MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: RT on March 14, 2011, 05:40
-
I thought I'd start a thread where we can post questions we'd like asked by the nominated five for the conference call with iStockphoto HQ regarding the recent fraudulent credit card transactions we have suffered.
Let's keep this thread precise and to the point, this thread isn't to be used for your opinions on the nominees or indeed the whole idea of the conference call.
Once the names of the nominees have been announced I or someone else if I don't say that I've done it here (I'm away quite a bit at the moment) could then contact those people and send them the link to this post.
Although they'll be required to sign an NDA by iStock and may not be able to give answers to the questions at the time being should there be any legal action at a later date either individually or as a class action at least iStockphoto should then be in a position to have the answers.
Just to clarify something, for anybody thinking this is a witch hunt going after iStockphoto think again, this is to discover which party (if there is one) will be ultimately responsible for covering any financial loss, that may be the banks/ card issuers, security providers or it may be iStockphoto if they've neglected requirements for card transactions. I'm as angry as the next person that this has happened but my goal is to get answers.
The question I'd like asked is this:
Q - Who do iStockphoto say is legally responsible for bearing the financial loss of these transactions:
a - The card issuing company/bank
b - The merchant (i.e. iStockphoto.com)
c - Us (as in contributors) the victims of this crime being that it was our property (images) that were downloaded using the fraudulent card transactions.
d - The cardholder, the person who's card number was used.
For clarification I understand why the royalties have been taken back from our accounts as we can't benefit from the actual crime itself which is what would be happening if they left the money with us, however at some stage somebody has to be responsible for the financial loss.
Modified to add a couple of more questions:
Q - Do iStockphoto have a security protocol in place such as 'Verified by Visa' or after the initial discovery of Fraudulent card use back in December was one implemented then.
Q - Does and did iStockphoto fully comply with PCI DSS & PA DSS requirements.
-
What security measures were in place at the time of the first theft?
What changes in security were made after the first thefts were detected?
Why could additional thefts take place after new security measures were in place?
Can Istock guarantee additional charge backs will not be passed along to contributors?
-
What security measures were in place at the time of the first theft?
What changes in security were made after the first thefts were detected?
Why could additional thefts take place after new security measures were in place?
Can Istock guarantee additional charge backs will not be passed along to contributors?
Thanks for your questions, I was modifying my post at the same time you were writing yours and had added two questions that cover your first two. FYI I have a legal background, your 3rd and 4th questions are not something that IMO should be asked as any answer may be classed as opinion not factual based or are speculative. For instance to ask why it happened again would be the purpose of the investigation anyway, to ask if it'll happen again is not something anybody could answer because any law or conditions of card use that applies now could be amended in the future.
-
I don't have any questions, because it's a waste of time. Questions aren't going to be entertained or answered in any kind of manner that I trust coming from IS. I would like to see independent attorneys and accountants, hired by contributors, to take a meeting. Those are the answers I want to hear.
-
I don't have any questions, because it's a waste of time. Questions aren't going to be entertained or answered in any kind of manner that I trust coming from IS. I would like to see independent attorneys and accountants, hired by contributors, to take a meeting. Those are the answers I want to hear.
I can understand this reaction and in truth the purpose of me wanting these questions answered is not to get immediate answers from the conference call, as I've explained above these are questions that will need to be asked if anybody does decide to take future legal action against any parties involved.
To make my position clear, I don't now or in the future intend to take any action against iStock themselves, they make me a lot of money and for the few hundred dollars I've lost as a result of these transactions I don't consider it worth breaking relationships with iStock and I have no doubt that anybody who takes them to court will find their portfolio deleted (I'd do the same within anybody suing me). From what I've seen so far these transactions were authorised by the card companies initially and then charged back once the transactions were discovered to be fraudulent. The questions I've asked above are intended to discover to whom the blame falls and should I or anybody else decide in the future to take any form of legal action we will need to show that they've been asked. For me personally that would be against the card or security companies, for others they might want to take action against iStock although as it stands legally the taking back of the royalties is quite legal and within the contract we all signed.
I've always been quite vocal about iStock and although I have a kind of anonymity here I have no doubt they could find out who I am within seconds, I think their communication over this matter (and generally) sucks like many other aspects of the site at the moment but I urge people to consider their own position carefully before making any knee jerk reactions regarding legal matters. IMO they've made some huge errors over this but being told by the card company the transaction is approved to only find out later it's not isn't something I blame them for, letting it happen over and over again is something you can form your own opinion about!! They're not perfect and I'm pretty sure they could have done something to prevent or lessen the effect but my anger is with the thieving scumbag that used the card numbers to download my images and the banking industry that allow this to happen all too easily.
-
I don't have any questions, because it's a waste of time. Questions aren't going to be entertained or answered in any kind of manner that I trust coming from IS. I would like to see independent attorneys and accountants, hired by contributors, to take a meeting. Those are the answers I want to hear.
I can understand this reaction and in truth the purpose of me wanting these questions answered is not to get immediate answers from the conference call, as I've explained above these are questions that will need to be asked if anybody does decide to take future legal action against any parties involved.
To make my position clear, I don't now or in the future intend to take any action against iStock themselves, they make me a lot of money and for the few hundred dollars I've lost as a result of these transactions I don't consider it worth breaking relationships with iStock and I have no doubt that anybody who takes them to court will find their portfolio deleted (I'd do the same within anybody suing me). From what I've seen so far these transactions were authorised by the card companies initially and then charged back once the transactions were discovered to be fraudulent. The questions I've asked above are intended to discover to whom the blame falls and should I or anybody else decide in the future to take any form of legal action we will need to show that they've been asked. For me personally that would be against the card or security companies, for others they might want to take action against iStock although as it stands legally the taking back of the royalties is quite legal and within the contract we all signed.
I've always been quite vocal about iStock and although I have a kind of anonymity here I have no doubt they could find out who I am within seconds, I think their communication over this matter (and generally) sucks like many other aspects of the site at the moment but I urge people to consider their own position carefully before making any knee jerk reactions regarding legal matters. IMO they've made some huge errors over this but being told by the card company the transaction is approved to only find out later it's not isn't something I blame them for, letting it happen over and over again is something you can form your own opinion about!! They're not perfect and I'm pretty sure they could have done something to prevent or lessen the effect but my anger is with the thieving scumbag that used the card numbers to download my images and the banking industry that allow this to happen all too easily.
I don't think anyone is making a knee-jerk reaction...this has been going on for months, with no end in sight. It's more like the straw that broke the camel's back.
Back to the topic, in the context you just explained, the questions will be helpful.
-
I don't think anyone is making a knee-jerk reaction...this has been going on for months, with no end in sight. It's more like the straw that broke the camel's back.
Sorry I meant it along the lines of "Right I'm going to sue.....uhmmm....now who's responsible"
Off topic - I was once involved in a fraud case, there were six defendents and two victims, the case went on for six years and was heard in two court rooms, one room was used just to store the paperwork! Don't expect an early result ;)
-
What security measures were in place at the time of the first theft?
What changes in security were made after the first thefts were detected?
Why could additional thefts take place after new security measures were in place?
Can Istock guarantee additional charge backs will not be passed along to contributors?
Thanks for your questions, I was modifying my post at the same time you were writing yours and had added two questions that cover your first two. FYI I have a legal background, your 3rd and 4th questions are not something that IMO should be asked as any answer may be classed as opinion not factual based or are speculative. For instance to ask why it happened again would be the purpose of the investigation anyway, to ask if it'll happen again is not something anybody could answer because any law or conditions of card use that applies now could be amended in the future.
Point taken on the non-fact based question/answer, but I'd still ask none the less, as how they answer questions like the above is equally important as to what the answer is. Certainly they might be advised to not answer any questions like this, but there is no harm in asking and maybe there is an upside.
-
Are questions even going to be allowed or is this an exercise in futility? KK specifically said the Fab 5 were going to be the "ears" of the community. He said nothing about voices.
-
Are questions even going to be allowed or is this an exercise in futility? KK specifically said the Fab 5 were going to be the "ears" of the community. He said nothing about voices.
I'm basing this thread on his comment:
"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."
To me that means a discussion, but in the past he hasn't exactly shown a trend of well thought out comments and I think his strings are being pulled by the person who's really in charge, so who knows they may be able to ask questions they may not.
-
Q: Which actions are you taking to prevent downloaders from using our pictures after chargeback? (otherwhise, you are effectively giving away our images for free)
-
Sorry I meant it along the lines of "Right I'm going to sue.....uhmmm....now who's responsible"
Off topic - I was once involved in a fraud case, there were six defendents and two victims, the case went on for six years and was heard in two court rooms, one room was used just to store the paperwork! Don't expect an early result ;)
Obviously I yield to your greater legal experience, but it seems to me that a pending class action suit, or the serious threat of one, might be a big motivator for Istock to pull it's act together and stop screwing contributors. That is an early result that would be most welcome, over and above any eventual damages.
-
Excellent thread, thank you. I hope the 5 representatives will read it.
I have one question, the only question I think is worth asking:
Why doesn't iStock have insurance to cover losses due to fraud, when other high profile companies do have such insurance? If the answer to this question is that it is too expensive, ask two things: 1) how does the cost of the insurance compare to the loss contributors have suffered due to fraud; and 2) how does the cost compare to the yearly profit iStock makes? Drive the point home: unless iStock demonstrates otherwise, their assertion of insurance not being a viable option will, quite reasonably, not be believed, and may lead to accusations of negligence in the future.
-
Why doesn't iStock have insurance to cover losses due to fraud, when other high profile companies do have such insurance?
If any contributor at DT, SS, Fotolia, etc., wishes to contact their sites and find out if they have such insurance, and where it comes from, I would love to have that to bring up if I'm in the call.
-
Why doesn't iStock have insurance to cover losses due to fraud, when other high profile companies do have such insurance?
If any contributor at Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Fotolia, etc., wishes to contact their sites and find out if they have such insurance, and where it comes from, I would love to have that to bring up if I'm in the call.
Although quite less often than at IS, I got chargebacks at FT and DT, so I guess they don't have such insurance.
This never happened as SS, so they are either good at avoiding frauds, or take the risk themselves or they have an insurance.
-
iStock keeps claiming there's no insurance to be purchased.
-
Why doesn't iStock have insurance to cover losses due to fraud, when other high profile companies do have such insurance?
If any contributor at Dreamstime, Shutterstock, Fotolia, etc., wishes to contact their sites and find out if they have such insurance, and where it comes from, I would love to have that to bring up if I'm in the call.
You don't really need that, and bringing the competitors into it might just dilute the point. The term is "crime insurance" or "fidelity insurance" and is a standard offering in the whole "business insurance" field. It certainly can be bought, from many providers, search the net. Maybe someone could even ask for a quote, or perhaps there's a microstocker working in the industry.
The point needs to be got across, both to iStock and contributors, that the question of insurance is key. Talking about security measures is of limited usefulness. There is no 100 percent security, and anyway, the people in the discussion are not expert in IT security, they could be told pretty much anything by iStock. IT security is a complex subject and it's the criminals that are usually ahead of the curve. So please, do focus quite assertively on the question of insurance.
-
moved to more relevant thread
-
iStock keeps claiming there's no insurance to be purchased.
Right - that's why I want to know if someone somewhere has an actual policy that would cover it. Maybe John G. could chime in?
-
iStock keeps claiming there's no insurance to be purchased.
Right - that's why I want to know if someone somewhere has an actual policy that would cover it. Maybe John G. could chime in?
I doubt very much that any insurance company would touch this with the proverbial barge-pole. They simply would not have any means of accurately assessing the risk or the potential losses. Therefore they could not possibly price a policy with any expectation of covering potential losses or making a profit.
Even if they did have statistics covering the history of previous years, internet fraud is growing and changing at such a rate that they would be no guide to the future. It's not really something that could be defined as 'a risk' either as it's almost a certainty. The only thing that changes is the scale and the frequency of such theft.
-
I don't have any questions, because it's a waste of time. Questions aren't going to be entertained or answered in any kind of manner that I trust coming from IS. I would like to see independent attorneys and accountants, hired by contributors, to take a meeting. Those are the answers I want to hear.
+1
-
1. Are new iStock accounts handled differently from established ones? If not, why? Explain why having a few restrictions on new accounts only would not be a good solution to this problem.
2. Are iStock's procedures for handling credit card transactions the same as Getty's? If they are not, why is that and will they change to be the same?
3. If there have been frauds at Getty Images, how were contributors charged back (or not)? If there's a difference, why is that?
4. The site listing credit card problems showed incidents similar to the ones occurring in December 2010 going back many, many months. Why were steps not taken sooner? If they were taken, why weren't they adequate?
5. Why did fraud occur again in January and again at the end of February 2011? Given that whatever measures taken previously have failed, why is there any confidence that this problem will not recur?
6. Have outside experts in prevention of credit card fraud in online business (with card not present transactions) been consulted or hired? If not, why not.
7. There are many huge internet businesses (amazon.com, iTunes) which deal with online delivery of content purchased with a credit card in a card not present transaction. If they can make this work, iStock does not need to invent the wheel and can use industry best practices. What has been done to learn and follow those industry best practices.
8. Given that in the past frauds have not be charged back to contributors, why was this different?
9. What information do you have on what happened to the downloaded images? Is there anything that can be done to retrieve them.
10. Why don't you use the image tracking software that Getty uses? If it's a matter of cost, then given your newly increased percentage of the gross, don't you think you owe it to contributors to start doing what Getty does?
11. Has any analysis been done on the download patterns - going for the top sellers from many contributors portfolios, or downloading a bunch of themed images in quantities beyond anything typical for the site - to try and catch the fraud based on the downloads even if it escapes the first line of defense (purchasing the credits)? If not, why not?
If I think of more, I'll post
-
Really insightful list of questions JoAnn. Wish you'd reconsider the panel.
-
Really insightful list of questions JoAnn. Wish you'd reconsider the panel.
+1. So do I.
-
iStock keeps claiming there's no insurance to be purchased.
Right - that's why I want to know if someone somewhere has an actual policy that would cover it. Maybe John G. could chime in?
I doubt very much that any insurance company would touch this with the proverbial barge-pole. They simply would not have any means of accurately assessing the risk or the potential losses. Therefore they could not possibly price a policy with any expectation of covering potential losses or making a profit.
Even if they did have statistics covering the history of previous years, internet fraud is growing and changing at such a rate that they would be no guide to the future. It's not really something that could be defined as 'a risk' either as it's almost a certainty. The only thing that changes is the scale and the frequency of such theft.
This is simply not true. Anything can be insured, ultimately through Lloyd's of London, if no other intermediary provider. And in fact, going through Lloyd's is standard procedure for multinationals. But there's no need, a quick search brings up this:
http://www.allbusiness.com/business-finance/business-insurance/930590-1.html?yahss=114-3470923-930590&siap=1 (http://www.allbusiness.com/business-finance/business-insurance/930590-1.html?yahss=114-3470923-930590&siap=1)
Search a little deeper, I'm sure you'll find more examples.
What's the point of being defeatist from the very start on such a key issue?
-
Obviously I yield to your greater legal experience, but it seems to me that a pending class action suit, or the serious threat of one, might be a big motivator for Istock to pull it's act together and stop screwing contributors. That is an early result that would be most welcome, over and above any eventual damages.
But as we stand today what are you going to sue them for, as I said earlier from what we know so far they've acted legally by removing the royalties for the relevant transactions, and what they've done is within the boundaries of the contract we signed with them. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know (even over on your side of the pond) being incompetent, bad at communication and generally annoying your suppliers is not a crime, negligence is another matter but as yet we don't know whether they have been.
-
Maybe it don't need an constributors alliance, maybe the first litte step is just.... finding a lawyer's office in canada, have someone as a stakeholder and a donation account?
And then ask this and all other related questions just directly to IS-Management.
-
the stakeholder should get money out of this donation pot. The attorney also for advice.
-
This is simply not true. Anything can be insured, ultimately through Lloyd's of London, if no other intermediary provider. And in fact, going through Lloyd's is standard procedure for multinationals. But there's no need, a quick search brings up this:
[url]http://www.allbusiness.com/business-finance/business-insurance/930590-1.html?yahss=114-3470923-930590&siap=1[/url] ([url]http://www.allbusiness.com/business-finance/business-insurance/930590-1.html?yahss=114-3470923-930590&siap=1[/url])
Search a little deeper, I'm sure you'll find more examples.
What's the point of being defeatist from the very start on such a key issue?
Theoretically it could be insured but the premium would have to significantly more than the likely losses __ so it would be cheaper for Istock to either fix the problem or pay for their own losses.
I used to work for the F. Times, part of the Pearson Group. They had about 500 'company cars' issued to senior managers as part of their benefits. At that scale it simply wasn't worth them insuring the cars through an insurance company (other than the third-party insurance required by law) as again the premiums would have been greater than the statistically-likely losses. They covered any losses themselves. The downside was if you crashed your car or had it stolen, as happened to one of my colleagues, your employer was not shy about expressing displeasure at the loss you had caused it. His 5-Series BMW (nicked when he left the keys in the ignition whilst paying for fuel in London) was replaced with a second-hand small car that he had to drive for 2-3 years until his car came up for renewal.
-
to fill the donation pot we need a banner campaign what everyone who have related websites can put on their sites....for free hopefully.
If it tend to be more than a fart of 10-100 constributors...law firms and fundraiser agencys will come to "help" :-).
-
Theories about this and that and what happend somewhere in other countries and other branches doesn't help much. In my opinion.
-
Really insightful list of questions JoAnn. Wish you'd reconsider the panel.
Those are good questions.
At the very least, I suppose, anything they answer backs them into a corner for future legal action. Oh, wait. Does the NDA protect that info from seeing the light of day, in court? Wish I were a lawyah and knew the answers to these kinds of legal questions!
-
Really insightful list of questions JoAnn. Wish you'd reconsider the panel.
+1. So do I.
rogermexico has said he'll post the NDA; perhaps the document will be narrowly drawn enough to make it reasonable (from my point of view) to sign.
I just don't want to have any trust people may have in me hijacked by an organization a little short in the trust department to use for their benefit. I think if they were to do some positive things - facts on the ground - it might go further than words anyway.
After so many things that were coming "soon" and never did (editorial being a recent exception), I think delivering bug fixes, transparency in sales information (my long-ignored suggestion (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270162&page=1)), improved communication with buyers and contributors, etc. is what's needed to rebuild trust.
Oh, and a promise of no more fraud chargebacks, where the large potential loss for them provides the incentive to really spend some money to tighten up their financial procedures.
-
Oh, wait. Does the NDA protect that info from seeing the light of day, in court?
No it doesn't, the holder of the NDA may request information falling within the agreement is held 'in camera' but either way if a judge decides the information is disclosed then it's disclosed and he/she decides the manner of the disclosure.
-
rogermexico has said he'll post the NDA; perhaps the document will be narrowly drawn enough to make it reasonable (from my point of view) to sign.
Wishful thinking, I'm guessing more thought and effort will be put into the NDA than they put into their security system.
-
Really insightful list of questions JoAnn. Wish you'd reconsider the panel.
+1. So do I.
Me3
-
farts...
-
Have they even mentioned when this "conference" is going to happen? You know what....they have said "soon" to many times....it'll probably be months before it will actually happen. I don't know what they are thinking and I could be totally wrong...but I really wonder if they didn't just come up with this proposed conference simply to quell the masses for a few more months until the next big announcement comes to light.
-
1. Are new iStock accounts handled differently from established ones? If not, why? Explain why having a few restrictions on new accounts only would not be a good solution to this problem.
2. Are iStock's procedures for handling credit card transactions the same as Getty's? If they are not, why is that and will they change to be the same?
3. If there have been frauds at Getty Images, how were contributors charged back (or not)? If there's a difference, why is that?
4. The site listing credit card problems showed incidents similar to the ones occurring in December 2010 going back many, many months. Why were steps not taken sooner? If they were taken, why weren't they adequate?
5. Why did fraud occur again in January and again at the end of February 2011? Given that whatever measures taken previously have failed, why is there any confidence that this problem will not recur?
6. Have outside experts in prevention of credit card fraud in online business (with card not present transactions) been consulted or hired? If not, why not.
7. There are many huge internet businesses (amazon.com, iTunes) which deal with online delivery of content purchased with a credit card in a card not present transaction. If they can make this work, iStock does not need to invent the wheel and can use industry best practices. What has been done to learn and follow those industry best practices.
8. Given that in the past frauds have not be charged back to contributors, why was this different?
9. What information do you have on what happened to the downloaded images? Is there anything that can be done to retrieve them.
10. Why don't you use the image tracking software that Getty uses? If it's a matter of cost, then given your newly increased percentage of the gross, don't you think you owe it to contributors to start doing what Getty does?
11. Has any analysis been done on the download patterns - going for the top sellers from many contributors portfolios, or downloading a bunch of themed images in quantities beyond anything typical for the site - to try and catch the fraud based on the downloads even if it escapes the first line of defense (purchasing the credits)? If not, why not?
If I think of more, I'll post
Now that, is a great list of question
-
I'm not sure they'll be able to ask anything but questions directly related to what they're told during the call. So, I don't know that I can anticipate questions that should be asked.
1. Most important I guess for me is, has it stopped in general and what will prevent similar future occurrences from happening?
2. I'd like further explanation regarding Andrew's statement that mass deductions won't happen again. obviously would like to know what that means in more detail.
-
Have they even mentioned when this "conference" is going to happen? You know what....they have said "soon" to many times....it'll probably be months before it will actually happen. I don't know what they are thinking and I could be totally wrong...but I really wonder if they didn't just come up with this proposed conference simply to quell the masses for a few more months until the next big announcement comes to light.
Supposedly it's going to happen as soon as Wednesday.
-
Obviously I yield to your greater legal experience, but it seems to me that a pending class action suit, or the serious threat of one, might be a big motivator for Istock to pull it's act together and stop screwing contributors. That is an early result that would be most welcome, over and above any eventual damages.
But as we stand today what are you going to sue them for, as I said earlier from what we know so far they've acted legally by removing the royalties for the relevant transactions, and what they've done is within the boundaries of the contract we signed with them. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know (even over on your side of the pond) being incompetent, bad at communication and generally annoying your suppliers is not a crime, negligence is another matter but as yet we don't know whether they have been.
RT! you simply hit the nail on the head here and this is just it. There is no crime here, just neglience and annoyance, thats all. To think that Getty/IS, would purposley go out of their way and jeopardize a multi-billion corp with a few fraudulant dls, is pretty proposterous, isnt it.
I mean if youre gonna rob a bank, make sure you get away with the entire bank and not just peanuts, the penalty is the same.
-
But as we stand today what are you going to sue them for, as I said earlier from what we know so far they've acted legally by removing the royalties for the relevant transactions, and what they've done is within the boundaries of the contract we signed with them. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know (even over on your side of the pond) being incompetent, bad at communication and generally annoying your suppliers is not a crime, negligence is another matter but as yet we don't know whether they have been.
So you don't feel they have been negligent? Or that negligence would be actionable? I would think their public announcement that everyone at HQ would be going on vacation for three weeks over the holidays and nobody would be minding the store is an example of their negligence. Considering that was when the theft seems to have started in earnest, and was allowed to go on unchecked for over a month, that appears to be a good place to start.
Maybe because you are in the UK and I am in the US we see this differently. People sue for all kinds of reasons over here, and most of them a lot less provable or damaging than what Istock has done.
-
But as we stand today what are you going to sue them for, as I said earlier from what we know so far they've acted legally by removing the royalties for the relevant transactions, and what they've done is within the boundaries of the contract we signed with them. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know (even over on your side of the pond) being incompetent, bad at communication and generally annoying your suppliers is not a crime, negligence is another matter but as yet we don't know whether they have been.
So you don't feel they have been negligent? Or that negligence would be actionable? I would think their public announcement that everyone at HQ would be going on vacation for three weeks over the holidays and nobody would be minding the store is an example of their negligence. Considering that was when the theft seems to have started in earnest, and was allowed to go on unchecked for over a month, that appears to be a good place to start.
Maybe because you are in the UK and I am in the US we see this differently. People sue for all kinds of reasons over here, and most of them a lot less provable or damaging than what Istock has done.
Not sure if you saw this attorney's (and diamond exclusive) post on his view here (http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&messageid=6047612). I think that he's in the US and I don't know if Canadian law differs materially in this area. I also don't know if we were to sue whether it would have to be in Canada or could be in the US given Getty's location.
I think it wouldn't be hard to prove negligence given the length of time the same problem has been around and the fact that they didn't take adequate steps to address it.
-
So you don't feel they have been negligent? Or that negligence would be actionable?
Lisa
You and I have known each other for a while and I don't want to fall out with you over this, read what I've written especially "....negligence is another matter but as yet we don't know whether they have been". When it comes to legal issues I'm quite good at keeping a level head and my emotions out of things, I can feel your emotions from this far away ;) What I feel and what needs to be proved are two completely different things.
Not sure if you saw this attorney's (and diamond exclusive) post on his view here ([url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&messageid=6047612[/url]).
I hadn't seen that, thanks for the link. This part of his post "If you can prove failure to act reasonably by allowing our images to be downloaded without using commercially reasonable anti-fraud measures..." is the most important part and by reading that maybe the questions I've asked in my first post of this thread may make more sense to people.
-
Not sure if you saw this attorney's (and diamond exclusive) post on his view here ([url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&messageid=6047612[/url]). I think that he's in the US and I don't know if Canadian law differs materially in this area. I also don't know if we were to sue whether it would have to be in Canada or could be in the US given Getty's location.
I think it wouldn't be hard to prove negligence given the length of time the same problem has been around and the fact that they didn't take adequate steps to address it.
If you can prove failure to act reasonably by allowing our images to be downloaded without using commercially reasonable anti-fraud measures (and we haven't waived our rights in the Agreement somewhere) and you can establish the value of the image (which should be pretty easy based on the market value established here at iStock), I think there would be a case.
I'm sure some commercial litigator could quickly figure out whether there is a claim here. It has to be significant $, based on what I figure my damages are and extrapolating from that, so, if there is a case, some money hungry attorney will be happy to help.
That's awesome news. Hadn't seen that post. Thanks for highlighting, jsnover!
-
So you don't feel they have been negligent? Or that negligence would be actionable?
Lisa
You and I have known each other for a while and I don't want to fall out with you over this, read what I've written especially "....negligence is another matter but as yet we don't know whether they have been". When it comes to legal issues I'm quite good at keeping a level head and my emotions out of things, I can feel your emotions from this far away ;) What I feel and what needs to be proved are two completely different things.
Thanks Richard, you are absolutely right. I have let my emotions get the better of me, which is rare in the forums. Although my husband could tell you real life is another matter ;)
Please don't interpret any of my frustration as being directed at you. It is entirely for another entity. But you make some really excellent points and I will yield to your and Mr. Fried's legal expertise on this. I think we, as a contributor community, are lucky to have attorneys among us who can add much needed perspective to the issue.
-
Thanks Richard, you are absolutely right. I have let my emotions get the better of me, which is rare in the forums. Although my husband could tell you real life is another matter ;)
Please don't interpret any of my frustration as being directed at you. It is entirely for another entity. But you make some really excellent points and I will yield to your and Mr. Fried's legal expertise on this. I think we, as a contributor community, are lucky to have attorneys among us who can add much needed perspective to the issue.
I think that emotions running high from anyone right now is perfectly understandable...having one's livelihood so disrupted by all of the nonsense going on at istock is very disconcerting. It doesn't matter how anyone is connected to istock...in some way or another, events of the past few months has affected us all financially, mostly for the worse.
-
Obviously I yield to your greater legal experience, but it seems to me that a pending class action suit, or the serious threat of one, might be a big motivator for Istock to pull it's act together and stop screwing contributors. That is an early result that would be most welcome, over and above any eventual damages.
But as we stand today what are you going to sue them for, as I said earlier from what we know so far they've acted legally by removing the royalties for the relevant transactions, and what they've done is within the boundaries of the contract we signed with them. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know (even over on your side of the pond) being incompetent, bad at communication and generally annoying your suppliers is not a crime, negligence is another matter but as yet we don't know whether they have been.
RT! you simply hit the nail on the head here and this is just it. There is no crime here, just neglience and annoyance, thats all. To think that Getty/IS, would purposley go out of their way and jeopardize a multi-billion corp with a few fraudulant dls, is pretty proposterous, isnt it.
I mean if youre gonna rob a bank, make sure you get away with the entire bank and not just peanuts, the penalty is the same.
Until or unless their books are audited and found to be in proper order, I will not believe there is no 'crime'. IMO - plenty more than just this situation does not compute.
-
Obviously I yield to your greater legal experience, but it seems to me that a pending class action suit, or the serious threat of one, might be a big motivator for Istock to pull it's act together and stop screwing contributors. That is an early result that would be most welcome, over and above any eventual damages.
But as we stand today what are you going to sue them for, as I said earlier from what we know so far they've acted legally by removing the royalties for the relevant transactions, and what they've done is within the boundaries of the contract we signed with them. Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know (even over on your side of the pond) being incompetent, bad at communication and generally annoying your suppliers is not a crime, negligence is another matter but as yet we don't know whether they have been.
RT! you simply hit the nail on the head here and this is just it. There is no crime here, just neglience and annoyance, thats all. To think that Getty/IS, would purposley go out of their way and jeopardize a multi-billion corp with a few fraudulant dls, is pretty proposterous, isnt it.
I mean if youre gonna rob a bank, make sure you get away with the entire bank and not just peanuts, the penalty is the same.
Until or unless their books are audited and found to be in proper order, I will not believe there is no 'crime'. IMO - plenty more than just this situation does not compute.
+1
Greed is a powerful motivator and I personally don't believe we are talking peanuts here.
How much total money do you think was raked back from the contributors on this last clawback? $20 grand? $100 grand? More? In some people's world, I guess that's peanuts but not mine. And it isn't about the total, anyway. It's about everyone's loss of IP and income, no matter how big or small. To paraphrase lagereek, stealing is a crime whether it's a pack of gum or a car.