Getty Images overpaid 9,000 iStock photographers and now it's taking the money back

[Justin Kahn]

Getty Images made some royalty payment errors late last year that resulted in a number of photographers being paid more than they should of, and now the company wants its money back.

Over 9,000 photographers who provide content for a Getty Images owned site called iStock were over paid in September and October of 2013, according to the company. The issue was not discovered until December, and has taken until January for Getty to begin notifying content providers.

The notification said the over payment amount will be removed from user accounts in intervals over the next 6 months."We have calculated the over payment amount to be $_______. Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period," the notification email to photographers read. "Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $_______. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. You will receive a monthly notification as immediately after the funds are removed." It sounds as though Getty is trying to soften the blow by allowing photographers to recoup the over payments out of future earnings.

While it's hard to say whether or not Getty is in the right taking its money back, it likely isn't something that will go over well with the content providers. Getty, like in many of these kinds of cases, is in full control of the system, there are no individual invoices, and photographers depend on Getty to track their earnings. While these types of royalties are not overly high considering iStock retains 85% of sales, again the photographers will have to trust that Getty is making the correct adjustment. The company has said that it will not be offering an individual file breakdown on the overage payments.

While there is no direct evidence to prove the company is doing anything shady beyond being the one responsible for the error in the first place, that is likely more than enough for content providers to feel that Getty should just accept the over payments and count them as a business write-off.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/55831-getty-images-overpaid-9000-istock-photographers-and-now-its-taking-the-money-back.html

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

that is likely more than enough for content providers to feel that Getty should just accept the over payments and count them as a business write-off.

Where does this idea come from that businesses have bottomless bank accounts? If you overpay on one of your bills... any bill... you'll see a credit on your account for the next month and you'll get that money back. It would be unheard of for a business to keep your money if you paid too much on a bill. But if a business overpays by mistake, we expect them to just eat the loss and deal with it? And we call them greedy?

I blame the board game Monopoly for this mentality. Remember that Community Chest card "Bank error in your favor! Collect $200" There should have been a Chance card that read, 'Bank error correction - Return $200.'

 

[captaincranky]

But if a business overpays by mistake, we expect them to just eat the loss and deal with it? And we call them greedy?

I blame the board game Monopoly for this mentality. Remember that Community Chest card "Bank error in your favor! Collect $200" There should have been a Chance card that read, 'Bank error correction - Return $200.'

Party pooper!

 

[wastedkill]

that is likely more than enough for content providers to feel that Getty should just accept the over payments and count them as a business write-off.

Where does this idea come from that businesses have bottomless bank accounts? If you overpay on one of your bills... any bill... you'll see a credit on your account for the next month and you'll get that money back. It would be unheard of for a business to keep your money if you paid too much on a bill. But if a business overpays by mistake, we expect them to just eat the loss and deal with it? And we call them greedy?

I blame the board game Monopoly for this mentality. Remember that Community Chest card "Bank error in your favor! Collect $200" There should have been a Chance card that read, 'Bank error correction - Return $200.'

So your saying when a company is earning more than 100 people in a year that they should get the money back that was overpaid just because its right? The company should just pay the bill instead of taking it out on the customers.

Getty Overpaid its THEIR FAULT they should foot the bill not the photographers it should be a sign of good gesture and it puts the company more in the eyes of a better company instead of the greedy gits they are now.

 

[OliTheG]

Well, for some reason I don't think they would have done something like this WITHOUT CONSULTING A LAWYER.

You make it out as if they are a big, evil corporation going about smashing photographers cameras. They are in every right to take back money that is rightfully theirs, such is life. Yes, it's annoying to people, but as far as I believe it is deception if you do not report overpayment for your services.

Heck, what would happen if you all started shouting, and Getty went bust? Hm? Please remember that Getty is paying these photographers, so if they went bust, the photographers lose even more money...

Internet sensationalism at its finest folks!

 

[captaincranky]

So your saying when a company is earning more than 100 people in a year that they should get the money back that was overpaid just because its right? The company should just pay the bill instead of taking it out on the customers.

Getty Overpaid its THEIR FAULT they should foot the bill not the photographers it should be a sign of good gesture and it puts the company more in the eyes of a better company instead of the greedy gits they are now.

My father used to scream at me saying, "you think the world owes you a living".

I didn't give it much thought at the time, so I figure you'll ignore me in kind when I say it to you.

Don't mind me though,we're from far different generations. I'm from the, "dawning of the age of the age of Aquarius", and you're from "the dawning of the age of, Presumptuous Self Entitlement".

 

[wastedkill]

My father used to scream at me saying, "you think the world owes you a living".

I didn't give it much thought at the time, so I figure you'll ignore me in kind when I say it to you.

Don't mind me though,we're from far different generations. I'm from the, "dawning of the age of the age of Aquarius", and you're from "the dawning of the age of, Presumptuous Self Entitlement".

Ehh what? Maybe your kind of intellect is from a different world I dunno but most of what you says screams ialien to me. I cant understand what you iz sayin man.

 

[dividebyzero]

I blame the board game Monopoly for this mentality. Remember that Community Chest card "Bank error in your favor! Collect $200" There should have been a Chance card that read, 'Bank error correction - Return $200.'

I hear the 2014 edition of the game includes a small printing press for the "bank", and a large stack of extra Community cards that read "You've mismanaged your business, advance to GO, collect $2K in bailout money".

 

[captaincranky]

Ehh what? Maybe your kind of intellect is from a different world I dunno but most of what you says screams ialien to me. I cant understand what you iz sayin man.

You can't compose or write in English either. Maybe you should start a , "my failures", list.....

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

So your saying when a company is earning more than 100 people in a year that they should get the money back that was overpaid just because its right? The company should just pay the bill instead of taking it out on the customers.

Getty Overpaid its THEIR FAULT they should foot the bill not the photographers it should be a sign of good gesture and it puts the company more in the eyes of a better company instead of the greedy gits they are now.

Yes, it is their fault, but the only reason businesses take the loss in situations like this is to keep their customers happy and coming back. In this case though the people who received money aren't customers. If Getty is willing to deal with the consequences of taking the money back, then that's their choice, but they're still in the right to do so.

 

[captaincranky]

Yes, it is their fault, but the only reason businesses take the loss in situations like this is to keep their customers happy and coming back. In this case though the people who received money aren't customers. If Getty is willing to deal with the consequences of taking the money back, then that's their choice, but they're still in the right to do so.

I doubt the damage to Getty will amount to anywhere near what you're thinking.

Work in photography is difficult if not close to impossible to secure.

You pretty much need the degree, the talent, and know somebody really important on top of that.

Besides, it really is incumbent upon an employee to notify his or her employer, if the paycheck they receive, is more than the paycheck they're entitled to.

There is the obvious market for "celebrity candids", but then you really need to be a piece of crap, to 'elevate" yourself to the title "paparazz"I. John Q. Public, (and his missus), lap those shots up though, seemingly guilt free.

 

[Guest]

"Should of" -> "should have"

 

[captaincranky]

Getty Images made some royalty payment errors late last year that resulted in a number of photographers being paid more than they should of, and now the company wants its money back.

"Should of" -> "should have"

Well Justin, our visiting grammar Nazi does have a point!

"Of" is a preposition, and as such, requires an object phrase. For example, "Getty sent the over payments, "into the wind".

Or maybe, "Getty pissed their money, up the wall"

The prepositions , "of", and "from", get a little murky, and consequently in Spanish, they both become, "de".

"Should", is a modal verb, and when used in conjunction with "have", completes a past conditional, compound verb.

 

[dgoodchild]

…as far as I believe it is deception if you do not report overpayment for your services.

Besides, it really is incumbent upon an employee to notify his or her employer, if the paycheck they receive, is more than the paycheck they're entitled to.

Normally I'd be in complete agreement with these sentiments but since Getty doesn't provide invoices the individual photographer has no way to account for or verify the amounts paid. If photographers have to take it on faith that Getty's accounting is correct I feel they should be entitled to keep the overpayments since they were received in good faith.

I also think that Getty needs to start providing photographers with detailed account statements. As a consultant myself, I would never dream of sending a client an invoice that reads "Work done = $xxxx.xx, trust me."

 

[captaincranky]

....[ ]....
I also think that Getty needs to start providing photographers with detailed account statements. As a consultant myself, I would never dream of sending a client an invoice that reads "Work done = $xxxx.xx, trust me."

I find it hard to get my head around the idea Getty actually works like this, but if you say so...........

 

[Railman]

....[ ]....
I also think that Getty needs to start providing photographers with detailed account statements. As a consultant myself, I would never dream of sending a client an invoice that reads "Work done = $xxxx.xx, trust me."

I find it hard to get my head around the idea Getty actually works like this, but if you say so...........

Err! Sort of mentions it in the above article. By the way is Dgoodchild a Doctor Who fan? The police telephone box seems to indicate so.

 

[captaincranky]

Err! Sort of mentions it in the above article. By the way is Dgoodchild a Doctor Who fan? The police telephone box seems to indicate so.

Well, in my own defense, I don't believe everything I see on, "Access Hollywood", either. That's further compounded by the fact I can't read, because I used to work for the post office.

In either case,how is being a, "Doctor Who"fan, germane to this issue? I'll take it easy on him, if you think that's required, or even the right thing to do...(y).

While you're here, we also have a member who has a wheelchair as an avatar:

Perhaps you could make sense of that for me as well.

 

[Railman]

Is Access Hollywood a TV program? It sounds like one of those depressing celebrity centric bore-fests. Sorry for going off subject but I am a bit of a Dr Who fan. The Tom Baker era being my favorite.

 

[captaincranky]

Is Access Hollywood a TV program?

Why yes it is! It's either that or "Extra", which makes my decision to watch, "Jeopardy", in the competing time slot, all the more satisfying.

Sorry for going off subject but I am a bit of a Dr Who fan. The Tom Baker era being my favorite.

It's fair to say that Tom Baker's "absent minded hippy", portrayal of the "Doctor", was likely the most people' favorite. (That said, I haven't seen any of the doctors which succeeded him).

Brit sci-fi is OK. Arguably, more character driven than US competitors. Still, I am more easily amused by gunfire, FX, and loud explosions, ( even if they're right out front of the house), than in plumbing the depths of this year's model of, "Dr. Who's", psyche.

Then there's this; Dr. Who is a PBS program for me. I can't stand the nagging or the guilt, that their eternal "beg-a-thons", cause in me. So, I avoid eating the dinner, if I'm not willing to tip the waiter, so to speak.

In any event, I still have, (although of wretched VHS and broadcast antenna quality), 5 out of 6 seasons of, "Blake's Seven", a decades old brit-fic, that I recall as being thoroughly enjoyable.

If fact, in one more recent sci-fi movie or TV series, one actress gives a Blake's character "Servilan"credit to, "Servilan", as a model for her appearance and demeanor. (Very nasty, with a raven black, butch, burr haircut).

It was the remake of, "V": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(2009_TV_series And the actress was Morena Baccarin. (Who also appeared in Joss Whedon's, "Firefly" as the "mystic / space hooker).

Oh dear, now I've really veered off the topic. I guess I'll be hearing about that from my, "fan club".

But wait, "how about that damned Getty, wanting its money back"? They should send one of their execs, to the top of The Empire State Building, with a bushel basket of 20's, to throw away, as well, a penitence for being so stupid and generous in the first place!

 

[Railman]

The Getty are not asking for the money back in one installment but are deducting it in installments from future income. If they do that it does appear that they may prepared to write off a proportion of the overpayment.

Going back on subject, Blakes Seven consisted of four series each of 13 episodes. There was a rumour of a remake for Sky TV but it has not materialised. There have been a number of audio episodes which have been on the radio in the UK.

Sorry to read that PBS is not up to standard. Luckily in the UK the BBC show programs without any adverts. Doctor Who recently showed the 50th anniversary show which was made in 3D and was full of state of the art special effects.

I remember seeing the original version of V. I will keep an eye open for the new version on DVD.

 

[dividebyzero]

I remember seeing the original version of V. I will keep an eye open for the new version on DVD.

I wouldn't pay over the odds for it. The original mini-series/series from 1983-84 is far superior. If you're a fan of the misfits in space premise, then you may have heard of Farscape. If you haven't, it is well worth checking out (although it needs a few episodes to hook some people). A long awaited story continuation is apparently in the works.

 

[Railman]

I remember seeing the original version of V. I will keep an eye open for the new version on DVD.

I wouldn't pay over the odds for it. The original mini-series/series from 1983-84 is far superior. If you're a fan of the misfits in space premise, then you may have heard of Farscape. If you haven't, it is well worth checking out (although it needs a few episodes to hook some people). A long awaited story continuation is apparently in the works.

I have some episodes of Farscape on DVD. It is highly entertaining. Ironically it does seem to be based on Blakes Seven in so far as there is a group of persons who are fighting a fasist empire.

 

[Railman]

It is funny that shortly after the mention of Farscape I have managed to pick up series 2 box set for only £8.

 

[dividebyzero]

It is funny that shortly after the mention of Farscape I have managed to pick up series 2 box set for only £8.

Good score. Some of the boxed sets run fairly pricey. Probably an effect of the cult status of the show (Lexx, The Invaders (1967) etc are expensive also). It seems to have infinitely more fans now than when it first aired. At least there are regular re-releases of the show- I got the blu ray collection (seasons 1-4 + The Peacekeeper Wars + the follow on comics) a couple of years back. I rewatch the series every couple of years or so- it holds up better than most SF series.

 

[captaincranky]

It is funny that shortly after the mention of Farscape I have managed to pick up series 2 box set for only £8.

They are, (were ?) fairly common. The original pressing of,"Farscape", was indeed, quite pricey. However, there was a second run, (DVD only, so still old), which was a tad more reasonable. These of which, I have a full series collection, plus "The Wars".

I have most of "Lexx".

If a show doesn't take off right away, (and most Sci-Fi doesn't), broadcast TV will kill it after a season or two...

So, I have boxed sets of, "Dollhouse:" (An intriguing Whedon flop, starring Eliza Dushku, from "Buffy").

"Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles". In this, Summer Glau, (another of "Whedon's wenches"), gets the opportunity to play a "Terminator", tasked with the protection of John Conner. I was hoping for a romantic entanglement between she and John. After all, isn't it every man's fantasy to have a girlfriend that could, "suck the chrome off a trailer ball"? Summer was quite an eyeful as well, plus a stage quality ballerina!

And two bizarre pieces of, "T & A-Fi", "Birds of Prey", (ostensibly Batman's daughter), and "Cleopatra 2525", "introducing, Jennifer Sky", who I've not seen since....

Anywho, the mug on Claudia Black, always made me think of what must be going through a male black widow spider's mind on his, "honeymoon", so to speak. "Oh wow, that was fun while it lasted, what are you doing, dear"? (slurp). In any event, Ben Browder's baby face always made me want to ask, "Claudia, who's that, your son.....argh...?

Being the lecherous old pervert that I am, I enjoy following the careers of Sci-Fi ingenue.

BSG's Grace Park, (6), is doing well on the serial remake of, "Hawaii Five-O"

Amy Acker works on "Person of Interest", playing, (what else), a crazy person, and "Buffy" (Sarah Michell Gellar), has been reanimated on, "The Crazy Ones", (a half hour sitcom), with Robin Williams.

@Railman, of course you're quite correct, there were only 4 seasons of, "Blake's Seven". What I'm actually missing is 1/2 of one season. Dunno what went wrong there, probably got a mediocre eight ball, or simply got fed up with listening to channel 12's, "Patrick Stoner", (ironically of baby boomer age), beg for money.


GO Getty, stitch up all the places where you're hemorrhaging money.

@dividebyzero, both of you are "PAL" standard for DVD? That would add a certain difficulty for finding older material. Although, I thought that at least part of, "Farscape", was filmed in Australia.

(Along with, "Andromeda", starring Kevin Sorbo as, "Hercules in space").