|
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 - ShadySue
14001
« on: March 13, 2011, 11:02 »
Instead of posting wooyay to KK's posting what about "Where the have you been for the last 3 months"
It surely hasn't been at a communications or people-skills workshop.  They seriously need someone else to be their spokesperson.
The hapless Official Spin Doctor is RogerMexico.
14002
« on: March 13, 2011, 10:42 »
Just trying to give TPTB the benefit of the doubt on this one issue, the NDA could be only about discussing the actual details. They could still feed back to the baying mob whether they think iStock did everything they could given the circumstances or whether they feel more could have been done. It's difficult for people to say for certain, to be sure, as most of us aren't trained in international law.
14003
« on: March 13, 2011, 10:15 »
Thankfully there are some rational heads over there still:
I would urge anyone considering taking on this responsibility to consider it carefully. Depending on the NDA and how much you learn, it is possible that you might not be able to post much if anything analytical about Istock in the forums again, ever.
Those are my thoughts exactly.
Again, why the NDA at all? This should be a public discussion that's open to all. Period.
It seems that the discussion with the five peer-selected contributors is only about the fraud, not about the gazillion other things which are wrong with iStock at the moment. Therefore: It MAY be that iStock is going to explain to the group what the nature of the fraud was, what they did about the first wave, in December, why they apparently can't get insurance (RM says they can't, at any rate!), why the second wave happened, why it went on for so long, apparently undetected - or did they have to leave it for so long to gather enough evidence for the police or other relevant authorities. It MAY be that that information is sub judice or similar, so can't at the moment be made public. I think that's what Kelly has been saying. HOPEFULLY the NDA would only be that the group couldn't discuss the details of the fraud cases until it's all made public in the fullness of time. There would be no need to muzzle the chosen sample from frank, free and full exchange of opinions on other matters on the forums, here or elsewhere, and I wouldn't expect them to agree to anything else. Sean and JoAnn from here, I hope you're both up for it.
14004
« on: March 13, 2011, 09:05 »
Strange, they dont call at least one experienced, high-ranked independant.
The one we all thought of has not chipped in on this issue, either on iStock or here (unless I blinked and missed him), which is interesting in itself, IMO.
14005
« on: March 13, 2011, 09:04 »
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. I don't think the NDA will prevent truthful reactions to information, even if details can't be disclosed. in any case, it's a good step. very simple and smart. could backfire I suppose if everyone chosen then comes back with negative feedback.
If the feedback were negative, that wouldn't be a backfire. That would be either an indication of what iStock could do to improve, or if more serious, maybe a wake-up call to those who rake in our money. (BTW, I voted by SM to Kelvin who assures me my vote will count, so the rest of the LOBOtomised have that option.)
14006
« on: March 13, 2011, 07:40 »
This is part of the Agency collection that came in via Getty Images. These are marked as exclusive (with a crown) but these contributors aren't the same as those who signed up with iStock directly. No upload limits, virtually no inspection process and worst of all some of them are selling their own images RF from their own websites - Rubberball Images does that. That would get any other exclusive booted.
Getty's the big dog and they get to break all the rules they want.
Might be the big dog but fact is: the agency pics are not of the same quality, creativeness, etc, as many of the IS originals. Im actually surprised many of them even got past the editing team.
Despite assurances to the contrary, it seems they bypassed the editing team, or got through on the nod. One member has repeatedly called out really badly upsized images to no avail, (at least they were still there last time I checked).
14007
« on: March 13, 2011, 07:16 »
Can't see if this has been posted above, but here's what KKT is offering now: "OK, heres what were going to do. Were going to take a few people (maximum 5?) and ask them to sign NDAs. Then we'll have a conference call this week about what's going on. They can be the ears of the entire community and see if we're doing anything out of the ordinary. I'm going to lock this thread. Someone can start a new one where they nominate people they'd like to speak with us. They will need to be exclusive members. Nominate away. KKT" (end of now-locked clawback thread) Nominations of exclusives can be made here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=313542&page=1(Provided the NDA isn't just a 'gagging order'.)
14008
« on: March 11, 2011, 19:46 »
LisaFX:
There's a thread about the lightbox here. My lightboxes seem to be working; so it would seem that it's some sort of issue between IS and DM. Franky has given a way of fixing it towards the end of the thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312172&page=1
Thanks for the link. Appears it is a widespread problem, not just in the blog, but also in the individual files.
Although I appreciate the link and the suggestion of a fix, I'm just gonna let Istock programmers sort this one out. Or not. Screw it. There is no way I am going to go file-by-file and correct anything.
Then when/if they 'fixed' it, you'd probably have to fix yours back. Or there would probably be more problems. Wonder what happened if we all applied to be the elusive person who can break their software?
14009
« on: March 11, 2011, 19:41 »
Did the newspaper leave the iStock and Fotolia copyright logos in for effect or did they just nick the photo's?
Thought the iStock one was a screendump, presumably to validate their assertion that it was an iStock image. Maybe 'fair use'?
14010
« on: March 11, 2011, 18:29 »
BTW, did not realize that my e-mail exchange with Mr McGregor was for publication. 
Wow __ publishing your emails without your permission is even cheekier than the politician using your images in a mis-leading way.
You certainly have a point there.
I'd tend to assume that no journalist knows the meaning of "off the record".
14011
« on: March 11, 2011, 18:04 »
Just a small slightly off-topic question:
Does anyone know if there were also Extended Licenses involved in these fraudulent purchases? Because I've been with IS for over a year and never had an EL with them and now have 2 within one week.
I'm pretty sure I read of an EL being involved in the first batch of fraud (from Dec), irrational as it seems.
Those were the "free" legal guarantee ELs for Vettas and Agencys coming up when they were dl'd.
Ah, thanks for that clarification.
14013
« on: March 11, 2011, 13:43 »
Just a small slightly off-topic question:
Does anyone know if there were also Extended Licenses involved in these fraudulent purchases? Because I've been with IS for over a year and never had an EL with them and now have 2 within one week.
I'm pretty sure I read of an EL being involved in the first batch of fraud (from Dec), irrational as it seems.
14014
« on: March 11, 2011, 12:21 »
I assume everything in any ad is fake, unless stated otherwise.
I assume things are exaggerated or unprovable ("Best X in the world"), but things like people supporting political parties should, in the UK, be true, even by implication, i.e. appearing in the background of an ad. We have the Advertising Standards Authority, whereby all marketing materials should be legal, decent, honest and truthful. http://www.asa.org.ukDoesn't mean it's always followed, of course, but we generally get to hear about it, and it's not good publicity for the company/service/party.
14015
« on: March 11, 2011, 11:56 »
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/Ottawa+Tory+takes+stock+website/4419629/story.html
Features lisafx!
Anyhoo, who cares - is there some rule somewhere that says politicians can't use stock content? Talk about hurting for real news.
Clearly it depends where you live. If I see someone on a political party's publications, I'd absolutely expect them to espouse that cause, as I'm sure most Brits would. Though it's crazy using stock photos, because of the damage it could do to your crediblity if either they were 'outed' like the example you link to or if the model takes it upon themselves to make it public that they don't support that candidate/party (if they don't). Hysterical indeed if the models aren't even your constituents.
14016
« on: March 11, 2011, 08:49 »
Anyone else notice that Kelly's title is still COO and not CEO? He was never promoted to CEO. It's poorly thought out answers like the crap he posted just a short while ago that speak volumes to his poor leadership ability. It's no wonder no one at Getty has promoted him. I wouldn't either. In fact, I think (as another istocker stated in the forums as well), they need a good cleaning at the top levels of iStock. Things are clearly not going right and that falls squarely on the shoulders of the person running the show there. He's not cut out for the job.
I suspect this post may 'disappear' very soon in reply to KKT's post: Posted by Ildi_Papp"I doubt that. Besides not telling why you took back the royalties back from constributors, which you most likely refer in this specific posts, you do a lot of things (as the CEO or at least as part of iStock administration team), which are beyond any reasonable explanation, which will make me understand, why are you doing those. You can fold it into lot's of soft logical phrases made out of empty words, which will sound like the voices of politicians desiring to get reelected, to shortly afterwards lead the people, who "understood" these words, into the next crisis. That's about all you can do and that is what you get paid for anyway. You are the one who led the loyal long-term constributors of iStock into falling download numbers and being confronted with disgruntled customers leave or opening frustrating threads in the discussion forum. Can't you see that iStock is practically falling apart, even though your salary might rise? Or is it that iStock is for you just a sum of numbers, which somehow determine your salary, while for most of the constributors it is something different? Here is one possible guess, why you are doing this: The copyright holder is the constributor and maybe from definition of law you need the copyright holder to have a "loss" to make it possible to sue or pursue the thieves, because maybe if the copyright holder got payed by you (and the copyright holder), you cannot do anything (within court) against the "thieves". This explanation although still does not explain, how download patterns as from sjlocke can stay unnoticed in your iT department. That of course is only right, if the downloads weren't made from old accounts and splitted over hundreds accounts using hundreds of different credit card numbers. Although you might have found it unusual in that case that suddenly hundreds of new accounts are opened, filled with thousands of dollars and starting to download files in high amounts right away. But i am pretty sure your find another meaningless explanation for that too. Or you just could invent another one. ... boring. Go to a university, learn how to program and help to fix the search. Or sit down at a phone and do customer support. In these cases you at least do something useful, which would make sense to pay your salary for."
14017
« on: March 11, 2011, 05:55 »
Oh, c'mon now, play fair.
They have to claw back the money they need to fund the staff junket in London.
I'm afraid the little credibility they they may have retained disappeared with their integrity when I found the staff are staying in a London hotel which costs, at minimum, double the amount [1] of the place I stay in central London, which is perfectly adequate and very central.
That's just wasteful and rubbing our noses in it.
[1] and that seemed to be some sort of special deal [2], still double and upwards the cost.
[2] through a link on the lypse thread. 'Probably' iStock are getting a kickback from the hotel from delegates booking that 'special rate'.
14018
« on: March 10, 2011, 20:19 »
If I was one of the exclusive BDs losing $3k, $5k, etc., I would probably be on the phone with my attorney right now.
+1
Maybe Yuri would share his legal team with those people who lost the most for a class action?
14019
« on: March 10, 2011, 19:28 »
Given the Jan/Feb clawback is much bigger than the one for December frauds (for me, and reading the forum for other people too), it makes Mr. Great Communicator Thompson's post in December even more irritating.
I have ranted about that post in length to too many people IRL, haha. All of my non-photographer friends know all about Kelly Thompson's "you should thank us for working over Christmas break" post. It's just unbelievable.
C'mon everyone, you know the deduction of money doesn't make you unhappy. Get out there and do some merry ho-hoing.
14020
« on: March 10, 2011, 18:29 »
Looking at some of the huge amounts people are losing, I just can't understand how these fraudulent sales over a long period weren't being noticed.
Have none of TPTB at iStock or Getty got any shame at all. They aren't taking any hits in their paypackets, I'll bet.
:-(
14021
« on: March 10, 2011, 18:08 »
$11.40 from me. I'm just relieved that it wasn't the EL that rescued my Feb from total disaster.
Sorry for all those who have been hit; but I fear some will have lost really significant amounts, as happened last time.
14022
« on: March 09, 2011, 09:19 »
CF cards are certainly not sold as widely as they once were. I guess Canon DSLRs are going to become unusable within a few years as batteries and CF cards become unobtainable.
Just like film etc, they'll be sold in specialist shots or online for a long time to come. Just not in cheap high street outlets.
14023
« on: March 09, 2011, 08:19 »
Must also be a French speaking duck or cow, since English is banned in France.
French ducks say 'coin coin', French cows all just laugh, AFAIK. 
14024
« on: March 09, 2011, 06:57 »
Perfect end to the day, a fear mongering message from some French photo union and who knows it might actually happen!
http://blog.melchersystem.com/2011/03/05/the-last-salvo/
Take that Fotolia?
Royalty free, in French, is translated by libre de droits, brutally translated to Free of any kind of rights. Maitre Jean Vincent explains that definition is deceptive and not true : Royalty free images are neither rights free nor free of royalties.
And more. Read the blog and wonder is this for real?
The phrase 'royalty free' is indeed misleading for exactly the reasons stated. I've always thought that.
14025
« on: March 08, 2011, 19:49 »
Canon's consumer cameras use SD but the 5DII and up use CF. I buy mine online (although haven't since I got the 5DII) as I do most gear (camera and computer). Costco only deals with mass market stuff and I think it's probably true that high speed CF cards are no longer mass market items
I have a 50D, which is a consumer or prosumer, not sure of the exact category, but it uses CF also. So does my Rebel XT.
Yup, my 350D used a CF, and so does my 40D as well as the 5D2.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
