|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - chrisboy2004
Pages: [1]
1
« on: March 17, 2011, 19:00 »
just wondered who uses software progs for uploading images etc. I'm aware of Deepmeta for istock, just came across one called prostockmaster which apparently will allow me to upload to most of the popular stock sites. does anyone else use this? if so, how do you find it?
2
« on: March 17, 2011, 18:36 »
... 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 
3
« 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 ....
4
« on: March 17, 2011, 17:37 »
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
5
« on: March 17, 2011, 16:39 »
@fullvalue if I lived closer to Toronto, I could have collected this morning in person. .but to answer your question, I was asked my address on the phone, and thats where its being shipped to (its the address associated with my own card)
6
« on: March 17, 2011, 15:37 »
First off, Thanks to Sean and the others that participated in the conference call. Its a difficult issue with a lot of us and many a temper are flaring...I dont envy the task of that call.
my 2c.. this is largely based on the post from Sean, and also from the email I received directly from iStock on the matter.
With so much attention focused on this issue right now, both on external websites and within the iStock forums itself... and given the malcontent of contributors over recouped monies, they obviously need to be seen to be actively doing something about it. It should go without saying they cant specifically and publicly state how they intend to defeat the bad guys - doing that, we might as well hang a sign out and say 'Hey come here, this is how to rip us off now'.
One of the biggest issues regarding the ill feeling is having the earnings taken back by iStock. While it was done fairly quickly the first time, on reflection I have to say that this last time, they at least gave warning and some time in advance, additionally, there's the option to contact Joyze and have the repayment spread out over time rather than in one swoop. Given that its not a new issue at iStock however, and 'was just a file here and there in the past', the cost of which they absorbed up to now... this says to be that the problem is an ongoing one and measures should have been well in place before now. I still stand by my statement that we shouldn't have to foot the bill for this second instance.
As Sean commented on the iStock thread, future royalties are not necessarily precluded from being withdrawn in the event of another fraudulent sale. Given the track record of the past three months, I may be somewhat pessimistic, but I dont think this is over and I foresee royalties being recouped again at a future date. I hope I'm wrong in saying that....but....we'll see I guess
Given that Paypal has the ability to insure users on their site in respect of sending / receiving money... obviously insurance of some sort exists for companies dealing in large sums of money, hopefully iStock is examining this issue. I agree with Sean on that contributors need to be insured against this type of loss in some way.
on a side note, a little story (and I must admit I was a little stunned by how easy this was....)
Yesterday, I finalized a deal with a Toronto camera store.,...a fairly well know chain in this area of Canada. I was upgrading my slr (I used to have a 1Ds MkII)... and I was getting a G11 as well. Long story short, I discovered while they did accept paypal, going through their checkout process, it would only allow me to use echeck or a credit card. echeck was too slow (I wanted the camera so i could keep working rather than depending on the backup camera's)... but my CC didn't have enough room to make full payment. I consulted with she who must be obeyed without question aka the wife, who agreed to let me split the cost on her card. So....moving right along, here I am om the phone, giving credit card details to a store rep... who accepted me at face value and processed the transaction). Now maybe because it was the wife and I had said that, the store rep didn't blink an eye, or question it, neither did they call to verify that it was me calling, they didn't call wifey to verify that I was authorized to use her card....payment was simply accepted. Now I don't for a minute advocate giving information like that over the phone and I don't normally make a practice of doing so, neither have I shopped at this particular outlet before.... (and yes I know there's most likely more than a few reading this that thinks I'm an idiot for giving CC info over the phone)... my point is this.... had my wife and I been compromised, and someone had the CC numbers. doe of the card and the csv number.... it's all too easy to spend money that's not yours. In this respect, I find it a little harder to hold istock at fault.
7
« on: March 17, 2011, 12:39 »
For now, using that CSV is supposed to be security on cards....obviously its a flawed system when it comes to transactions where the card is not physically present. My mastercard that I had prior to moving to Canada from Ireland in 2005 already had the chip[ on it, and was a separate pin to the one on the magnetic stripe. Legally I don't think iStock could ask for your PIN number... I also feel the majority of people would refuse to provide that information.
For subscription holders, I think they could implement a system similar to that of Paypal when a credit card is added to the account; a small charge is debited to the card, usually something between 11c and $1...the money is never actually taken but I'm assuming the CC company authorizes the transaction or whatever behind the scenes. What puzzles me is Paypal can provide insurance for payments / purchases online.... what stops iStock from implementing a similar system.
I have to admit that its the first time I've heard of hearing about entering your zip code.... but I totally agree with you when you say it needs to be a lot harder in order to prevent it happening. CC fraud is costing these companies hundreds of millions each year....
what gets me is that even if the people perpetrating the crime are caught....they get a small sentence that's practically a slap on the wrist and probably never serve the full sentence either...
as for that conference call.... I think iStock know they need to quiet the unrest and will hand out enough spin to make people quiet down....I dont think for a moment that we'll get any relevant information that will show an end to this fiasco
8
« on: March 17, 2011, 11:43 »
I've been at this microstock a few years now, and what I notice when I stop uploading for any period of time, is that I see my sales start to drop. By period of time, I mean that I stopped uploading for at least a month...just busy with other things here in the studio. Once I started uploading again, the sales seemed to return to their normal level.
9
« on: March 17, 2011, 11:34 »
I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock. How worried should I be?
I don't understand why people keep posting these threads in the forums like a lighting rod. Why not just keep quiet rather than draw attention and give them yet another excuse to investigate more deeply and take more money away.
Yes, right. Because if we ignore it then it will just go away.
Very simply.... now we all dont know if a sale is genuine or not, more so when we see a spat of sales like that which in the past two instances have turned out to be fraudulent sales. Of course one is going to worry... how long can we afford to have income generated from these sales clawed back. Do people honestly think that if we dont mention anything about large sales trends on a forum that iStock wont notice? that they're not (we hope) watching and verifying that the sales are genuine.... Ironically, although I take Lisa's reply to be a somewhat sarcastic comment, I think it reflects how many of us think iStock seems to have been dealing with this to date
10
« on: March 17, 2011, 08:21 »
finally got a reply to the email I sent to contributor relations (I emailed directly as opposed to going through the iStock webform)....rather strongly voiced my dissaproval over the clawback of earnings a second time...and the fact that it happened again. My reply? well to me its all a bunch of spin.....shouldnt have expected much less I suppose Hello Christopher,
Thank you very much for your message and sorry for the delay in response.
We are currently taking many precautions protect your files and to ensure that our Contributors files are not being used illegally online or elsewhere. Kindly note it is in your best interest as well as iStockphoto's that we do this. We continue to draw on both our own knowledge and help from outside sources to develop new solutions. We continue to draw on both our own knowledge and help from outside sources to develop new solutions as well as improve old ones.
Christopher, if you do see any files being used illegally online please e-mail our Compliance Enforcement Team at [email protected]
As per your message, if the amount withdrawn is going to affect you negatively you can e-mail [email protected] and have the royalty removal broken up over a 6 month period.
With your request to only use PayPal or restricting purchases to Direct Deposit or Payment Card Transfer via credit card this would be nearly impossible as many of our buyers are worldwide. There are certain countries that do not have Interact or PayPal placing these restrictions on buyers could impact sales.
In iStocks original e-mail we state that iStockphoto is responsible for refunding any full purchase like this to the card holder's financial institution; therefore iStock does foot the bill. The refund issued is the full amount that was paid out to iStock a portion of which was paid out in royalties. Kindly note that we cannot pay out royalties from funds that did not exist in the first place. We are not issuing this royalty removal to penalize artists within the iStockphoto site.
To clarify the fraud on the site occurred in the following manner: Someone uses credit cards to purchase credits on our site. These purchases are authorized by the credit card company, but not authorized by the credit card holder. The Fraudster then downloaded images using the credits. We actively find these fraudulent purchases and close the accounts. At the same time, customers discover charges on their credit card that they did not authorize. The customer notifies the Credit Card Company, who then in turn removes the transaction amount from iStockphoto because it was a card not present purchase. This is what was occurring. As there has been some confusion regarding the word unauthorized we want to make it clear that the Credit Card transactions were authorized by the bank, but were not authorized by the actual card holders themselves. There is no typical insurance that will safeguard against this type of fraud.
We understand the disappointment and frustration this has caused. It is not an easy time right now. We are working hard to safeguard the site from this kind of problem.
Ordinarily, iStock does not take back royalties after verifying a fraudulent download. However, because of the scale of this fraud, we have to take the unfortunate step of removing royalties. Any royalties attributed to your account from verified fraudulent downloads will be removed March 17, 2011.
I apologize for any inconvenience this causes.
Sincerely,
Alyshia
Contributor Relations
iStockphoto
Toll Free: 1-866-478-6251
PH: (403) 265-3062
11
« on: March 13, 2011, 17:32 »
To me, the only reason they'd be buying photos is that they have a vested interest in the business or a related business. What puzzled me was the repeated purchasing of the same image....buying several different images with which they can create a stock image cd or database available to others would make some sort of sense....
but out there somewhere, someone is laughing at the chaos they have created with this.....
from an even more obscure point of view....a hacker or hackers doing it just because they can?
no matter the scenario for why, at the end of the day, it remains that their was a severe lapse of security at iStock for which they're charging their contributors....they seem to have lost sight of the fact that their multi billion dollar business came about because of us in the first place....
13
« on: March 13, 2011, 14:47 »
most of the n/ware progs do that... I use this prog because its somewhat 'intelligent' and doesnt crucify detail unnecessarily. Its also very customizable, but since I shoot at iso50 I hardly ever need to use it
14
« on: March 13, 2011, 14:18 »
doesnt iStock reserve the right to use contributor photos for whatever purpose in the agreement?? However I do agree that its unethical give that we have effectively lost an image sale and related income. With business practices like this no wonder corporate buyers are jumping a sinking ship
I don't even see how that could possibly be legal either. To use someone else's property in a sting operation without their permission, and then turn around and take the money back from the vendor? If they wanted to use your property in a sting operation, they should have BOUGHT it first.
[/quote]
15
« on: March 13, 2011, 14:05 »
what I find laughable though is this....... great, the brass at iStock obviously realize the wheel on the wagon are * loose right now....bad PR, lost finances (not on their part)....the silence has been deafening which in turn has only fueled the fire so to speak....so the have the brainstorm to have a conference call.....with 5 members?  ? I'm sorry, how many contributors are there on iStock?? 5 isn't even a representative figure by comparison. While there are time zones etc to take account of, I'm sure contributors would be more than happy to oblige....and then there's the NDA. These are are pointed out earlier, common business practice... Ive beta tested action sets and always have to sign one. I would hope that the iStock NDA would relate to legal proceedings or details related to the investigation which wouldn't be common knowledge, which at a later date could have bearing on any criminal proceedings. Anything more than that and this conference call is just a farce designed to quell the quickly brewing firestorm
16
« on: March 13, 2011, 13:49 »
I use Noiseware Professional from Imagenomic. I find it quite good, it 'recognises' skin tones where people are, and had various settings for both colour and luma noise which you can edit as a cr2 or nef file in photoshop.
Lots of good suggestions already on how to avoid noise..
17
« on: March 13, 2011, 13:08 »
iStock got caught with their pants down over Christmas. that's when they should have stood up and implemented stronger security measures. Many websites these days accept credit card payments, its just the way business has evolved - the majority are as in the case with iStock 'card not present'. A simple thing like asking for the CSV number could help reduce this fraud. Bad enough we as contributors had to cover the loss the first time... but when they let it happen a second time? I see absolutely no reason why we should cover the loss this time. Their silence isn't helping matters with anyone, even if one emails them directly, their isn't a response. RCMP are apparently investigating, but we only have the word of iStock for this. They don't plan to recoup monies in the future? read it again...there's no guarantee in there that they wont. Credit card companies are extensively insured against fraud, at least my visa and MasterCard are - why then is the cost being forced onto the contributors? Its a substantial loss of earnings...sadly as time goes on, iStock is rapidly deteriorating and I think its days are numbered. They have shot themselves in the proverbial foot with their actions of the past twelve months
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
