MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Non-exclusive exclusive problem solved  (Read 5538 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: September 18, 2010, 04:01 »
0
The "exclusive" inspector who was found to be selling on other sites has been reinstated. The files on Canstock have been "deactivated by the photographer" not removed from the site because they were stolen.

It seems iStock is very forgiving about people who sell exclusive Vetta files on Canstock ... or is it just some people who get forgiven?

I can believe it was just a mistake and the reinstatement is fair treatment. I find it harder to believe the Istock treats others equally fairly when even having a photo on flickr with the wrong licensing options set will block your exclusivity application


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2010, 04:11 »
0
If the files were stolen, why should the photographer be punished?
Indeed, if her files were stolen and her account was frozen while the matter was investigated, she should be recompensed for the time her images were offline.

« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2010, 04:14 »
0
I don't think you've parsed that correctly. If they were deactivated by photographer and not 'removed because they were stolen' then presumably they weren't stolen.

« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2010, 04:19 »
0
If the files were stolen, why should the photographer be punished?
Indeed, if her files were stolen and her account was frozen while the matter was investigated, she should be recompensed for the time her images were offline.

They weren't stolen. She forgot to deactivate them.
1) The account membership dates for iStock and Canstock are the same
2) The user names are the same
3) The files were uploaded at Canstock almost as soon as the member joined
4) Canstock says the photographer has deactivated them, not that they have been deactivated by the site.

There is no room for thinking they are stolen unless you believe that someone stole her identity the day she signed on to iStock, knowing that she would soon upload stuff worth stealing, and then decided to steal only 20 files to post on CanStockPhoto and, after hearing that she had got into trouble, in a fit of remorse the thief deactivated them. I've yet to hear of a stock photo thief who is also an identity thief and able to receive payment under the victims name.

No, it was her own fault but probably not malicious.

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2010, 04:25 »
0
If the files were stolen, why should the photographer be punished?
Indeed, if her files were stolen and her account was frozen while the matter was investigated, she should be recompensed for the time her images were offline.

They weren't stolen. She forgot to deactivate them.


You said they were stolen in your OP! How could anyone interpret what you said in the OP: "The "exclusive" inspector who was found to be selling on other sites has been reinstated. The files on Canstock have been "deactivated by the photographer" not removed from the site because they were stolen." in the way you now explain?

« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2010, 04:28 »
0
Sorry, Sue, I thought what I said to start with was clear enough. I still do think it is . You're misreading it (did your eye skip the word "NOT"?).
« Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 04:30 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2010, 04:39 »
0
Of the two choices (deactivated by photographer) and (removed because they were stolen) - the first is the correct choice.

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2010, 04:43 »
0
Sorry, Sue, I thought what I said to start with was clear enough. I still do think it is . You're misreading it (did your eye skip the word "NOT"?).
Total unreserved apology. I did miss the word 'not'.

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2010, 04:44 »
0
Quote
The files on Canstock have been "deactivated by the photographer" not removed from the site because they were stolen.

I don't know why it's so hard for some to comprehend the above sentence.  What he is saying is that canstock would have removed the files if they were stolen.  They were not stolen and not removed.  Instead they were deactivated by the photographer.  

BT deserves an apology for you being so bloody rude!  

It's no wonder a good majority of people read these forums but don't want to participate.  Every second person seems to have a stick up their arse in here.

« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2010, 04:47 »
0
Quote
The files on Canstock have been "deactivated by the photographer" not removed from the site because they were stolen.

I don't know why it's so hard for some to comprehend the above sentence.  What he is saying is that canstock would have removed the files if they were stolen.  They were not stolen and not removed.  Instead they were deactivated by the photographer.  

BT deserves an apology for you being so bloody rude!  

It's no wonder a good majority of people read these forums but don't want to participate.  Every second person seems to have a stick up their arse in here.
You've just reminded my why I had your former incarnation on Ignore.

« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2010, 04:50 »
0
Apology accepted. It's an easy mistake....

Like forgetting to take your images off Canstock  ;D

I can't help wondering how Istock failed to notice the CanStockPhoto portfolio when they were checking the exclusivity application. Isn't their software able to read what is on Canstock (or Ingram and wherever that sub-licenses to)?

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2010, 04:53 »
0
Quote
The files on Canstock have been "deactivated by the photographer" not removed from the site because they were stolen.

I don't know why it's so hard for some to comprehend the above sentence.  What he is saying is that canstock would have removed the files if they were stolen.  They were not stolen and not removed.  Instead they were deactivated by the photographer.  

BT deserves an apology for you being so bloody rude!  

It's no wonder a good majority of people read these forums but don't want to participate.  Every second person seems to have a stick up their arse in here.
You've just reminded my why I had your former incarnation on Ignore.

I find it incredibly amusing when some dull and insignificant person who I don't read or interact with decides to formally advise me that they "ignored" me.  The only use I've found for you is that you've just confirmed statistically in this thread that every second person here has a stick up their arse  ;D

« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2010, 05:53 »
0
How many years ago did that person go exclusive?  Amazing this wasn't spotted before.  Just goes to show buyers don't shop around, only sold a few on CanStockPhoto with prices a fraction of Vetta.

« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2010, 06:13 »
0
How many years ago did that person go exclusive?  Amazing this wasn't spotted before.  Just goes to show buyers don't shop around, only sold a few on CanStockPhoto with prices a fraction of Vetta.

It's rather a sad reflection on CanStockPhoto's "reach" and shows that iStock's position is primarily due to superior marketing skills.

« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2010, 06:55 »
0
... and shows that iStock's position is primarily due to superior marketing skills.

I think it's mainly about money rather than 'skills'. Istock have always had pots of cash wheras Duncan was always hopelessly under-capitalized.

It's like saying Chelsea Football Club have 'superior marketing skills' to Exeter City.

« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2010, 07:36 »
0
Whether it's skills or cash, the result is the same. DT seemed to manage better from an equally weak starting point, and they both began in June  2004, didn't they?

« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2010, 07:44 »
0
Whether it's skills or cash, the result is the same. DT seemed to manage better from an equally weak starting point, and they both began in June  2004, didn't they?

I'm pretty sure DT had decent enough start-up capital, as did SS. As far as I know Duncan was funding it out of his own money which he could live off comfortably enough but not much more. I remember him umming-and-arring about a much needed $2k hardware upgrade. That would have been petty cash at IS.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3283 Views
Last post January 05, 2009, 13:32
by Read_My_Rights
3 Replies
4133 Views
Last post March 23, 2009, 02:04
by RaFaLe
1 Replies
7740 Views
Last post April 13, 2009, 11:53
by madelaide
1 Replies
1132 Views
Last post September 30, 2018, 10:52
by jacoblund
12 Replies
1243 Views
Last post March 21, 2019, 00:58
by 08stock08

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results