|
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 - SNP
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 54
976
« on: December 30, 2010, 17:45 »
^ unfortunately we have some real winners communicating on behalf of 'all' contributors too...so frankly I think effective communication in the forums is unrealistic. I'd say many of us of with serious concerns go straight to one another to discuss, or straight to HQ with questions. I certainly don't look for any real answers in the forums these days. I just get the general idea of what's happening in the forums.
977
« on: December 29, 2010, 20:17 »
The only way to say there was no loss is if you think intellectual property has no value. As people who make some or all of our living licensing our IP, I don't see how many of us on this board would be making that argument... 
Only if you believe that this is going to result in significantly fewer licensing sales. Do many buyers really look for pirated images ?
We're in the business of licensing images via iStockphoto. It's the licenses to use the images which we sell via iStockphoto, not the images themselves.
I'm not saying that this is not serious. Credit card fraud is serious. From our points of view though it is not really a theft (from any of us) unless the image ends up getting used without a licensing fee being paid.
I agree.
978
« on: December 29, 2010, 02:03 »
^^^
Thank you SNP, succinct and on point!
yeah well, there's a flip side to that. unfortunately so much abuse gets hurled around in istock threads towards admins and other contributors that it results in admonishing remarks. you know, at the end of the day, we're all just people and everyone gets tired of being yelled at/insulted or accused. as much as Kelly's comments annoyed me tonight, and as much as I felt they were out of line...it amazes me that contributors don't seem to hold themselves to the same standards of communication they expect from admins.
979
« on: December 29, 2010, 01:24 »
Kelly's post tonight was salt in the wound. I didn't appreciate being admonished for expressing concern. I'm tired of watching contributors getting their wrists slapped for reacting to poor communication. It is OUR work that fuels their business.
980
« on: December 29, 2010, 01:04 »
I'm not characterizing anything. I'm suggesting this was a link provided by a contributor that may or may not be relevant. presenting it as evidence is out of context. for all we know, this kind of fraud happens every week on a smaller scale at iStock. in any case, even if it is completely relevant, it proves what they've already told us - that credit card fraud has been committed, resulting in sales that have affected a number of contributors. so what's the point of making a fuss out of the posts on some forum on a do-not-call list's website?
the questions are: what should they do about it? and how should affected contributors be treated? not whether or not fraud has occurred. fraud against a site as large as iStock certainly isn't news in itself. this just happens to have hit a number of contributors all at once.
981
« on: December 28, 2010, 22:48 »
that reference was in regard to a forum almost two years old. it was discussed on istock and referenced in this thread twice. I don't know if anyone used the precise 800notes link.
982
« on: December 28, 2010, 22:27 »
go back a few pages, we've already discussed that....;-)
983
« on: December 28, 2010, 22:16 »
they change the rules to suit their objectives. agreed. I don't extrapolate on that to include stealing my income through illegitimate means. that isn't meant to convince you. I'm not trying to. I'm just answering your question(s).
984
« on: December 28, 2010, 21:49 »
if it is that simple, sure I would want to keep my royalties. I would like it to be treated like past fraudulent purchases. but seeing this is very public and seemingly widespread, I think it would be a PR nightmare to allow contributors to keep the royalties. it gives the appearance that there is a contributor benefit to gaming the system. even though, of course, those of us affected have nothing to do with the 'game'. add to that the complexity of the RC targets and the unfairness of those sales bumping some contributors but not all contributors falsely.
these aren't legitimate sales. and I think the situation seems to be far more complicated than they are letting on. I don't believe a situation involving widespread fraud should be seen to benefit contributors. as for iStock pocketing money from the credit card company but screwing contributors...not likely.
985
« on: December 28, 2010, 21:35 »
well, I don't agree. but I don't disagree....today anyways. what a mess.
If the credit card companies *are* on the hook for the amount, wouldn't iStock get to keep that money? And yet they are going to adjust *YOUR* royalites? You just got stolen from. Twice. That's about as criminal as the regular fraud. If I was a contributor, I'd be furious.
Bet you anything they'll never 'fess up to whether or not they keep that money, but what a way to boost their profits! Well on their way to 50% I'd say.
I don't believe they would treat my income fraudulently that way. that isn't one of my concerns. I think there's more to this that we'll never know. it wasn't money I ever had (if indeed any of my sales were among the fraudulent sales). if nothing else, the sales should give my files a little boost in the best match. there's a little salve for the sting. to be honest, I'd consider it slimy if we were allowed to keep the royalties without it being the result of some legitimate transaction.
986
« on: December 28, 2010, 21:23 »
well, I don't agree. but I don't disagree....today anyways. what a mess.
987
« on: December 28, 2010, 21:09 »
^ I think any site as large as iStock is a target for hacking. especially since we're talking about digital commodities that can easily be transported globally within minutes. that's why it is so important that they handle this situation properly. to establish the correct precedents. particularly in terms of our trust as contributors.
988
« on: December 28, 2010, 20:54 »
^ that's an awful lot of adding things up. the example provided is not necessarily connected. could be entirely unrelated. this situation sucks enough without magnifying it using unproven information that is two years old. frankly, this screams of pissed off istock employee to me or someone else connected to istock. but that is pure speculation. it just seems very mean-spirited. or maybe it's just some hack stealing our stuff. either way, not much we can do except not sell our images on istock. that is truly the limitation of any control we have and obviously not selling my images on istock is not an option as far as I'm concerned. so, I have to accept they are dealing with it.
989
« on: December 28, 2010, 20:44 »
Whenever there has been fraud or a return by the buyer IS has always deducted the royalty amount from the contributor. It happened to me a few years. It's common, though controversial, practice amoung most of the micro sites.
No they don't. IS has always eaten the cost of credit card misuse, as opposed to other sites.
True. I have been for years at IS, with a great volume of sales, and never had a single deduction for any kind of fraud.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, and this is true for me too...until now. I think this one is one we're eating...they've as much as said so.
990
« on: December 16, 2010, 00:49 »
^ I think that's the big question facing us contributors in general these days.
991
« on: December 15, 2010, 20:08 »
it's December. sales are usual ebb and flow here, with a few hiccups on days where site was down etc. yesterday was really good.
992
« on: December 15, 2010, 18:57 »
Alamy
993
« on: December 15, 2010, 10:35 »
yesterday's sales were fantastic for me too. too early to say about today but looks like things are basically normal ebb and flow for my December sales.
994
« on: December 14, 2010, 22:23 »
Not a single sale for me on IS since the 10th, and I've been getting daily sales for the past couple of years. Something's amiss.
I think that if you get DAILY sales for the past couple of years and then none for a long stretch it is possible that something is amiss, no matter how SMALL your portfolio is. I also think you should be able to report it here without getting poo pood by bigger port/dl snobs.
Now me on the other hand I have a tiny port and sales are up and down constantly so I would never post slow sales cuz they are always slow. In November I had 11 dls on one day (I was so excited) but then nothing for three days but that is how it goes for me.
Just wanted to say I think your concerns are valid (to you) and you have the right to express them. I am listening.
no one said his/her concerns weren't valid. they're just not statistically significant in terms of predicting up/downturns on the site, which is what the poster implied with their post.
995
« on: December 14, 2010, 21:57 »
you'd think by now I would speak fluent 'Locke Talk'....lol
996
« on: December 14, 2010, 21:32 »
I think you're agreeing with me? can't tell from your tone. FWIW I also said above that we've always been able to search Vetta only.
997
« on: December 14, 2010, 20:05 »
^ that's not what's happening. buyers can filter to view only the MOST expensive collections (Vetta & Agency), but not the reverse. I don't see the broken promise, nor an issue with that functionality. using this example as ammo in the 'iStock are liars arsenal' is silly.
998
« on: December 14, 2010, 15:29 »
...that the new search allows buyers to exclude all regular collections (Main, E, E+), but not to exclude Vetta or Agency?
In the F5 thread it was said that this would only be temporary, but there is also a hint that it might be permanent, since apparently the Advanced Search feature to exclude the premium collections was seldom used. It was also made clear that any ability to exclude V&A would be thoroughly tested and nothing would be done in a hurry - surely as strong a hint as they could make.
What do you all think of that? Are you happy with this development, that buyers must always see at least one premium collection, but can hide most, if not all, of your work?
you're correct, though you've said it kind of wrong. buyers initially receive best match results or whatever sort preference they've selected from the drop down. in the second level of search, they have the option of checking Vetta & Agency to drill down into those collections. Savvy buyers with bigger budgets will use this functionality. 'regular' buyers will probably search within the results without checking these boxes. I don't see a major issue here or a broken promise. I don't have lots of Vetta or Agency, and I'm not overly concerned about this. if higher end buyers want to search only Vetta, they were already able to do that.
999
« on: December 14, 2010, 13:11 »
the answer is in your statement....to suggest any sort of sales regularity with such a small port and small rates of dls...I'll be accused of being a dls snob. but that's not what it's about. when you have very few files and very few dls, and report major sales 'upheavals'...just seems silly.
anyways, sales are back to normal today after the horrendous Monday.
1000
« on: December 13, 2010, 20:06 »
I've seen no indication that Getty stuff will be trucked in.
other than the Getty files being trucked into every other new collection....Hulton Archive into Vetta, Rubberball into Agency etc....I'm not too concerned about it. but I think it will happen.
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
