|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 77
501
« on: March 14, 2011, 06:34 »
What security measures were in place at the time of the first theft?
What changes in security were made after the first thefts were detected?
Why could additional thefts take place after new security measures were in place?
Can Istock guarantee additional charge backs will not be passed along to contributors?
Thanks for your questions, I was modifying my post at the same time you were writing yours and had added two questions that cover your first two. FYI I have a legal background, your 3rd and 4th questions are not something that IMO should be asked as any answer may be classed as opinion not factual based or are speculative. For instance to ask why it happened again would be the purpose of the investigation anyway, to ask if it'll happen again is not something anybody could answer because any law or conditions of card use that applies now could be amended in the future.
502
« on: March 14, 2011, 05:40 »
I thought I'd start a thread where we can post questions we'd like asked by the nominated five for the conference call with iStockphoto HQ regarding the recent fraudulent credit card transactions we have suffered.
Let's keep this thread precise and to the point, this thread isn't to be used for your opinions on the nominees or indeed the whole idea of the conference call.
Once the names of the nominees have been announced I or someone else if I don't say that I've done it here (I'm away quite a bit at the moment) could then contact those people and send them the link to this post.
Although they'll be required to sign an NDA by iStock and may not be able to give answers to the questions at the time being should there be any legal action at a later date either individually or as a class action at least iStockphoto should then be in a position to have the answers.
Just to clarify something, for anybody thinking this is a witch hunt going after iStockphoto think again, this is to discover which party (if there is one) will be ultimately responsible for covering any financial loss, that may be the banks/ card issuers, security providers or it may be iStockphoto if they've neglected requirements for card transactions. I'm as angry as the next person that this has happened but my goal is to get answers.
The question I'd like asked is this:
Q - Who do iStockphoto say is legally responsible for bearing the financial loss of these transactions:
a - The card issuing company/bank
b - The merchant (i.e. iStockphoto.com)
c - Us (as in contributors) the victims of this crime being that it was our property (images) that were downloaded using the fraudulent card transactions.
d - The cardholder, the person who's card number was used.
For clarification I understand why the royalties have been taken back from our accounts as we can't benefit from the actual crime itself which is what would be happening if they left the money with us, however at some stage somebody has to be responsible for the financial loss.
Modified to add a couple of more questions:
Q - Do iStockphoto have a security protocol in place such as 'Verified by Visa' or after the initial discovery of Fraudulent card use back in December was one implemented then.
Q - Does and did iStockphoto fully comply with PCI DSS & PA DSS requirements.
503
« on: March 14, 2011, 04:48 »
That way it can come from the mouths of someone 'impartial' instead of the iStock staff who most people no longer believe.
IMO someone 'impartial' would not be an iStock exclusive, if they want impartiality an independent contributor would be the best choice. Here's something to consider, if there is indeed an investigation ongoing that involves outside agencies why are iStock trying to instigate the 'secret five', I find it strange to believe that any outside official agency would tell iStock that they can't disclose anything to the majority about the investigation but it's OK to go ahead and tell five people in secret. My biggest fear is that's in an in-house investigation which leaves me no faith in a satisfactory outcome whatsoever. I've had some images stolen as a result of this fiasco like the majority of us, however at this stage there's isn't enough for me to consider committing the time to follow it up, but for anybody that does feel they want to commit that time you could consider this, iStock have informed you your property (images) have been stolen using a fraudulent credit card, YOU are the victim it's your property, iStock are not a victim as they've taken the money back (commissions) from you (which I'm not even sure is legal, it's hard for me to search not being in the US/Canada but most info I can find says it's the 'merchant' who is responsible for bearing the loss of fraudulent card use), therefore it is YOU that is the victim and is entitled to report the crime to the authorities, iStock are an involved in an administrative role and have chosen to keep vital information from us, if you want answers it might be the route to take.
504
« on: March 13, 2011, 14:02 »
One other thing to consider, and I'm only whistling in the dark, is that the authorities might have needed iStock to let the fraud to on so that they could find the perp, because only then was there a chance of catching them and preventing the work which was stolen being passed on, e.g. on illegal DVDs, websites etc.
Not being an expert on Canadian law but I expect it's roughly the same as European law and if so there is no chance whatsoever that there was any kind of 'sting' operation, iStock do not own the property that was stolen with fraudulent credit cards, we do, and I for one was not contacted and did not give my permission for my property to be used in this way. There are many other factors that make this idea to be very very unlikely. Still fingers crossed, I could do with a free trip to Canada to testify in court  But this sort of speculation further adds to my point that iStock would do far better if they just came out and gave some details which they could quite easily do without jeopardising any investigation, the lack of info only leads me to believe it errs more of the side of complete incompetence on iStocks part that anything else.
505
« on: March 13, 2011, 12:28 »
I think it's a good move and seeks to create a bridge of communication between HQ and contributors in a language that won't further alienate the community.
Just for a change why don't you put some thought into your comments instead of what looks like a 'hope the iStock management read this grovelling statement' type reply. How could this possibly be a "bridge of communication between HQ and contributors" the contributors are being asked to sign a NDA  If iStock wanted to communicate with contributors without alienating the community here's a novel idea - get somebody with an ounce of intelligence to explain what's happening on their forum that isn't made up of obvious PR created BS. Of course that's not what they want, they want five cheerleading dimwits who they can hoodwink with some corporate waffle that they know will then come back and tell everybody else things are just fine.
506
« on: March 11, 2011, 12:36 »
I assume everything in any ad is fake, unless stated otherwise.
I assume everything any politician says is fake, even if it is stated otherwise!
507
« on: March 09, 2011, 13:01 »
My Fotolia sales have dropped dramatically also, but I haven't noticed any problems with getting stuff approved.
508
« on: March 09, 2011, 07:16 »
All that might happen is that there will be a huge waste of both time and money which may possibly result in Royalty Free images being referred to as something different in France.
Or in other words - It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck but to keep the french happy lets call it a cow.
509
« on: March 08, 2011, 17:09 »
the @istock guy thinks they've got a copyright on the term "vetta" !!!! Maybe you should tweet him back and ask if he knows what copyright means 
511
« on: March 04, 2011, 14:27 »
I really don't understand why people seem intent on supporting new sites just at the drop of a hat. This site has a loooonnnngggg way to go before I'd even consider looking into uploading there, nearly every photograph is by the same photographer Yaroncg , and if you're that photographer whom I presume is the same guy running the site here's a couple of tips. 1- You can't sell a photo of an Audi car at a motorshow as RF with all the logos showing and even the name Audi on the number plate!!!!, tip number 2 - if you're going to run a site selling images it probably isn't a good idea to have some of the images as available to download without paying ( that Audi images as example).
512
« on: March 04, 2011, 14:15 »
Wow I just recieved my first 20 credit EL at fotolia....I was shocked to learn that I only receive $4 for an Extended license sale.....that has got to be the lowest in the industry, I don't understand who they are competing with at such a low EL price when no one else is even that close, certainly they could raise it and still be competitive.
You decide the EL price when you upload, if you want it to sell for more than 20 credits raise the amount.
513
« on: March 04, 2011, 09:56 »
Maybe I missed it, but I wouldn't feel at all comfortable working with such an anonymous organization. No company name, no phone, no address, no location of any kind that I can see.
Well the site doesn't have that info but it only took me 5 mins to find the guys real name and the address of the house the domain is registered to, I even saw an ariel photo of his house and all the details of how much he paid for it. The internet is a dangerous place if you're trying to remain anonymous!
I could have done that as well, but it wasn't my point. I expect my agents to be more forthcoming about their identities. It's their job to give me confidence that they won't disappear as mysteriously as they appeared. These guys have done nothing in that regard.
We've crossed wires, I was just trying to point out that (as you said) this site has no information regarding ownership and yet a quick search reveals it's probably being run from the guys house, which I think we'll both agree doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
514
« on: March 04, 2011, 05:49 »
515
« on: March 04, 2011, 02:25 »
Some of your arguments might be on point but you have ignored the bigger picture, the whole picture. he not only copies the concept, the idea, the pose but also THE KEYWORDS AND TITLE. No court in any land would ignore this fact; he saw the image, he copied the image, he copied the keywords and he copied the title.
I haven't ignored any bigger picture, and I'm not trying to justify what he/she has done, just pointing out that no laws have been broken. And for reference keywords and titles are not copyright protected.
516
« on: March 04, 2011, 02:18 »
Maybe I missed it, but I wouldn't feel at all comfortable working with such an anonymous organization. No company name, no phone, no address, no location of any kind that I can see.
Well the site doesn't have that info but it only took me 5 mins to find the guys real name and the address of the house the domain is registered to, I even saw an ariel photo of his house and all the details of how much he paid for it. The internet is a dangerous place if you're trying to remain anonymous!
517
« on: March 03, 2011, 19:07 »
You're asking people to sign up and provide a copy of their ID before they can see the contributor terms and conditions - no thanks.
By the way isn't this statement on your front page a self contradiction (I've underlined the relevant bits):
"Sell Images - we pay photographers from 50% to 75% from day one! No levels!"
518
« on: March 03, 2011, 18:54 »
Well, these are pretty valid points and like I said I am not an attorney. Just my interpretation of the PACA copyright Commandments. Thanks for your point of view.
Sure no problem, one thing to remember when quoting the PACA commandments is that those commandments are...well they are not commandments they are the PACA interpretation. There is no international copyright commandments, we have the Berne convention which is a type of international recognition of common copyright law although even within itself it states the copyright law of the country in which the copyright is held will apply i.e. PACA can write whatever they like but it's pretty much irrelevant to anyone outside of the US. Personally I think it comes down to a matter of opinion whether this person has a) copied, b) been inspired by the concept, c) created a derivative work or d) just had the same idea for a photo.
519
« on: March 03, 2011, 15:46 »
But in court I'd think that the ruling would be that someone intentionally created a derivative, which is illegal.
Couple of minor points, firstly both parties would have to be from the same country otherwise no court would have juristiction and secondly and most importantly one party would have to prove that the other party had seen the original image in question before they created their "copy" (virtually impossible to prove unless the "copier" downloaded the image) for any possibility of a court case. Add to the fact that the images in question here are similar but not identical and as frustrating as it may make you feel but this wouldn't ever make it into a court. To put this into perspective I have a shot of an apple on a white background, should I consider suing everyone else that uploaded a similar one after mine? It's a similar shot, it's not a copy and nobody has broken any laws. That's not to say that a site may consider removing one of the images but that's nothing to do with the law. In the early days of microstock there were a fair few traditional stock shooters who were accusing Yuri of the exact same thing
520
« on: March 02, 2011, 17:55 »
Yuri's model is nicer to look at, the composition and pose are better, the lighting and exposure are spot on, and the scale doesn't look like it came from Walmart.
Point, yuri. This is a case where the better shot wins.
Would have been better if you couldn't see the reflection of the strobe in the scale though
521
« on: February 25, 2011, 16:23 »
Good Luck and If ya want help we are there for you.If ya don't, keep flopping around sites like this bitching and moaning.
Anybody would get a better evaluation of their work here than they would on Shutterstock any day of the week because some of the biggest names in microstock come here, the biggest problem with the Shutterstock forum is that there's no way to establish whether the person who's giving critique knows what they're talking about or just trying to bump up their own ego.
522
« on: February 24, 2011, 19:57 »
Just my opinion but I'd say it's probably because the sky is too dark considering the shadows you've applied and the grass rim doesn't look realistic.
523
« on: February 24, 2011, 19:13 »
Hi Randy,
Great observation and hats off for your work with the PPA we need more people like yourself around.
Best,
Jonathan
Thinking about it you're right, we do need more people like him around.
524
« on: February 24, 2011, 07:13 »
What's truly impressive about that video is all the wood molding, beautiful floors, columns and ceiling tiles. A successful photography studio is primarily based on marketing. Which doesn't just mean forms of advertising media. A big portion of that is atmosphere. Your environment reflects on your work even if the environment is completely invisible in your work. If people see your studio atmosphere as rich, elegant and valuable then the services and products you supply are obviously valuable .. regardless of if they are or not.
That might apply in the family portrait business but certainly not in the commercial world, quality of work aside, easy access, free parking, wifi and a good coffee machine will beat "rich, elegant and valuable" every single day of the week. As for stock images apart from the obvious fact of being able to use the settings in your image what your studio looks like won't make a single difference. It's a lovely studio with lots of lovely kit which would be a joy to work in, but the one and only thing that matters about a studio is what comes out of it. If somebody told you they would give you $100K in equipment or only $10K to invest in your appearance as a professional which would you choose? Only a fool would take the gear. So if it's a tossup between another lens and hardwood flooring .. go with the flooring.
One of the funniest things you're written so far
525
« on: February 23, 2011, 08:24 »
Indeed, it's just hidden advertising. Well not that hidden. But sure, I understand Yuri, getting all this toys for free just for making a 5 min video sure is a great deal.
Did I miss something, where did he say he got all the equipment for free? This video above will cause hundreds of photographers to the ProFoto web site to research and order enough ProFoto lighting over the next few months to more than makeup for giving Yuir a few lights for his studio.
Absolutely, up until now loads of photographers had been using candles to light their stuff whilst they sat on huge piles of money, at last now they'll be able to buy some decent gear I'm sure he'll step in to let us know but my guess is that he got a good deal because of the amount of kit he bought, but then again so could anybody if they were buying that quantity. Profoto is well known in the industry and I doubt any photographer is suddenly going to rush out and buy their stuff just because they found out Yuri uses it. If they can afford it they'll already know about it.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
