Author Topic: Jan/Feb fraud - reduction of royalties coming (Read 64958 times)

KarenH · « **Reply #75 on:** March 10, 2011, 20:46 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 10, 2011, 20:00

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 10, 2011, 19:18
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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #76 on:** March 10, 2011, 20:54 »

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.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #77 on:** March 10, 2011, 21:14 »

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.

bittersweet · « **Reply #78 on:** March 10, 2011, 21:17 »

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.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #79 on:** March 10, 2011, 21:20 »

I am in for a class action or audit or whatever... Can't drive this right now though, bad time.

Zephyr · « **Reply #80 on:** March 10, 2011, 22:34 »


Jonathan Klein, Getty Images \| MIDEM Interview

Interesting interview here. Piracy and cannibalization are mentioned.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #81 on:** March 10, 2011, 22:42 »

Quote from: retrorocket on March 10, 2011, 22:34

Jonathan Klein, Getty Images | MIDEM Interview

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.

click_click · « **Reply #82 on:** March 10, 2011, 23:06 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 10, 2011, 20:13

Quote
It's more than $5K. Yes.

Holy Hell, Sean. I am so sorry.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=24

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.

caspixel · « **Reply #83 on:** March 10, 2011, 23:16 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 10, 2011, 20:13

Quote
It's more than $5K. Yes.

Holy Hell, Sean. I am so sorry.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=24

Holy hell x2. OMFG. I can't believe how calm he is. I think I'd be out of my mind with rage.

Blufish · « **Reply #84 on:** March 10, 2011, 23:18 »

By his clipped responses over there, I personally think he is everything but calm. But yea, OMFG.

caspixel · « **Reply #85 on:** March 10, 2011, 23:22 »

Quote from: Blufish on March 10, 2011, 23:18

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...

click_click · « **Reply #86 on:** March 10, 2011, 23:32 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 10, 2011, 23:22

...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?

How dare you

Zephyr · « **Reply #87 on:** March 10, 2011, 23:36 »

Quote from: jsmithzz on March 10, 2011, 22:42

Quote from: retrorocket on March 10, 2011, 22:34
Jonathan Klein, Getty Images | MIDEM Interview

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?

RayW · « **Reply #88 on:** March 10, 2011, 23:40 »

Quote from: donding on March 10, 2011, 18:46

Quote from: RayW on March 10, 2011, 18:35
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.

SNP · « **Reply #89 on:** March 11, 2011, 00:39 »

that sucks Sean. brutal. $5K....holy sh*t.

lagereek · « **Reply #90 on:** March 11, 2011, 01:10 »

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!

SNP · « **Reply #91 on:** March 11, 2011, 01:11 »

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.

Graffoto · « **Reply #92 on:** March 11, 2011, 01:16 »

^ 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 $:-\$

caspixel · « **Reply #93 on:** March 11, 2011, 01:19 »

Quote from: retrorocket on March 10, 2011, 22:34

Jonathan Klein, Getty Images | MIDEM Interview

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

Zephyr · « **Reply #94 on:** March 11, 2011, 01:43 »

Quote from: SNP on March 11, 2011, 01:11

-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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #95 on:** March 11, 2011, 01:45 »

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).

SNP · « **Reply #96 on:** March 11, 2011, 01:48 »

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.

lagereek · « **Reply #97 on:** March 11, 2011, 02:03 »

Closing down! its a classic, the Getty plan is to close it down, forget any other speculations.

Zephyr · « **Reply #98 on:** March 11, 2011, 02:06 »

@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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #99 on:** March 11, 2011, 02:07 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Jan/Feb fraud - reduction of royalties coming (Read 64958 times)

KarenH

Jo Ann Snover

jbarber873

bittersweet

Elenathewise

Zephyr

jsmithzz

click_click

caspixel

Blufish

caspixel

click_click

Zephyr

RayW

SNP

lagereek

SNP

Graffoto

caspixel

Zephyr

rubyroo

SNP

lagereek

Zephyr

rubyroo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors