It's funny, the tone of the article makes it sound like the guy only used a smartphone, as if anyone could do this. The helicopter seems to be the really important tool in this, not the phone.

And why on earth anyone would pay for a helicopter and then only take a cell phone with them is beyond me. I didn't need this guy to prove to me that phones take reasonably decent snapshots these days.

No disrespect but you and some others need to take a step out of 'stock' world sometimes, the OP has linked to an article and the photographers website, read them both and it should be very clear that this is one of (if not the) worlds top ariel photographers who has been commissioned by Nokia to shoot some stuff from a helicopter (that has Nokia N8 written on the side!! plus everyone is wearing a jacket with Nokia N8 on) on a Nokia N8 phone, and to be fair in the commercial world it's the end result and the purpose for which it to be used that matters the most not the over enthusiastic technical examination associated with stock photos, personally speaking (having done a couple of ariel shots myself) I think the resulting photos in that article are superb having been shot with nothing more than a camera phone.

I wonder if these girls (the company that produced the video, Ark Music Factory, has bunches of them!) write these songs themselves or if Ark has a pile of bad songs for them to choose from.

I wonder if they used the same people who wrote the latest Fotolia ad in Photoshop User magazine.

I'd never heard of him but had a look at his website, the first thing that struck me is that people could save themselves a lot of money and just buy a $1 app for their iPhone to achieve the same look, but that's just me I hate all that 'hipstamatic' snap shot style.

They were an organisation with no powers who didn't understand the industry - so who cares

I think you should first decide what market you want to sell to, you've mentioned - stock, direct to the client, corporate art and postcards all in one sentence.

And I echo what Leaf said, we all think our photo's are special, try not to get yourself on too much of a 'high' because unbiased criticism is long fall. Wait until someone else (who wants to pay you lots of money) tells you they're super  

I just hope they can keep that nuclear power station under control.  I watched a programme about Chernobyl and that was close to a complete catastrophe.

If you get the chance watch Sky news, they had an 'expert' on this morning and unlike most of their experts he seemed to actually know what he was talking about, he played down most of the reporters attempt at scaremongering and explained things in a calm and precise manner, it doesn't look good but it's not as bad as the news channel would like to make out.

I'm no illustrator but my immediate obsvervation is that the outine on the bird and flower to the top left as we see it appears faded compared to the rest of the subject, maybe that's why they rejected it. I understand why the faded part adds a dimension to the body of the character but I always thought the outline of characters such as this need to be defined. That's my guess anyway.
I've given up trying to understand the reviewers on Dreamstime a long time ago.

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.

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.

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.

Exclusives and non-exclusives should be working together to figure out how to make the future of microstock better for all of us, not engaging in cat fights and petty squabbles.

I totally agree and in fairness there's many exclusives and non-exclusives who do just that.

.. if exclusives want so much to be exclusive, why don't the exclusives bear the brunt exclusively of the clawback?

Because the clawback has nothing to do with exclusivity, it's a legal requirement, otherwise you'd be making a financial gain through criminal activities.
Selling stock is not like other businesses who sell products because in that case the business has bought the product from the supplier, if they get hit with a fraudulent card case the business takes the whole hit because they own the product they sold, in microstock and specifically in this case iStock they don't own the product we do, they're just acting as a sales agent. The point to discover is whether they or the cards companies have any liability.

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 

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.