchant account for selling prints at art shows, and I'm required to get each customer's zip code in order to authorize each sale.
-
There's a thread up now...
Thank you for that post.
Thanks Sean!
-
They seem to have brainwashed the contributors.
I'm still angry at IS for the reductions. I can't understand where they manage to put the 83% of my image sales and yet not able to cover some frauds with the money. GRRRRRRRRRRRR
-
Thanks Sean, and to the others who took part.
Are you able to say whether the fraud sales are continuing at the moment, or have been stopped?
-
Looks as if the meeting was as expected. IGetty states they are working on it, but no promises. No real surprises.
-
Hi All,
The one area that surprises me is that with 12 years of sales at Getty this has never happened to me before and still does not seem to be a problem with their RM/RF macro collections. I don't understand why this is only a problem with their Istock collection. I am sure there is a good answer but why never before with the other areas of their business models.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi All,
The one area that surprises me is that with 12 years of sales at Getty this has never happened to me before and still does not seem to be a problem with their RM/RF macro collections. I don't understand why this is only a problem with their Istock collection. I am sure there is a good answer but why never before with the other areas of their business models.
Best,
Jonathan
I am under the impression that the immediacy of newer site reporting shows things that may be occurring but not obvious on slower moving 'traditional' type sites.
Perry, don't insult me with your 'brainwashing' crap.
-
Posted by sjlocke:
rogermexico's forum statement of no future withdrawals planned was made clearer in that iStock will be covering the expense of royalties for our illegal downloads while they implement these measures. That does not preclude a withdrawal in the future, but from the current discussion, it sounds highly unlikely.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=315162&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=315162&page=1)
So ... Vague promises and no guarantees then. Just as feared.
And the rest of your post (and those of others) don't sound much more firm or reassuring. Sounds like lots of promises and some details were provided to you and the other four on the call, but ... So what? They've been working on various issues since December (search, the fraud, etc.) and we're now in mid-March. Seems to me no matter what they may have said to you, it is still going to be a miracle if they can get any fruit borne of anything before, oh, let's say (to be generous) the end of the year? Given how slowly things seem to roll out in any true working order up there?
Not very reassuring. Overall. At all.
-
Perry, don't insult me with your 'brainwashing' crap.
Sorry, I sounded perhaps harsher than I meant.
What I meant was that everyone are basically saying the same things that IS is saying, almost like they have forgotten that making contributors pay for their mistakes is wrong.
Did anyone of you ask why they think it's the contributors that have to pay for their mistakes?
Now when I think about it, it's propably impossible to criticize anything at IS forums without getting moderated.
-
Hi All,
The one area that surprises me is that with 12 years of sales at Getty this has never happened to me before and still does not seem to be a problem with their RM/RF macro collections. I don't understand why this is only a problem with their Istock collection. I am sure there is a good answer but why never before with the other areas of their business models.
Best,
Jonathan
The point is... Did Getty report sales daily? Di buyers pre-payed for their images? With a delayed system payment is way easier to avoid credit card fraud.
-
Perry, don't insult me with your 'brainwashing' crap.
Sorry, I sounded perhaps harsher than I meant.
What I meant was that everyone are basically saying the same things that IS is saying, almost like they have forgotten that making contributors pay for their mistakes is wrong.
Did anyone of you ask why they think it's the contributors that have to pay for their mistakes?
Now when I think about it, it's propably impossible to criticize anything at IS forums without getting moderated.
There appears to be great 'controlling' job going on right now on the thread for the conference call. They are up to four pages now and, I kid you not, there is not one single negative/scepitical post listed, not a single one. ISP contributors might not be brainwashed but their certainly being controlled in what they are allowed to say. I posted a polite 'disappointed' comment a couple of hours ago and it has been removed. I can't help thinking that others have been too. Perry, you're right, it is impossible to criticize ISP on the forums.
-
Maybe I'm just a bit too cynical about anything regarding istock these days, but I don't see a whole lot being discussed over there that is reassuring. It sounds like the possibility for future deductions remains, and istock will exercise their right to deduct earnings after this period of security improvement takes place. After that period of time, it seems like istock can just say "We got robbed again, we did everything we could to stop it, but it still happened, so we're taking your money again."
That's my understanding of it. If I'm misinterpreting something about it, feel free to set me straight.
-
There appears to be great 'controlling' job going on right now on the thread for the conference call. They are up to four pages now and, I kid you not, there is not one single negative/scepitical post listed, not a single one. ISP contributors might not be brainwashed but their certainly being controlled in what they are allowed to say. I posted a polite 'disappointed' comment a couple of hours ago and it has been removed. I can't help thinking that others have been too. Perry, you're right, it is impossible to criticize ISP on the forums.
I had replied to your post over there, but my post quoting yours was removed as well. The post of yours that I replied to was not just a "polite disappointed" comment, it appeared to be accusing Sean of having submitted his response (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=315162&messageid=6114052) to iStock for approval first and then forgetting to remove this bit:
"I don't know - was that sufficiently vague but descriptive, helpful but not specific? :) (Andrew, edit me if I said anything)"
And that you seemed disappointed about him needing to get approval first. I replied that I thought you had misunderstood the situation and came to a faulty conclusion based on that assumption.
FWIW, I do not believe anyone submitted any replies for approval to iStock first before posting. I believe Sean posted that last bit intentionally as a joking way of giving Andrew permission publicly to edit his post if he said anything he wasn't supposed to say based on the NDA. Since there is no edit from anyone but Sean in that post, I'd say no editing took place. I can assure you that even moderator/admin edits are shown publicly. In all my years moderating those forums I was never asked to get approval on anything I posted in the forums before doing so, and I'd be surprised if they started that now.
So, my assumption (which could be faulty as well I grant you) based on all of that was that someone simply wanted to avoid further faulty-assumption making based on having just read your post, so they removed both yours and mine. Hope that helps shed some light.
Apologies if I've now gone and misunderstood you. :)
-
As stated there, we are not being controlled at all.
And yes, helix that is correct, but at this point it sounds very unlikely (hopefully). We may ask again to chat in a month or two for an update...
-
First off, Thanks to Sean and the others that participated in the conference call. Its a difficult issue with a lot of us and many a temper are flaring...I dont envy the task of that call.
my 2c.. this is largely based on the post from Sean, and also from the email I received directly from iStock on the matter.
With so much attention focused on this issue right now, both on external websites and within the iStock forums itself... and given the malcontent of contributors over recouped monies, they obviously need to be seen to be actively doing something about it. It should go without saying they cant specifically and publicly state how they intend to defeat the bad guys - doing that, we might as well hang a sign out and say 'Hey come here, this is how to rip us off now'.
One of the biggest issues regarding the ill feeling is having the earnings taken back by iStock. While it was done fairly quickly the first time, on reflection I have to say that this last time, they at least gave warning and some time in advance, additionally, there's the option to contact Joyze and have the repayment spread out over time rather than in one swoop. Given that its not a new issue at iStock however, and 'was just a file here and there in the past', the cost of which they absorbed up to now... this says to be that the problem is an ongoing one and measures should have been well in place before now. I still stand by my statement that we shouldn't have to foot the bill for this second instance.
As Sean commented on the iStock thread, future royalties are not necessarily precluded from being withdrawn in the event of another fraudulent sale. Given the track record of the past three months, I may be somewhat pessimistic, but I dont think this is over and I foresee royalties being recouped again at a future date. I hope I'm wrong in saying that....but....we'll see I guess
Given that Paypal has the ability to insure users on their site in respect of sending / receiving money... obviously insurance of some sort exists for companies dealing in large sums of money, hopefully iStock is examining this issue. I agree with Sean on that contributors need to be insured against this type of loss in some way.
on a side note, a little story (and I must admit I was a little stunned by how easy this was....)
Yesterday, I finalized a deal with a Toronto camera store.,...a fairly well know chain in this area of Canada. I was upgrading my slr (I used to have a 1Ds MkII)... and I was getting a G11 as well. Long story short, I discovered while they did accept paypal, going through their checkout process, it would only allow me to use echeck or a credit card. echeck was too slow (I wanted the camera so i could keep working rather than depending on the backup camera's)... but my CC didn't have enough room to make full payment. I consulted with she who must be obeyed without question aka the wife, who agreed to let me split the cost on her card. So....moving right along, here I am om the phone, giving credit card details to a store rep... who accepted me at face value and processed the transaction). Now maybe because it was the wife and I had said that, the store rep didn't blink an eye, or question it, neither did they call to verify that it was me calling, they didn't call wifey to verify that I was authorized to use her card....payment was simply accepted. Now I don't for a minute advocate giving information like that over the phone and I don't normally make a practice of doing so, neither have I shopped at this particular outlet before.... (and yes I know there's most likely more than a few reading this that thinks I'm an idiot for giving CC info over the phone)... my point is this.... had my wife and I been compromised, and someone had the CC numbers. doe of the card and the csv number.... it's all too easy to spend money that's not yours. In this respect, I find it a little harder to hold istock at fault.
-
Thanks for the clarification, Sean.
Wish I could say I'm put at ease by the outcome of the conference call, but I'm not. I know it is being said that another deduction is unlikely, but we're talking about istock here. This company has a somewhat sketchy track record recently when it comes to ethical business practices and contributor relations. So if they're leaving the door open for future deductions, I'm inclined to think that it isn't so unlikely they will ever use that door.
-
An assignment photographer turns up for a shoot and is asked "Do you have insurance?" "No I don't, but if we break anything, we'll pay for it. Though if we burn the house down, then we won't pay, you bear the cost." That photographer would be in danger of getting sued for negligence. Why isn't iStock held to the same standard, I wonder.
Thanks to sjlocke and the others for bringing up the subject of insurance, it's a start.
-
These threads are now pretty long, maybe someone who's been part of the discussion can provide a capsule summary.
Can anyone point to a post that contains meaningful information about the call? And by meaningful I don't mean "IStock announced certain proactive steps going forward" etc. What was actually said? Or is it like so many predicted - 5 people claim they were told great things, which they unfortunately can't repeat....
"But I was thinking of a plan to die one's whiskers green, and always use so large a fan that they could not be seen."
- Lewis Carroll
-
"What was actually said?"
Well no, that's the point isn't it? Either you think we're reasonably smart enough, or at least one of us is ;) that you are able to go, "Yeah, they're positive about the outlook, so I'm good". So either you do or you don't, and I totally get it that someone would want explicit details. Heck, we didn't even get those. However, it seems we did mostly feel that ongoing work will address this (from the forum posts).
-
Hi All,
The one area that surprises me is that with 12 years of sales at Getty this has never happened to me before and still does not seem to be a problem with their RM/RF macro collections. I don't understand why this is only a problem with their Istock collection. I am sure there is a good answer but why never before with the other areas of their business models.
Best,
Jonathan
Me neither, but I should imagine that with RM, they have got a total rights/controle computer and powerful softwares, etc, not to have to worry about things like this.
I know Tony-Stone had one as long back as 1985 and that was back in the tranny days.
-
@ chrisboy2004 I didn't want to quote your entire post but we you having the equipment shipped to the billing address for the credit card? Also, your camera will probably also require a signature when it arrives.
-
@fullvalue if I lived closer to Toronto, I could have collected this morning in person. .but to answer your question, I was asked my address on the phone, and thats where its being shipped to (its the address associated with my own card)
-
I know Tony-Stone had one as long back as 1985 and that was back in the tranny days.
When he was going out to certain clubs at night as Tina Stone?
( Sorry but couldn't resist that one )
-
"What was actually said?"
Well no, that's the point isn't it? Either you think we're reasonably smart enough, or at least one of us is ;) that you are able to go, "Yeah, they're positive about the outlook, so I'm good". So either you do or you don't, and I totally get it that someone would want explicit details. Heck, we didn't even get those. However, it seems we did mostly feel that ongoing work will address this (from the forum posts).
right. I never expected to get any details from the call, but only feedback by the invited contributors as to how they felt the response/comments from iStock reflect what will be done about the fraud the issue.
That being said, Sean, I have a question for you. I read your post in the IS forums and I got am "cautiously optimistic" about the whole thing. I thing Rich Legg (leggnet) answered this, but can you confirm that you were provided with information on what iStock is actually doing towards preventing future fraud and protecting our work? In other words, they told you the steps they are taking to thwart future issues, right?
-
"What was actually said?"
Well no, that's the point isn't it? Either you think we're reasonably smart enough, or at least one of us is ;) that you are able to go, "Yeah, they're positive about the outlook, so I'm good". So either you do or you don't, and I totally get it that someone would want explicit details. Heck, we didn't even get those. However, it seems we did mostly feel that ongoing work will address this (from the forum posts).
In any other business, I think a non-report of an alleged discussion of an unspecified agenda between un-named participants would be nothing but material for jokes. Here, at this intersection of web investors, IT geeks, internet crooks, IP lawyers, black-clad art school graduates, and photographers receiving 19 cents per sale, it apparently makes sense.
-
In any other business, I think a non-report of an alleged discussion of an unspecified agenda between un-named participants would be nothing but material for jokes. Here, at this intersection of web investors, IT geeks, internet crooks, IP lawyers, black-clad art school graduates, and photographers receiving 19 cents per sale, it apparently makes sense.
well the contributors involved were named.....but nevertheless, an excellent point made
-
Just checked in and my $300+ has been removed, so whatever the call accomplished, it wasn't to stop them taking our royalties. :(
-
yep.... had my 'paycheck' removed about a half hour ago :( ... am sorely tempted to reply to the call for contributions for Japan with a sarcastic comment, but I'm better than that ....
-
... am sorely tempted to reply to the call for contributions for Japan with a sarcastic comment, but I'm better than that ....
I know what you mean. I fully intend to donate to Japan, but not through some fund administered through Istock. After all, I want the money to actually GET to Japan. ::)
-
Hi All,
The one area that surprises me is that with 12 years of sales at Getty this has never happened to me before and still does not seem to be a problem with their RM/RF macro collections. I don't understand why this is only a problem with their Istock collection. I am sure there is a good answer but why never before with the other areas of their business models.
Best,
Jonathan
There is a perfectly good answer - incompetence by management at iStock to foresee such an event and failure to put proper security measures in place prior to it happening. They always seem to be driving forward with blinders on only to see the mess they've made in their rear view mirrors.
-
... am sorely tempted to reply to the call for contributions for Japan with a sarcastic comment, but I'm better than that ....
I know what you mean. I fully intend to donate to Japan, but not through some fund administered through Istock. After all, I want the money to actually GET to Japan. ::)
lmao!! that has to be the quote of the day!! thanks for the laugh ;D
-
... am sorely tempted to reply to the call for contributions for Japan with a sarcastic comment, but I'm better than that ....
I know what you mean. I fully intend to donate to Japan, but not through some fund administered through Istock. After all, I want the money to actually GET to Japan. ::)
We donated through my husband's employer so they match our donation. If we didn't have that option, having iStock do a match (and trying to look on the bright side that the money will make it) would be a good way to get more money to those in need.
-
Well they send an e-mail asking for donations. Fully understandable.
But in the same e-mail they say they are matching all donations up $25,000. Now I can read into that, that each and every donation up to $25,000 they will match. This is the problem with the place. Those undefined and un-clarified types of statements can hang their asses.
-
I seem to get lost these days in the sheer amount of posts regarding all the IS issues so forgive me if I missed information that's been posted in threads here or on the IS forums.
Maybe we can start a new thread constructively about the "so far" outcome of the conference call today with IS.
From Sean's initial statement on the IS forum I don't get any new information that we haven't been given by IS.
I'm a bit upset about the fact that IS made a big fuzz about communicating with a select few when the results are known or bloody obvious.
Has anything else been addressed in this call besides the credit card fraud?
Again, if I missed other participant's message please fill me in.
What's up with all the other loose ends at IS that need to be fixed? Probably no one is allowed to talk about it.
Honestly, I don't see any positive outcome of this conference call today.
-
Hi Loop,
Thank you for the post that is a very good observation that I had not considered. It might just be part of the model of Microstock and the quick turn around of sales information to the contributors. It could very well have taken place at Getty in the past but with the lag time of receiving payment these issues could have been caught and never shared with the contributors. Thanks for the post.
Best,
Jonathan
-
... am sorely tempted to reply to the call for contributions for Japan with a sarcastic comment, but I'm better than that ....
I know what you mean. I fully intend to donate to Japan, but not through some fund administered through Istock. After all, I want the money to actually GET to Japan. ::)
We donated through my husband's employer so they match our donation. If we didn't have that option, having iStock do a match (and trying to look on the bright side that the money will make it) would be a good way to get more money to those in need.
I agree Jo Ann. I usually donate through Red Cross or Medecins sans Frontieres directly. I know people are frustrated and worried. But I can't believe some of you are suggesting iStock is lining their pockets with donations for Japan. arguments like that are just absurd. I donated through iStock because they are matching donations. I read all the fine print and their program for donation delivery is split across three reputable charities. I wonder how many here complaining about it even read the fine print, which covers information regarding tax receipts for international donations.
-
Well they send an e-mail asking for donations. Fully understandable.
But in the same e-mail they say they are matching all donations up $25,000. Now I can read into that, that each and every donation up to $25,000 they will match. This is the problem with the place. Those undefined and un-clarified types of statements can hang their asses.
Absolutely, just like the ASA and most other iStock communications. Totally ambiguous and open to interpretation.
-
Well they send an e-mail asking for donations. Fully understandable.
But in the same e-mail they say they are matching all donations up $25,000. Now I can read into that, that each and every donation up to $25,000 they will match. This is the problem with the place. Those undefined and un-clarified types of statements can hang their asses.
Absolutely, just like the ASA and most other iStock communications. Totally ambiguous and open to interpretation.
I agree. Six or eight months ago I wouldn't have been worried. I just don't see giving a company that is mismanaging money and security of property more money or property to mismanage. There are plenty of other ways to help the people in Japan. istock isn't the only place.
-
After all, I want the money to actually GET to Japan. ::)
lmao!! that has to be the quote of the day!! thanks for the laugh ;D
Yeah, good one. Try this instead, http://www.worldvision.org/#/home/main/quake-tsunami-devastate-japan-1-1360 (http://www.worldvision.org/#/home/main/quake-tsunami-devastate-japan-1-1360)
-
Worldvision is certainly legit, but personally I prefer non-religious groups who don't attempt to evangelize while providing aid. and I'm trying to understand the 'downside' to having your donation matched.
-
Worldvision is certainly legit, but personally I prefer non-religious groups who don't attempt to evangelize while providing aid. and I'm trying to understand the 'downside' to having your donation matched.
I think the worry is that there will be some administrative cock-up, not that matching is an issue. Lisa's original crack is aimed fairly at iStock's recent payment failures of all sorts - incompetence, not malice.
I read their match statement and figured that they were limiting their total to $25K. Hard to say how many will use iStock for their match, but I think it'd be very important for IS to say when they've hit their match number so that anyone who has other options for matching funds will not donate via iStock but via some other avenue that will double the money going to those in Japan.
The negative reactions are all about the current loss of trust in anything IS says or does. IS should not whine about this but accept it as the rational reaction to their recent actions. They can earn the trust back over time with different actions, but it takes longer to earn back than it did to lose it.
-
But I can't believe some of you are suggesting iStock is lining their pockets with donations for Japan. arguments like that are just absurd.
I can't speak for anyone else, but JoAnn is quite correct about my comments. I wasn't suggesting that anyone at Istock was lining their pockets with donations.
It's just that nothing they have done in the past year has inspired much confidence in their competency. I applaud Istock's wanting to do something for Japan, as I think many of us would. Just seems like they have enough on their plate to devote personnel to administering this fund.
I donated to Red Cross.
-
I can't speak for anyone else, but JoAnn is quite correct about my comments. I wasn't suggesting that anyone at Istock was lining their pockets with donations.
It's just that nothing they have done in the past year has inspired much confidence in their competency. I applaud Istock's wanting to do something for Japan, as I think many of us would. Just seems like they have enough on their plate to devote personnel to administering this fund.
I'd agree. I can't help thinking that Istock are also somewhat cynically using this opportunity as a way of trying to make themselves look nice and cuddly as a company, divert attention from other issues and buy back some of the 'community spirit' that they have shredded through their actions.
-
It's a well-known fact that only a small portion of money donated actually reaches the intended target. Depending on the charity, sometimes 80% is eaten up in administrative costs. Do a search on the internet, you will find lots of info about it.
If that is true, and if it's going to happen, I would much rather see it happen at the Red Cross (or just about any other company in the US) than at istock, that's for sure.
-
I don't think any company cross marketing with charities does so purely altruistically. I don't have that expectation. it's about doing something good, but of course it's also about marketing your good deeds.
-
I can't speak for anyone else, but JoAnn is quite correct about my comments. I wasn't suggesting that anyone at Istock was lining their pockets with donations.
It's just that nothing they have done in the past year has inspired much confidence in their competency. I applaud Istock's wanting to do something for Japan, as I think many of us would. Just seems like they have enough on their plate to devote personnel to administering this fund.
I'd agree. I can't help thinking that Istock are also somewhat cynically using this opportunity as a way of trying to make themselves look nice and cuddly as a company, divert attention from other issues and buy back some of the 'community spirit' that they have shredded through their actions.
Remember how it used to be their policy not to do any kind of charity drives. All that seemed to change when things started going south. Right about the time that they implemented the new RC levels, IIRC, they also implemented the 'iStock Cares' program. iStock cares?
-
Why somebody just dont say to this smacks on IS that they only have right to return money to contributors and too make they mendacious mouth shut with deep bow prepared to take kick in they greedy but.
I dont believe in they "donations" for Japan too. They will steal this money and eventually return few percent to exclusive contributors and then we will see another wave of Woo Yaing on they lets say forum.
-
It's a well-known fact that only a small portion of money donated actually reaches the intended target. Depending on the charity, sometimes 80% is eaten up in administrative costs. Do a search on the internet, you will find lots of info about it.
If that is true, and if it's going to happen, I would much rather see it happen at the Red Cross (or just about any other company in the US) than at istock, that's for sure.
That's ridiculous. You're insinuating IS is keeping part of the donation as 'administrative costs'? Really, some people goto any length just to say something negative about IS these days. They take the donation, match it %100 and pass it on, as I see it. You're talking about one of those fundraising 'businesses', which has nothing to do with this.
-
Why somebody just dont say to this smacks on IS that they only have right to return money to contributors and too make they mendacious mouth shut with deep bow prepared to take kick in they greedy but.
I dont believe in they "donations" for Japan too. They will steal this money and eventually return few percent to exclusive contributors and then we will see another wave of Woo Yaing on they lets say forum.
If I'm taking your meaning correctly, you're saying something completely ridiculous: that IS would steal the donations intended for Japan.
I'm no apologist for IS, but if you're going to bluntly call them thieves, I think you need something to back that up.
-
It's a well-known fact that only a small portion of money donated actually reaches the intended target. Depending on the charity, sometimes 80% is eaten up in administrative costs. Do a search on the internet, you will find lots of info about it.
If that is true, and if it's going to happen, I would much rather see it happen at the Red Cross (or just about any other company in the US) than at istock, that's for sure.
That's ridiculous. You're insinuating IS is keeping part of the donation as 'administrative costs'? Really, some people goto any length just to say something negative about IS these days. They take the donation, match it %100 and pass it on, as I see it. You're talking about one of those fundraising 'businesses', which has nothing to do with this.
I see it differently. I'm allowed. :)
edit: PS, I guess you didn't see the ifs.
-
Oh, then...
If SS lowers payments to a flat $.10 and takes the rest and buys weed to sell to little kids, I'd certainly not want to sell there.
-
Of course the $25K maximum that IS are prepared to donate is but a miniscule fraction of the extra money that they are trousering from the recent cuts in commission. They're just exploiting the situation and folks' natural sympathy for Japan's people to their own ends, in just the same cold-hearted manner that they exploit their content providers as much as they think they can get away with. It's all highly calculated.
-
I have to agree. iStock has one hell of a supplier relations problem on their hands, and $25k is a small price to pay to make them look less like the soulless *insult removed* they are, especially when it's coming out of the share they've ripped away from those same suppliers. Just as well that I have other ways of getting my donations matched.
(I'll avoid commenting on how money will or won't make Japanese disaster victims happy. That would be a cheap shot. Although with the cut in royalties, that's the only kind I can afford.)
-
Oh, then...
If Shutterstock lowers payments to a flat $.10 and takes the rest and buys weed to sell to little kids, I'd certainly not want to sell there.
^Relieved to hear this. ;)
Whatever the motivations of IS, money is going to those in a horribly tragic situation. Even though IS behavior and competence has been less than stellar recently, I highly doubt they would steal the money or screw the pooch on this one. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt this time only, even though I donated through a different matching organization.
-
...That would be a cheap shot. Although with the cut in royalties, that's the only kind I can afford.)
Ha!!
-
But I can't believe some of you are suggesting iStock is lining their pockets with donations for Japan. arguments like that are just absurd. I donated through iStock because they are matching donations.
I'm sorry, but this is just a super-cheap advertising promotion for iStock. They are not matching donations up to $25,000, they are matching the first $25,000 donated and after that they add nothing. It's a cynical attempt to buy goodwill.
Considering they will be helping themselves to something like an extra $1,000 from my sales alone this year from the commission cut, the sum they are offering to match is ridiculously small. After all, by the time base contributors have scraped together $25,000 in commissions, iStock has raked in almost $150,000. You give all your commission and iStock gives 17% of theirs. And if more than 25,000 comes in, the percentage iStock contributes becomes ever more sustainable.
The programme looks to me like something dreamed up to exploit the suffering of the Japanese for the benefit of iStock/Getty/FH (but cynical profiteering is hardly something to be surprised about when engaging with the Gordon Gekko world of Corporate America).
No, iStock won't steal the money and they will donate $25,000 as stated (as long as contributors give more than that). But they are hoping to line their pockets through profits made from improved "goodwill". Bear in mind that $25,000 is the sort of money you would pay for one full page advert in a good magazine.
If you want to engage with an ethical, generous photo agency, put your stuff with Alamy. They let you keep 60% of what you earn and then they hand over most of their 40% to medical research. And - amazingly - they find that doing so is "sustainable", even though their turnover is much lower than iStock's.
IMHO, anyway.
-
Oh, then...
If Shutterstock lowers payments to a flat $.10 and takes the rest and buys weed to sell to little kids, I'd certainly not want to sell there.
The point many posters are trying to make is that Istock has thrown away any trust that they once had with contributors. And i agree that this is a cynical attempt by Istock to piggyback on the tragedy in Japan to improve their image. Given the way that Istock has operated recently, I have no doubt that the "cap" on matching contributions is $25,000, a paltry sum for a company with these resources. As for the administration of funds given to support this initiative, again, Istock has proven time and again that when the company mismanages, it somehow always seems to hurt the contributors, not the company. Finally, the above mentioned "scenario" is childish and and insulting to a company that, at this point, seems to be doing a pretty good job of watching out for both the company and the contributors- a point that cannot be said of Istock, despite the continuous push back by it's woo-yayers.
-
Why somebody just dont say to this smacks on IS that they only have right to return money to contributors and too make they mendacious mouth shut with deep bow prepared to take kick in they greedy but.
I dont believe in they "donations" for Japan too. They will steal this money and eventually return few percent to exclusive contributors and then we will see another wave of Woo Yaing on they lets say forum.
If I'm taking your meaning correctly, you're saying something completely ridiculous: that IS would steal the donations intended for Japan.
I'm no apologist for IS, but if you're going to bluntly call them thieves, I think you need something to back that up.
Oh I see, but I will not be surprised at all even it is small amount.
Rather its cheap marketing before end of first quarter to avoid tax and redirect money to Japan.
Time will show us what is in they never ending greedy mind.
-
If you want to engage with an ethical, generous photo agency, put your stuff with Alamy. They let you keep 60% of what you earn and then they hand over most of their 40% to medical research. And - amazingly - they find that doing so is "sustainable", even though their turnover is much lower than iStock's.
Oh that would be soooooo ideal: if only it were sustainable for contributors too (haven't had a sale there for a month now).
-
Oh, then...
If Shutterstock lowers payments to a flat $.10 and takes the rest and buys weed to sell to little kids, I'd certainly not want to sell there.
The point many posters are trying to make is that Istock has thrown away any trust that they once had with contributors. And i agree that this is a cynical attempt by Istock to piggyback on the tragedy in Japan to improve their image. Given the way that Istock has operated recently, I have no doubt that the "cap" on matching contributions is $25,000, a paltry sum for a company with these resources. As for the administration of funds given to support this initiative, again, Istock has proven time and again that when the company mismanages, it somehow always seems to hurt the contributors, not the company. Finally, the above mentioned "scenario" is childish and and insulting to a company that, at this point, seems to be doing a pretty good job of watching out for both the company and the contributors- a point that cannot be said of Istock, despite the continuous push back by it's woo-yayers.
Oh, I said "if". I certainly wasn't bad-mouthing them ;) .
Of course the total to be matched across all contributions is $25k. No reasonable person would read it any different. These kind of things sponsored by a business always have a maximum cap the company matches in the aggregate.
-
I read the notes and thought I would point out that if you are donating through Istock you will only get a tax receipt if you are a U.S. Citizen. The company that is administering the distribution of the funds takes 7%. Then I'm sure the charities themselves take a management fee of some amount.
-
Of course the total to be matched across all contributions is $25k. No reasonable person would read it any different. These kind of things sponsored by a business always have a maximum cap the company matches in the aggregate.
I don't think that's universally true. My husband's company has deep pockets, I'll grant you, but they match up to $12K per employee per year for charitable contributions.
-
Oh, I said "if". I certainly wasn't bad-mouthing them ;) .
:D
Posted by: Pixart
I read the notes and thought I would point out that if you are donating through Istock you will only get a tax receipt if you are a U.S. Citizen. The company that is administering the distribution of the funds takes 7%. Then I'm sure the charities themselves take a management fee of some amount.
Hmmm....
-
Here is the wording Pixart referred to, in 3 or 4 point type on the istock donation page:
The charities comprising the iStock Cares Japan Relief Fund are the US organizations within these international agencies. If you provide the requisite information, you will receive a receipt respecting your donation, which is generated by our donation processing software provider, Benevity Social Ventures, Inc. The issuance of a donation receipt does not constitute confirmation or an opinion as to the deductibility or tax treatment of your donation, and you should consult your own tax advisors in your relevant jurisdiction in that regard. The registered charity that administers the iStock Cares Japan Relief Fund is the American Endowment Foundation, which acts as a donor advised fund in delivering donation funds to eligible charities. AEF may charge a reasonable administrative fee, which shall not exceed 7% of the donation amount, for processing the donations made on the iStock site and any applicable matching funds provided by iStockphoto. Certain of your personal information required for generating receipts and processing donations will be provided to Benevity and the iStock Cares Japan Relief Fund in accordance with the Donation Terms of Use. iStockphoto's aggregate donation to the iStock Cares Japan Relief Fund shall not exceed $25,000USD. For further terms and conditions of your donation please visit the Donation Terms of Use.
Here is a paragraph in the Donation Terms of Use:
6. Donations
6.1. In delivering certain aspects of the iStock Donation Programs, iStock licenses the Benevity Platform and uses the services of the Foundation. Depending upon the nature of the iStock Site, it may also utilize the services of other foundations or entities to effect similar results for users in other jurisdictions. You direct iStock to make a gift on your behalf of all funds held by iStock on account of Donation Credits generated by your participation, subject to adjustments permitted under this Donation Platform Agreement, to the Foundation on the date (the “Donation Date”) that is the later of (a) and (b) below, where:
(a) is the earlier of: (i) in the case of a Direct Gift or a Donor Advice Gift made by you, the date upon which you have instructed iStock to make the donation via the specified action on the iStock Site (such as the purchase of a Donation Pack); (ii) in any case where any of the Default Rules apply, the date on which the donation is deemed effected by such Default Rule; and
(b) is the date of which the Foundation is in receipt of unrestricted funds in an amount equaling the redemption amount of the relevant Donation Credits.
Such Gifts will be received by the Foundation or by iStock as agent to be transferred to the Foundation, and thereafter will normally be a tax receiptable donation made by the relevant Participant to the Foundation (so long as such Participant is a US taxpayer and/or otherwise eligible under applicable law). All such donations are to the Donor Advised Fund maintained by the Foundation, and will be subject to a management fee of 7% payable to the Foundation, which is deducted from the amounts disbursed by the Foundation to the Eligible Charities (the “Platform Fee”). In the event your right to Donation Credits is acquired through donations made by credit or other payment card using iStock’s or other Program Originator’s merchant account (or equivalent), the amount of the donation may be reduced by such merchant account charges (unless paid for by iStock or such other Program Originator).
Just sayin that most of the time, there are fees taken out from the amount donated. If I don't trust istock's accounting to handle my commissions and my IP, why would I add this to the mix? Just my opinion.
-
Ok, thank you for giving some real documentation. I hadn't had time to delve into it.
Yes, most businesses will match larger amounts when you contractually work for them. I look at the IS as different then that.
-
Ou no
Another EL dl
hope that is not another security issue on they side?!