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.

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

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.

Theories about this and that and what happend somewhere in other countries and other branches doesn't help much. In my opinion.

Quote from: lisafx on March 14, 2011, 16:18

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), 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.

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.

farts...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: lisafx on March 15, 2011, 12:07

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.

Quote from: RT on March 14, 2011, 17:24

Quote from: lisafx on March 14, 2011, 14:04

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.