Quote from: caspixel on March 12, 2011, 18:54

OMG, this has got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard from iStock, in response to someone inquiring about the CC fraud, posted in the forum:

I was told by customer service, and again I'm just repeating what I was told, that these frauds were in the nature of tests. Possibly to see if the cards were working.

I can't even believe they are trying to sell that sh*t. No one would buy THOUSANDS of dollars of photos just to 'test' a card. iStock has hit a new low with their lies I think. I'm sure it's their way of trying to cover up their liability for the loss of future contributor profits from those files. I mean, if the thieves are just 'testing' the cards, they aren't really going to do anything with the photos, right? The transparency of that reasoning is about the only thing that is transparent over there at the moment.

... and of course you can only 'test' if cards are working properly if you only download best-selling images, Vetta and Agency at their largest size available. Always. Otherwise the 'test' wouldn't be valid. Right?

Exactly!

They must still think people are on the Kool-Aid or something and that the contributors will believe any old cock and bull story. Their disdain for the contributors couldn't be more obvious.

In a tweet he mentioned that his last day at iStock was 25th Feb.

24th Feb - SoCoAddict
Tomorrow is my last day as a senior designer at @iStock. Talk about an incredible five years. #startingtofeelstrange

Yet another talented, interesting and long standing iStocker exiting the company.

What is going on here?  Are Getty slashing iStock costs while they ramp up expenditure on Thinkstock and Photos.com, or are people simply walking away in disgust (and in significant numbers).

I guess that debunks rogermexico's claim that people just don't quit iStock!

Wow. Posted on the Royalties Claw Back thread:

An interesting side-note. By day I work for a large advertising group (not as a designer, in I.T.).. Our head office just received a notice form one of our biggest clients requesting (on moral grounds), that no artwork/images for any future contracts be sourced from iStock or any of the Getty images family! We have never had a request like this before.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=53

Interesting.

Even more interesting that this post has now disappeared from the thread.

Quote

Posted by PeskyMonkey:

No contract or agreement is ever water-tight in the eyes of lawyers Stacey.

Quote

Posted by stacey_newman:

sorry, but that's just silly.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=51

Actually, it's anything but. A good contract or agreement is air-tight, but there are many such legal documents with holes that end up sinking said agreements in court.

Who knows if this contract is rock solid or not? And given the way things are going and the astronomical sums that are being clawed back (among all the other questions and concerns raised), is it not worth challenging in court or having - at the very least - OUR attorneys review it? Rather than just taking your word that it's silly to question or Getty's word or anyone's from HQ?

People sign hold-harmless agreements and get settlements all the time, like I said above. If challenged, iStock might just want to settle for $$$, just to keep their dirty little secrets from getting out (like how incredibly poor their book keeping is - is anyone in any doubt that their books are actually in order, especially considering the $0 royalties, missing EL bonuses, weird fluctuating account balances, etc, etc, etc).

iStock may regret ever using that "dirty little secret" slogan. They seem to have a lot of them. More every day.

Here's a thought to people saying that iStocks legalese in the contract protects iStock from any kind of liability. Just because their contract states they are not liable doesn't necessarily mean it will hold up. People sign hold-harmless agreements for many activities, from horse-back riding to skiing, that state they are engaging in a high risk activity and they won't hold the ski resort, horse trainer, or other individuals liable, but I know there are cases where people have sued and been awarded settlements. Just recently, a judge allowed a complaint against a horse trainer to go forward for people whose daughter was killed at a horse show. And they blame the trainer. Heck, people who illegally trespass on someone's property and then get hurt on it have sued the property owners and won. So just because iStock's contract *says* they can't be held liable, doesn't mean it would actually *hold up* in court, especially with a very clever lawyer representing the contributors.

Quote from: caspixel on March 10, 2011, 13:26

Diamond contributor turning in their crown: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312432&page=1

Well, turning in the crown on 139 illustrations but not 3,000 photos, as far as I can make out. She's not risking the key part of her income and it could well be an astute business move.

She may have taken the leap after this round of claw backs.

It looks like a lot of people are now angry enough to drop the crown. At least they say they are going to.

Quote

It's more than $5K. Yes.

Holy Hell, Sean. I am so sorry.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=24

Holy hell x2. OMFG. I can't believe how calm he is. I think I'd be out of my mind with rage.

It is not easy to sink the Titanic, but once a hole is made you can be sure that it will sink unless you repair it quickly. You won�t notice much at the beginning, it will just slow down a bit, loose a bit of heigth, then slow a bit more, water is closer to the board, the ship stops, bow gets closer to the water, now the bow is in the water, glup.

Great analogy.

Diamond contributor turning in their crown: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312432&page=1

Well, this isn't a buyer bailing, but it sure is a frustrated buyer: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1

While it is his responsibility to double check the size, it does seem like it's something that should be adjusted. First off, the selection you make should not change from not logged in to logged in, and second maybe they should consider having the default be something other than the largest size. Medium seems fair if they are going to have something checked by default. Or here's a novel idea. How about NOT having anything checked by default? It does seem somewhat intentionally deceptive to have the largest size checked...in the hopes that someone will make that mistake and resign themselves to the fact that they effed up, not realizing that they can contact customer relations to get it rectified. I wonder how many people it has happened to...

They have to pay for the last istockalypse somehow!

This is off-topic but I think semi-related.

Last month, I got a .70 charge on my car insurance. A one-time, this-month-only charge. So I called my agent and asked what that could possibly be for. Typically, if you get an increase, the increase stays from then on. And a piddly little .70? She hemmed and hawed around and just kept repeating it was just an increase. I could see she wasn't going to explain it. My thinking? How much extra money do you think State Farm Insurance would bring in in one month if they just charged all of their policyholders $.70? It's easy to slip pennies by the masses. No one will complain.

Sound pretty familiar.

That's a scam that has been going on for a while now at many companies.

Can't name names without dragging a lot of other people into it, but I saw on Facebook that a certain admin quashed a particularly pointed remark on a THIRD person's wall! Now, if you're so sensitive that you have to go round Facebook tsk-tsk-ing people, then there's something seriously wrong :/

Wait, an iStock admin "quashed" something someone posted on their OWN wall?? That is beyond pathetic. And rude. On Facebook, as far as I'm concerned, it's my wall, my rules. No iStock admin has a right to post something nasty in response to a post on one' own wall. That's what they have their stupid forums for. Their assholery knows no limits!!

Quote from: caspixel on March 02, 2011, 13:13

Quote from: lisafx on March 02, 2011, 10:34

Pete, not sure how to interpret your post.  Are you saying that you AGREE with banning photography of all farmland - even from the road? And with making it a federal offense punishable by jail time?  

I am also confused. Is he saying that DDT is not harmful at all? It may "save" lives from malaria, but what about the harmful effects to birds, fish, other mammals, and the environment? Seems kind of like a lose-lose situation. Die from malaria or slowly kill yourself by poisoning the environment. :/

But DDT does not poison the environment. There has never been any study done to prove it does, it was banned based on fear and public opinion. Same kind of justice and decisions as the witch trials and the crusades. As a result of the court of public opinion, presumed guilt without evidence and the DDT witch hunt, 100 million people have died, mostly children.

That's the point.

No studies? Then what is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10235477?dopt=Abstract

Or this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11463412?dopt=Abstract

This: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2073714?dopt=Abstract