|
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 - dingles
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 18
126
« on: February 25, 2014, 19:28 »
In reading this thread and related ones on the iStock forum I get the impression there is a lot of contributor mistrust toward iStock. I'm wondering, it that is the case, why would anyone continue to work for/with a company they didn't trust?
Let the negatives fly but, IMO, it is something to think about, isn't it??
They still make some of us money, but the line is getting thinner.
127
« on: February 25, 2014, 19:24 »
Dingles, I'm not sure anyone is missing the point. If the demand had come with a detailed transaction list (and an apology), and if the sum demanded seemed to make sense when compared with average earnings over the period then I suspect the anger would be much diminished.
The lack of detailed information and the fact that people say the amount being deducted appears to exceed the probable error make it unacceptable.
Like you, I've argued that if it was a mistake then they should have the money back. But this looks, from what is being reported, as if they are just piling another mistake on top of the first one - only this time the mistake appears designed to fill their pockets at the expense of the contributor. And, unlike the initial mistake, this one looks as if it is deliberate and calculated.
If it does turn out to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to secure monies in excess of those that are owed from thousands of people, then I feel sure that the lawyers have a word to describe it.
I get that, but that isn't real until IS provided the data. I was also referring to folks still jumping on the argument that IS should've recoup. It's all a poor argument until we have proof
128
« on: February 25, 2014, 19:00 »
I think many folks are missing the fact that if the money wasn't ours it should go back. The crime is IS not providing the detailed data to us. This is an accounting issue and they should be transparent. Say for instance I already did my taxes, and next year I have to report the loss. What happen if I get audited, what proof do I have outside of the letter. Without the data the numbers IS is claiming is arbitrary. Even if it is accurate it is arbitrary until we have the sales data. If I expense something for work and cannot provide a receipt I don't get reimbursed. If I itemize things on my taxes and have no proof when audited, I owe that money back plus interest and penalties. It's bad enough we trust them to report accurately, but not to provide details is criminal. And I'm not talking about details of the error, I am talking about detailed sales data for those months. I get that unexpected errors happen, but they need to due their part in providing accurate data. They are brass for not providing such info and are probably banking on the contributors to muddy this enough to mask the real issue. If they can not furnish this data we all have a legal right to seek council. If they do not provide this data they must be banking that we won't file a class action lawsuit against them.
In short,recouping funds is not illegal, but not varnishing the data is.
129
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:33 »
I think all anyone is really asking for is detailed data specific to them on the issues. And it comes down to our own accounting and needs. It shouldn't matter is it is an accounting nightmare for IS or not, they should be required to provide this information. They also need to fix the stats for those months to reflect actual downloads and earnings for PP. I am going to go back and assume the download count was correct and apply the .28 for each download and see what my figures come to and check that the clawback is accurate. Whether it is accurate or not, I still want a correction to the data.
130
« on: February 24, 2014, 19:31 »
Wow some folks are getting hit hard...only time it is good to be a small fish. Still I think they need to provide details on sales those months...if they over paid...they still owe us the 28 cents for the sale...without details how do we know this is accurate. Also sucks for anyone who paid taxes already...
131
« on: February 24, 2014, 19:26 »
Seems like $50 was a typo...now it is under $10 they won't recoup
132
« on: February 24, 2014, 19:23 »
They are full of it...I just got an email...Overpayment of $22.98 and they say they are recouping...So is the under $50 a lie?
133
« on: February 16, 2014, 17:08 »
I'll resubmit when I don't agree with a rejection, and I'll usually add a justification and most of the time they accept. I only bother resubmitting to IS and SS for the most part
134
« on: February 12, 2014, 15:51 »
They don't make anything easy over at IS
135
« on: February 08, 2014, 15:19 »
I had footage up on POND5 before I went exclusive and they never got a single view or sale. I currently have images there and the same thing, no views and no sales. I priced them all in line with the competition too. I gave up on them
136
« on: February 07, 2014, 16:18 »
Yet my sales keep growing.
Same here, and my port is very small, but I seem to be gaining more and more sales each day.
137
« on: February 06, 2014, 16:31 »
what initial bonus?
138
« on: February 03, 2014, 10:06 »
My seller is a 3D rendered still...one of my earliest and what I felt was a throwaway. Has gone on to sell 400>500 times across multiple agencies. Mostly subscription sales though 
139
« on: February 01, 2014, 13:41 »
That is odd...gonna have to check my files now. Did you report this to IS?
140
« on: February 01, 2014, 11:43 »
They are probably afraid to add another color bar for 360, it may loosen a bolt in the system 
141
« on: February 01, 2014, 09:20 »
Average PP ales in December. Had a few above .28. Dead at the end of the month but that was expected
142
« on: February 01, 2014, 09:09 »
Overall I'm on Par. IS sales were poor ( usually GI and PP provide a decent boost). SS sales have been strong and steady. Dreamstime and Deposit were bad. Keep in mind I am a small fish with a growing portfolio
143
« on: February 01, 2014, 09:06 »
Do you manually do disambiguation? If not I would think leaving it up to iStock may prove less accurate
144
« on: January 28, 2014, 16:23 »
nothing for me...not a single Getty sale either...I may just bang my head repeatedly on my desk for a while
145
« on: January 28, 2014, 12:44 »
No PAL has different dimensions than NTSC also.
146
« on: January 28, 2014, 11:26 »
I belive PAl frame rate should be 25fps and NTSC is typically 30(29.97).
147
« on: January 28, 2014, 11:23 »
Just upload the HD version. NTSC and PAL are still there, but are dated. IS will offer the HD footage in 4 sizes regardless
148
« on: January 27, 2014, 19:51 »
Do they get anything right over there?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Of course it is  . I think I may pull my video exclusivity. I'll see how next month goes, but iStock sales have diminished and Getty was keeping up, but if Getty sales go away there is no reason for me to stay exclusive.
149
« on: January 27, 2014, 19:45 »
How much effort and time do you think someone working for free will provide in the long run? Probably not much. It won't be a priority and he has nothing to lose, so what keeps him from not showing up or just calling it in? The club will learn a lesson.
You can't really demand much from someone working for free.
150
« on: January 27, 2014, 19:39 »
They just payed the Getty royalties. Maybe partner will be next.
They did? * that means no Getty sales for me this month. It is bad enough that half my videos that were ported to Getty are not labeled as HD even though they are. I posted in the forum and contacted CR...Do they get anything right over there?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
