Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 299252 times)

caspixel · « **Reply #1050 on:** May 09, 2011, 17:49 »

And let's just contrast iStock's behavior and response to that contributor's issue with a somewhat similar non-payment issue from another agency: http://www.microstockgroup.com/veer-marketplace/disappearing-payments-at-veer/msg200289/?topicseen#new

caspixel · « **Reply #1051 on:** May 09, 2011, 21:54 »

Looks like there has been another download/no payment issue!

I just found one of mine as well in a flyer insert for well known childrens cd's. I found the link because they credit istock (and me) but i have zero downloads on the file. I sent a ticket to support.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=5

And who wants to start placing bets now that the admins will never give an answer as to what has happened?

gclk · « **Reply #1052 on:** May 10, 2011, 04:46 »

Quote from: caspixel on May 09, 2011, 21:54

Looks like there has been another download/no payment issue!

I just found one of mine as well in a flyer insert for well known childrens cd's. I found the link because they credit istock (and me) but i have zero downloads on the file. I sent a ticket to support.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=5

And who wants to start placing bets now that the admins will never give an answer as to what has happened?

Ouch, that one is worrying - iStock can't pull the 'It's probably a Getty issue' card, and let it just fall between two companies who don't want to do any follow-up.

The cases were an artist happens to spot their work in use, where they know they can't have been paid for it (because it has zero registered downloads) must be just the tip of the iceberg. And then the artists who publicly raise the issue in the forums must be the tip of that iceberg $:-\$

A few months ago I saw an image of mine used in a TV advert - the photo hadn't been downloaded in an appropriate size for 18 months. Nothing I could do but presume that the company/designer must have purchased it that long ago & I did get paid for it.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #1053 on:** May 10, 2011, 07:20 »

Quote

And let's just contrast iStock's behavior and response to that contributor's issue with a somewhat similar non-payment issue from another agency:

What, you mean Veer have a whole load of people complaining of no payment, no email and no response, whereas there's 1 person at IS? I'm not saying IS's handling of things is good, just doubting the wisdom of citing somewhere that appears possibly not so good.

bunhill · « **Reply #1054 on:** May 10, 2011, 07:41 »

Quote from: gclk on May 10, 2011, 04:46

A few months ago I saw an image of mine used in a TV advert - the photo hadn't been downloaded in an appropriate size for 18 months.

What would be an appropriate size for a TV advert given the relatively low resolution of even, so called, HD TV images and taking into account typical viewing distances.

M? S ?

gclk · « **Reply #1055 on:** May 10, 2011, 08:08 »

Quote from: bunhill on May 10, 2011, 07:41

Quote from: gclk on May 10, 2011, 04:46
A few months ago I saw an image of mine used in a TV advert - the photo hadn't been downloaded in an appropriate size for 18 months.

What would be an appropriate size for a TV advert given the relatively low resolution of even, so called, HD TV images and taking into account typical viewing distances.

M? S ?

I might be wrong but I'd have thought medium size or above would be needed. It had been downloaded as small, which was 837 x 573 pixels for this image.

I saw on a large Sony HD TV (not mine), I think at a resolution of 1920 x 1080. Even paused using Sky+ HD, the photo did not looked like it had been upsized anything like that much.

But I'd totally accept this is not a definite case like the others mentioned above, it just seems a little odd.

And the $1.90 royalty seemed a little harsh for a nationally broadcast TV advert, but that's a totally separate issue

caspixel · « **Reply #1056 on:** May 10, 2011, 10:13 »

What was with the "Stay on topic" warning from kelvinjay. Seems to me, people talking about not being credited for downloads in a "zero downloads" thread *is* on topic. I'm sure that thread will be locked if more of that nefarious behavior comes to light.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1057 on:** May 10, 2011, 10:21 »

You're supposed to just be talking about the missing Getty one, I guess.

caspixel · « **Reply #1058 on:** May 10, 2011, 16:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 10, 2011, 10:21

You're supposed to just be talking about the missing Getty one, I guess.

Probably. So no posts from anyone else with other images that have sold, but show zero downloads ever gets to see the light of day.

jamirae · « **Reply #1059 on:** May 10, 2011, 16:48 »

Quote from: caspixel on May 10, 2011, 16:11

Quote from: sjlocke on May 10, 2011, 10:21
You're supposed to just be talking about the missing Getty one, I guess.

Probably. So no posts from anyone else with other images that have sold, but show zero downloads ever gets to see the light of day.

got a zero download file that you have seen in action? send an email to CE and then start your very own topic/thread!

caspixel · « **Reply #1060 on:** May 11, 2011, 09:20 »

Can't believe the $0 royalty issue is still on-going too.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=6#post6375184

cathyslife · « **Reply #1061 on:** May 11, 2011, 11:04 »

Wow, I hadn't read that one.

Love how it has taken the "highest priority". No...clawing back the royalties from the fraud took the highest priority and once they got their money for that, "who cares if a few contributors don't have their money?" What excuse could there possibly be for not making that right in four and a half months? None.

caspixel · « **Reply #1062 on:** May 11, 2011, 15:35 »

So now they are saying the issue was resolved and contributors paid, but the information never updated. Mmm hmmmm.

I firmly believe that if contributors weren't being conscientious and noticing these things that they would never get paid for some of these "errors" and "bugs". It only takes someone making it public to get any attention at all. And it just makes you wonder how many things *aren't* getting noticed.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1063 on:** May 11, 2011, 16:20 »

Lobo acknowledged that the my_uploads page wasn't updated with the amount paid. For some of these "fix" payments they update the csv (I think only in the monthly version) with a column that says "Admin adjustments" or something like that. Nothing itemized, just a lump sum for the month.

Someone else in that thread referenced my long ignored suggestion about detailed, downloadable sales (& refund) data. It's really important for contributors to have detailed records of money going in and out of our accounts.

Detailed records wouldn't stop outright fraud, but it does make mistakes easier to catch (in addition to giving us information with which to build a spreadsheet to track things).

Given that we can't get even one agency to do this, it's probably complete pie in the sky to think about an agency-wide CSV format in which they'd agree to report our data - common codes for sales, licenses, etc. so we could track all agencies without doing something specific for each one.

I'm hoping at some point some banking regulator gets hold of this mess and makes the agencies act like our money matters.

caspixel · « **Reply #1064 on:** May 11, 2011, 16:39 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 11, 2011, 16:20

Lobo acknowledged that the my_uploads page wasn't updated with the amount paid. For some of these "fix" payments they update the csv (I think only in the monthly version) with a column that says "Admin adjustments" or something like that. Nothing itemized, just a lump sum for the month.

Someone else in that thread referenced my long ignored suggestion about detailed, downloadable sales (& refund) data. It's really important for contributors to have detailed records of money going in and out of our accounts.

Detailed records wouldn't stop outright fraud, but it does make mistakes easier to catch (in addition to giving us information with which to build a spreadsheet to track things).

Given that we can't get even one agency to do this, it's probably complete pie in the sky to think about an agency-wide CSV format in which they'd agree to report our data - common codes for sales, licenses, etc. so we could track all agencies without doing something specific for each one.

I'm hoping at some point some banking regulator gets hold of this mess and makes the agencies act like our money matters.

Even when they say they are "fixing" things, who even knows when contributors are getting paid the correct amount of money. I know discrepancies were noticed in the past. They really do need some kind of investigation. I don't know how you guys can stand the uncertainty and lack of trust.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 299252 times)

caspixel

caspixel

gclk

vlad_the_imp

bunhill

gclk

caspixel

Sean Locke Photography

caspixel

jamirae

caspixel

cathyslife

caspixel

Jo Ann Snover

caspixel

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors