anyone see this?
Curt_pickens is leaving IS.  wow.  is he here?  I can't always keep up so sorry if this was already posted.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=299222&messageid=5778432

not sure if he's moving to other sites or just quittin' alltogether.

There seem to be some other big-guns over there that are pretty irate about this whole deal.  I wonder how many birds will fall from the sky after this incident.  I suspect many that were on the fence over the royalty structure change just fell off the fence.

Quote from: tundraphoto on February 03, 2011, 22:09

I am a little puzzled at asking to be banned. Why not just stay out of the forums? That's pretty much what I'm doing, just not wasting my time over there.

Thanks, Sue.

Tundra, I'm just fed up. With Lobo deleting my posts and not those of others, with one brouhaha after the next, the whole shebang. And sure, I could self-censor/moderate or just stay out of the forums, but I know myself. crap there continues to hit the fan and piss me off and I'd rather not have even the temptation of posting or having to bite my tongue. If the threat of speaking my mind in my own voice (and yes, sometimes that means with a heavy dollop of sarcasm) means sitemails warning me to cool it or be banned,  ban me then.  it. I no longer give a crap. Besides, like I stated earlier, there is this forum if I *really* have something to say or want to interact with my fellow contributors.

I hope they get it together and the company continues on successfully for each of us, I really do. But I'm no longer interested in trying to help people who could care less about what I have to say.

I hope you didn't take my question the wrong way.  The reason I asked is that I contemplated doing the very same thing.  Then I just decided I would try to stay out.  As a result, I was curious why you actually did it.  So, I completely understand your motivation now.  I still peruse the forums over there occasionally and I have even typed in a response a few times.  However, up to this point I have just convinced myself to close that browser window and move on (i.e. not post my response) - since like you, I realize it will do no good.  I just wish more of those folks knew about this forum.

.

Although, there is the high likeliness of these (mine included) popping up on various file sharing sites sooner or later (depending on the ethics of the scammers).

Depending on the ethics of the scammers?  That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks!!

Censorship like this is an admission to guilt! Istock would not be censoring people if they didn't feel that they were saying something that was correct.  I stock will most likely make millions off of this lawsuit...lets not forget that the penalty for copyright infringement is about $10,000 per infringement....multiply by how many images were stolen...that is millions...  Something fishy is going on here.

Let's also not forget that this is an international serving company.  If the images were purchased some place where copyright doesn't mean anything, it won't amount to anything.  I don't care what the agreement on iS says.  I doubt any of us will ever see anything from this.

Istock is announcing tomorrow another pay cut to pay for this new VP. 

I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled back enough $$ from contributors this morning to pay for a month or two of that salary!

Now that I think about it, I had a similar bout last year.  I tried to make an international purchase using my credit card.  It was rejected.  Within no more than 2 minutes, I received an automated call from the credit card company notifying me to contact them immediately if this was a fraudulent transaction.  I was very surprised how quickly that occurred.  I guess the purchases at iS looked too normal to set off any alarms.

You know, this really is fishy.  I went and looked at the file that was fraudulently downloaded.  It was a very simple image.  I am not sure why someone would need to steal it.  I am starting to think someone did this on purpose with the intent to hurt iS - and the contributors.  The timing after the announcement of decreased royalty rates seems somewhat conincidental.

Has this ever happened at iS before on such a large scale?

Guess things are back to being sustainable again.  Whew!

I dropped exclusivity shortly after the announcement and have been too busy (or lazy) to upload to other sites.  I had around 1000 photos on iStock and as expected my sales are now down next to nothing. 

I'm confused?  Why not swallow your pride and go back exclusive with iS.  Then, you can forget about that whole aspect of your business.  At least the income you do get will be higher and you can go off and do other things.  As it sits, you have more potential earnings just sitting there going in someone else's pocket.

Is this just me or is Search over at iS not working this morning?  Should be a great sales day to get the week started off right!

But credit card companies guarantee payment with an authorization even if fraudulent?  If not, nobody would accept credit cards.  So, why wouldn't iStock get to keep the money?  The loser is the credit card company.

Quote from: tundraphoto on January 27, 2011, 10:50

Quote from: caspixel on January 27, 2011, 10:03

What ever happened with this? Have people had money taken away from them for the suspected fraudulent downloads? It seems people are still reporting suspicious activity. There is the expected silence from iStock.

So, if the credit card authorized the purchase, and they don't take the money back from IS (that's how it works), why would people have royalty money taken back?  The cost of covering fraudulent use is just a business expense for the credit card companies. 

iStock said they were giving people the RCs, but the money was a different story. I was just wondering if anyone affected has cashed out or had money taken back from them for any of the suspicious purchases.

What ever happened with this? Have people had money taken away from them for the suspected fraudulent downloads? It seems people are still reporting suspicious activity. There is the expected silence from iStock.

So, if the credit card authorized the purchase, and they don't take the money back from IS (that's how it works), why would people have royalty money taken back?  The cost of covering fraudulent use is just a business expense for the credit card companies.