I get the aestetics as well.

Thats ok, we cannot all be aestetical.
But I can be feathered and rough at the same time.

beer! and some self mutilation.
But only a small and short dose of  the later.

Rejections are not important. Let the agencies have fun. Thats their place in time and space.

I was about to write that i wondered why I had to scroll down when my screen is wide.
But i couldnt, I found out I was banned.

Its dead for me.
Fot far surpassing DT

They need to be sued.
There was a "decency" post that got deleted on istock before i read it, was it yours?

I have posted this in teh lawyer thread:
istock and istocklawyer.


Do you not do not realize that refunding undermines the whole bussiness agreement we have with you.


The deal is relatively simple: We allow you to distribute licences based on our copyright. You provide distribution channels and a financial system. For this you take 84% commission. All our files are inspected by istock and all material on the site is approved by istock. This is what you are paid for, to maintain the marketplace. You are of course free to negotiate all kinds of rebates and refund policies, but it must be kept within your domain.


When you refund a file to us, for any reason, you deny your responsibility for the marketplace and moves responsibility back to the contributor, just like before you approved the files.


You cannot only take responsibility for the marketplace when its profitable and leave the losses on the contributors who have no influence on the decisions inside the marketplace. If you do so, then you have fluid borders in your business, and the business is on swampy ground legally you may loos the rights to your commision, or you may be breaking the contract.


The deal is clear, you get your commision so you can maintain the marketplace. No less no more, the contributors are not part of the markeplace, neither in agreement nor in fact.


You have a dashboard full of financial buttons, and it seems that you have pressed many at PLUS for istock. But because you have that dashbord, and can press buttons it does not mean it is legal. Istock lawyer, being a lawyer must have considered  what a court would say to the questions about refunding, currency, and round ups. And yes, we are small solitary fish, but we are very MAD. And fish can school.


Considering fraud.


First the insult that the contributors should not be able to buy their own files with a stolen credit card. Same with istock employees, they should not be able to, with a stolen password to go back and claw in refunds.


Still, its all your marketplace, and you can hire detectives or the whole swiss guards to keep it clean. It IS your responsibility, not the contributors.


And then I do not understand how you dare refund us for fraud downloads. Do you not realize that our loss compares to a full sell of the rights. A loss that istoch is responsible for.


So Ill end this post by issuing a protest by today 13. dec. 2012, that I protest against any refunds for the above reasons, and Im especially conserned about fradulent downloads.

Come to Denmark, and Ill do it.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 11, 2012, 07:09

Farewell. What will your new name be when you come back in a few days?

Considering this type of character, it is not a question under which alias he is coming back, but under which alias(es) he is still posting.... 

I fear many of us could be him?

I have the feeling that I have better post it here also:
I wrote in the istock forum:
Rebecca...

I would like to see some open and clear communication about the following very concrete issues:

Refunding policy. What is istocks refunding policy and does istock take the necessary measures to prevent our content from being illegally distributed?
Is the calculation of exchange rates fair and does contributors get a fair share of any gains?
Is calculations of commision shares correct in all cases?
Are the number of downlads measured correctly.
What rules for rounding down or up is istock following?

Quote from: JPSDK on December 11, 2012, 11:24

I think it is not appropriate to discuss this sort of thing.

With all due respect, this may be your ethical viewpoint. As long as I'm not infringing any forum rules, I was under the impression we can discuss anything.

Quote

First we do not know what happened

We know what happened: The teacher was hit by a train because she broke the law. This happens when people walk on train tracks or right next to them as trains only travel on train tracks. She didn't walk on the sidewalk, in a parking lot or a park. Sorry to be so blunt.

Quote

Second we (hopefully) do not know the person
Anyone's death is serious and should not be ridiculed on internet forums.

This didn't happen within the confines of someone's home. This happened on (most likely) public property and will be (and has been) covered by the local media as well. This is reality, which happens every day multiple times across the nation. People love to look away from this incidents and try to ignore them as if they don't happen.

People have to be informed about the risks and dangers of our daily lives and why rules and laws are in place to protect every one of us. The teacher deliberately placed herself in harms way for a photo and now we see the result of her actions.

Nobody here has been ridiculing the victim or the family. I feel sorry for the family especially the kids.

We all have to take responsibility for our actions. As mentioned before, her, being a daughter, mother, wife and friend of many I cannot grasp the desire to place myself on train tracks, especially when there is already a train traveling next to the track I'm standing on. 

Let's put it this way: It wasn't a smart idea to take images on the tracks.

all what you say is correct, we should discuss things.
Just in a general way, not with mentioning people.
The net never forgets, and it is not nice for her children to find this thread in 10 years time.
I think the moderator should remove it.

A troll is not someone who has a different opinion.
A troll is someone with a certain behaviour on the net.

I have once shot a carrier pidgeon, so I have litterally shot a messenger.

+ dont take the net too seriously, people do say strange things.

Hide and search

They know exactly how it works.
They had turned it into a hide machine, to hide files so they could save money.

All they have done during the last 2 years smells of financial trouble. They said it themselves: "unsustainable".
So they introduced RD and raised the prices so they could be sure the contributors would have a falling share.
Som when contributors complain about falling sales and dropping RD levels, its just a sign of sustainability, exactly as they planned for.
If only the shouting was not so loud and if only the communication was more civilized and not like watching a carcrash.