MicrostockGroup

So I got one of the "refund notice" emails today:

Due to reasons which are beyond our control, we are sorry to let you know
that $4 have been removed from your earnings as result of a refund for
file ID_________.

This isn't the first time I've been hit with one of these, but this one troubles me because of the amount.

I don't understand why they have removed $4 from my account when I was only paid $3.90 for the sale in question.   .10 isn't a huge deal but it just doesn't seem right.

Any thoughts?

I responded immediately to the email notification and haven't heard anything back.    Hopefully by Monday.   Just wondered if anyone else had experienced this - if it is a common occurrence.

Yeah and I'll be curious why one site that holds proceeds for a short period and reverses fraud, ("clawing back payments")  for more than someone earned, is different from another site that reveres them after they find them. But the first site is OK and a friend of artists, while the second site is portrayed spawn of Satan...

Just wondering how that works?

Is that old double standard rearing it's ugly head again?

fotografer - unfortunately it's not occasional

delphinium - for the missing 0.10 $ my best guess is the tax

For the most part, I agree with you. But I have been in a buying situation where I accidentally had the medium size image clicked, and I actually wanted a large. I think in certain situations, such as this, where a buyer gets the wrong size, especially if they are going to buy a larger size of the same image, that a refund should be forthcoming.

But I agree with you...if a buyer buys an image, then decides they don't want it, they should not get a refund. They can download a free comp before buying to make sure they can use it. If it doesn't work for them, they shouldn't buy it. If they do, tough tamales.

That is where I have been trying to understand and get the blame where it belongs, but it seems some people refuse to hold the Credit Card Company responsible for approving these sales. The CC company tells the agency, yes the card is good, and approves the transaction. How does the agency get hammered for security breach, when they aren't the ones doing the security?

I agree it sucks and I think the problem is when someone steals a download or intangible, creative work that's a license not a product, the CC company doesn't cover the loss of intellectual property. How many times have I been told, we aren't selling images, we are selling licenses. (true, it's just semantics) So if someone steals a license, they haven't stolen anything, have they? I'm not defending the loss or the thieves, just pointing out that either we get coverage from the CC company or they are avoiding it, because of the intangible nature of the product, but the source of the problem is not the agency as far as I can see?

Maybe someone can correct me and explain why the agency is responsible for lax security or theft, when it's the CC company that approves the charges?

There's something wrong and I'd like to see the CC company be responsible for the losses. Why aren't they? That's the end of the line, no passing the buck.

I still wonder where the thieves are using these images? Wouldn't someone be able to track the sales or lack of sales and spot them? It would be nice to have charges brought against them for CC fraud at the same time as copyright infringement. That might slow them down.