MicrostockGroup

many threads about this are opened already. we all have such losses, and we got over it, there is nothing you can do. They took back from me over 50$ for such reason, in past 1 year. I can only be angry, and nothing more.

I understand click_click's problem is a cancelled purchase, but the cancellation refers to a date in which he did not have a sale on that value, what looks like a mistake.

i sell on different microstocks, but on fotolia you see credits disappear so easily...
i can accept credit card issue but not after a lot of month a client download the image.
the problem is you don't see the detail of why and who, you have only to thrust about fotolia...

This is what drives me completely insane with Fotolia. They usually take drastic action to simple problems, and then refuse to give an explanation of the situation. I've personally been in that situation with them twice. It's maddening.

My first - a credit card purchased on March.  Lost one L credit sale.

This stinks and can not be right, as a vendor if you supplied the local supermarket with goods on a franchise basis or sale or return, and they then sold the goods to one of their customers, if the credit card was not valid they would still have to pay you for the goods traded in the transaction, as any bad debt liability is theirs and not the suppliers.

As a supplier the contract you have is with the agency to supply the assets in return for a percentage payment per transaction, and not with the agencies customers, and for each licence transaction the agency are bound by contract to pay you a commission based on the selling price, regardless of if they get paid or not, is there a clause about credit card fraud in the contract?

Bad debt provision is basic accounting and not new, it is something all retail companies build in, it is an accepted cost of trading and is written off as a cost of sale against reveneue, they should have this built in to thier forecasts and account for it from the revenue generated by their percentage, they have the contract and risk with the end user not the artist, any bad debt provision is the agencies and not the artists as they do not have the contract with the customer.

The only refunds should be if the goods are returned not used, the goods are not fit for use, or it is proved that you do not have the rights to trade the goods.

The point here is that the customer does have the goods, the transaction was between the agency and the customer, so they are now liable to pay you for the goods traded which were supplied by you in good faith.

David

volk, are you implying that such frauds did not happen and FT is simply taking our money?

I gree with Adeptris, and what puzzles me is whether FT is less careful with credit card transactions than other companies.  I've read of credit card problems in other agencies, but in FT it seems to be a constant issue.

Volk65, just want to say that, not too long ago, I got an email from Istock, saying there was a refund, but it was their mistake so they took the responsibility and didn't deduct any money from my account.

Probably. But don't miss two points:

1. It was not happening until 3 months ago. At least not at this level, it was not even close to 1/10th of it. It happend just after FT changed management.

2. My case is a good example that FT can not be trusted. It's not a credit card fraud case and it shows, without any doubt, that FT pocketed my money.

1. It was not happening at this extend. Since 3 months there is a drastic increase in complaints about credit card issue. It is incomperable.
2. You can't explain this with honest mistakes or "iron fists". Taking money back from submitters' account but not paying back the commission to the buyers is, in my book, is stealing. A microstock website can rule with as hard an iron fist as they wish but they must pay utmost importance not playing games with submitters' money. It takes time, effort, expensive equipment to take those pictures.

Are you sure you are not from FT?

Ok, let's assume that IS - or any other agency - is as bad as FT or IS.

What I don't understand is why you are defending them?

Saying that "nothing can be done, nobody is forcing you" is one thing, and defending an agency's injustice is another thing.

Have you heard the idiom "to be more royalist than the king"?

Guys,
The topic is declined credit cards and not IP issues, I am not with FT so does their contract fine print mention refunds for Credit Card fraud?

If not then they should take the hit not you, the customers are theirs not yours, your business trades with FT and if your kit is stolen will they replace it 'no', so why should you replace their 'stolen money'?

As these transactions are not recent I wonder if the details were processed correctly by FT at the time, with EFT processes the rejected file will come back within 24-48 hours, if they are not real time then they should be uploading a file once a day, so declined payment should not take more than a week, if all the correct details were entered then the bank should honour the transaction, unless these were a paypal thing.

Payment refunds should be written in the contract, if not then they are liable to pay you the revenue for the downloads, I have run a small business and if my customers did not pay me, I was still liable to pay my suppliers and the tax (VAT) on the revenue that I never received payment for, no one in the real world will work on a pay when paid basis, unless they are paid a premium rate!

David