Sean, I am really glad you were chosen.  You were my first thought when this panel was suggested.

Please don't let us down by turning into just another mouthpiece for Getty, trying to pacify us all into submission...

Not sure if you saw this attorney's (and diamond exclusive) post on his view here. I think that he's in the US and I don't know if Canadian law differs materially in this area. I also don't know if we were to sue whether it would have to be in Canada or could be in the US given Getty's location.

I think it wouldn't be hard to prove negligence given the length of time the same problem has been around and the fact that they didn't take adequate steps to address it.

If you can prove failure to act reasonably by allowing our images to be downloaded without using commercially reasonable anti-fraud measures (and we haven't waived our rights in the Agreement somewhere) and you can establish the value of the image (which should be pretty easy based on the market value established here at iStock), I think there would be a case.

I'm sure some commercial litigator could quickly figure out whether there is a claim here.  It has to be significant $, based on what I figure my damages are and extrapolating from that, so, if there is a case, some money hungry attorney will be happy to help.

Really insightful list of questions JoAnn.  Wish you'd reconsider the panel.   

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.

Quote from: sjlocke on March 14, 2011, 14:26

I think of it more as a user focus group.  But whatever, I guess.  I have no problems sitting down in a chat or whatever and pointing out where I am having usability problems.

But you can post them on the forums? And have been for months, no? What makes these panels any different? Except, oh, you might have to sign an NDA and get some super special 'iStock secrets'.

I have spoken...

I feel the conference call will be letting those 5 contributers know what they wished they could tell everyone.

No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.

Quote from: jsnover on March 13, 2011, 16:19

I'd be happy to participate in a conference call - no NDA - to discuss major contributor problems. Discuss is an operative word - i.e. not just listen. Problems plural is key as well - the clawback of funds and loss of control of our images is very important, but is only one of the major failings on the site at the moment. If they dont' fix search soon, the future doesn't look bright at all.

I think iStock is trying to deflect trouble rather than solve problems. I think they want to try and ratchet down the contributor discontent and aren't thinking about solving the problems as the way to do that.

I hope they're willing to revisit the sort of conference call they're willing to have. Going from "trust us" to "trust them" isn't much of a step forward IMO.

Very well said, agree with you 100%

Quote from: jamirae on March 13, 2011, 16:17

Three words: class action lawsuit.  I am in if anyone can get it rolling.

Those are the only three words that matter at this point.  Lots of us will be on that bandwagon, I think.

The question isn't whether Istock can be held liable for misuse of the images when legally downloaded.

The question is did Istock properly perfom the duties due the contributor as outlined in the contract?  Were they in any way negligent?  If so, then what damages did their negligence cause.

Posted by jhorrocks:

I just finished reviewing all of my stolen files, and I'm almost too upset to sit here and type.  I feel like I've been raped.  290 files ripped off and most likely being distributed for free on some torrent site.  Those 290 represent the top-selling 4.6% of my portfolio.  Forget about the money being handed back in the short term.. I'm disgusted at the long-term revenue loss.  This is much bigger.  And that's just my portfolio.  I'm no mathemetician, but what's that calculation again about x% of your portfolio accounting for y% of revenue?  Something like 10% of the content accounting for 50% of income?  What ever the actual number is, it makes me sick.  And that's not even considering all the expense in creating all the stolen images.  F**K.

I don't know that you can necessarily equate these once-badged folks with dropping their badge due to the recent mess.  Inspectors have a huge workload and I know of at least one that quit inspecting because it was simply overwhelming work with the way her life was going and she needed to make that change.  Granted, the recent issues may be causing more to drop the badge than usual, but there does seem to be other factors that contribute to quitting that "esteemed" task of inspecting.

One kkthompson has deemed fit to make a short statement;

"I realize this is frustrating, but it is for us as well. Not being able to speak about it or explain our position makes everyone a little crazy.

BUT, when we are able to make a statement--believe me--you will understand why we're doing what we're doing.

Please be patient. That discussion could still be months away.

Kelly"

Still no apology of course __ or letter of resignation either.