Author Topic: Jan/Feb fraud - reduction of royalties coming (Read 64819 times)

thesentinel · « **Reply #275 on:** March 17, 2011, 16:48 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 17, 2011, 16:31

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 )

jamirae · « **Reply #276 on:** March 17, 2011, 17:23 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 17, 2011, 16:29

"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?

stockastic · « **Reply #277 on:** March 17, 2011, 17:33 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 17, 2011, 16:29

"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.

chrisboy2004 · « **Reply #278 on:** March 17, 2011, 17:37 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 17, 2011, 17:33

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

lisafx · « **Reply #279 on:** March 17, 2011, 18:02 »

Just checked in and my $300+ has been removed, so whatever the call accomplished, it wasn't to stop them taking our royalties.

chrisboy2004 · « **Reply #280 on:** March 17, 2011, 18:04 »

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 ....

lisafx · « **Reply #281 on:** March 17, 2011, 18:12 »

Quote from: chrisboy2004 on March 17, 2011, 18:04

... 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.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #282 on:** March 17, 2011, 18:14 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on March 17, 2011, 14:25

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.

chrisboy2004 · « **Reply #283 on:** March 17, 2011, 18:36 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 17, 2011, 18:12

Quote from: chrisboy2004 on March 17, 2011, 18:04
... 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

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #284 on:** March 17, 2011, 19:10 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 17, 2011, 18:12

Quote from: chrisboy2004 on March 17, 2011, 18:04
... 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.

CurtPick · « **Reply #285 on:** March 17, 2011, 19:39 »

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.

click_click · « **Reply #286 on:** March 17, 2011, 20:09 »

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.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #287 on:** March 18, 2011, 13:07 »

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

SNP · « **Reply #288 on:** March 20, 2011, 07:14 »

Quote from: jsnover on March 17, 2011, 19:10

Quote from: lisafx on March 17, 2011, 18:12
Quote from: chrisboy2004 on March 17, 2011, 18:04
... 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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #289 on:** March 20, 2011, 07:26 »

Quote from: CurtPick on March 17, 2011, 19:39

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #290 on:** March 20, 2011, 08:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 20, 2011, 07:26

Quote from: CurtPick on March 17, 2011, 19:39
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.

michaeldb · « **Reply #291 on:** March 20, 2011, 12:56 »

Quote from: chrisboy2004 on March 17, 2011, 18:36

Quote from: lisafx on March 17, 2011, 18:12
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

Yeah, good one. Try this instead, http://www.worldvision.org/#/home/main/quake-tsunami-devastate-japan-1-1360

SNP · « **Reply #292 on:** March 20, 2011, 13:40 »

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #293 on:** March 20, 2011, 13:57 »

Quote from: SNP on March 20, 2011, 13:40

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #294 on:** March 20, 2011, 14:03 »

Quote from: SNP on March 20, 2011, 07:14

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #295 on:** March 20, 2011, 14:11 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 20, 2011, 14:03

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #296 on:** March 20, 2011, 14:31 »

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.

SNP · « **Reply #297 on:** March 20, 2011, 14:38 »

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.

caspixel · « **Reply #298 on:** March 20, 2011, 14:42 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 20, 2011, 14:11

Quote from: lisafx on March 20, 2011, 14:03
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?

Suljo · « **Reply #299 on:** March 20, 2011, 15:24 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Jan/Feb fraud - reduction of royalties coming (Read 64819 times)

thesentinel

jamirae

stockastic

chrisboy2004

lisafx

chrisboy2004

lisafx

jsmithzz

chrisboy2004

Jo Ann Snover

CurtPick

click_click

Jonathan Ross

SNP

ShadySue

cathyslife

michaeldb

SNP

Jo Ann Snover

lisafx

gostwyck

cathyslife

SNP

caspixel

Suljo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors