The speculation that they may still use the file is invalidated by our experience so far. Yes, one in a million might do it, but there are plenty of penalties to enforce if that happens.

Thanks for contributing to this thread, Achilles. However, I disagree with the above statement. I (and a handful of other photographers/artists) are having a serious problem over at BigStockPhoto with fraudulent downloads. In each case, the thief buys up hundreds of dollars worth of images, and is long gone before the credit card is identified as stolen. But they still got the images, and they re-upload them to all the micro stock sites under different usernames.

Basically, I'm just trying to point out that there are many thieves out there who are using stolen credit cards to purchase images, and they don't care one bit about the "penalties" for reselling the images. Heck...are there even penalties for that? What happens to these thieves when they get caught? Based on my own personal experience with these thieves, nothing happens, and they just move on to the next site.

In my eyes: "invalidated" downloads = THEFT.

I will never understand an image "return". DVDs, music CD's... whatever... they are unable to be returned because common sense tells you how easy it is to steal & return. How obvious is it that image should fall under the same category? Only exception to the rule: an obvious double click of the same image or something extremely similair. 

I wish DT the best in attempting to control this potential monster!

I got this email today:

"Due to reasons which are beyond our control, we are sorry to let you know that $0.35 have been removed from your earnings as a result of a refund. File IDs: 1686929 - reason: fraud. Thank you for your patience and understanding."

It's a bit worrying to see images being refunded for fraud. Is credit being given based on fraudulent payment methods?

For such a small amount I am surprised that they have deducted this from my account, perhaps this fraud is widespread and effecting more than just a few people.

i thought we are dealing with pros, not some two bit so-called layout artist.

yes, i agree with NYTumbleweeds .
it sounds fishy. you make a mistake on one or two, not a batch.
and like you said, not after months.
would say amazon allow you a refund on cds or dvds you bought 3 months later?

also, what's to stop them from using your images? they got their money back.

I also recieved that e-mail today and I lost a bit more money.

"Due to reasons which are beyond our control, we are sorry to let you know that $12.09 have been removed from your earnings as a result of a refund. File IDs: 2019200, 947560, 810615, 2496542, 1692446, 1417303 - reason: fraud. Thank you for your patience and understanding."

My images were downloaded and could be used by this fraudster. Dreamstime accepted this fraudulent transaction, but don't want to accept any responsibility for it. Why must I suffer the loss and they nothing?

I got one of these today for one image and have replied asking for clarification. Will post here if I get a worthwhile answer.

At least they notified you. On another site, my account had a reversal and when I asked why, they said, they didn't track that. No big deal for me, only 50c, but no notice, no reason, no clue? At least DT has been giving notice and a reason.

I don't know, but when I buy something online, the CC is verified before the purchase is completed. When I pay for food or go shopping, the payment is electronically verified, before I get the goods. Maybe the photo sites are getting hit with stolen CCs and only find out after the photos are downloaded, which can be days or weeks later. In other words, the card is checked and passes through at first, and the charges are later reversed by the CC company.

What else can they do? Someone sings up and wants photos, then they say, you have to wait two weeks, for the payment to clear and account verification, before you can download? How many buyers would just go somewhere else if that happened.

This assumes that the payments are being checked live on the site as they should be.

I don't know, but when I buy something online, the CC is verified before the purchase is completed. When I pay for food or go shopping, the payment is electronically verified, before I get the goods. Maybe the photo sites are getting hit with stolen CCs and only find out after the photos are downloaded, which can be days or weeks later. In other words, the card is checked and passes through at first, and the charges are later reversed by the CC company.

How does this actually works in the CC side?  If I have my card stolen or I lose it, it's my responsability to warn the CC company, right?  After that, it's their responsability.  On some occasions they called me to ask if a certain internet purchase (out of my pattern) was really done by me.  You can even receive CC usage notices in your phone cell.

I suppose Amazon doesn't lose money if someone buys with a CC that gets accepted and later its considered a fraud. I wonder if sites that are having such problems really follow all procedures requested by the CC companies.

I once had my CC cloned and suddenly in just one day the person spent over US$2,500 in a mall.  All those purchases were not my pattern (though some could have been mine), and the CC company didn't question me: I had to go to their office and indicate which were mine, which were not.  There was still some delay putting numbers right, but the CC company ultimately swallowed the loss - or maybe the store did, if they did not follow some procedure (they should check the signature, but many don't).

Sites that get the largest cut, such as IS, probably swallow these losses.  FT should as well. And any of them should be responsible in case they don't wait for a CC confirmation before allowing downloads.

Regards,
Adelaide

I have only had one refund (that I know of) and it was from IS. I think the file was too big for the buyer to download, so the returned and bought a smaller size.

What is reason "fraud"? Meaning somebody has our images and paid for them by a stolen card e.g.? Then it should be the agency loss, not ours. I cannot imagine a shop not paying for the goods to their suppliers because the goods got stolen e.g. or paid for by a stolen card. This "customer refund" of theirs is egregious!

The speculation that they may still use the file is invalidated by our experience so far. Yes, one in a million might do it, but there are plenty of penalties to enforce if that happens. No one wants to pay an expensive penalty just because they didn't want to pay $5-10. If value is a problem for them, they go via subscriptions for the same file or the free images section.

A zoom feature was delayed until we are sure that the technical solution limits almost all kinds of fraud. It's tricky to remove watermarks, but not impossible. There are people who would be doing it. Even if the solution is extremely easy for the agency, contributors need to be protected. Doing this might limit the refunds, but would increase the fraud a lot. It would be exactly the opposite of the things mentioned above.

Ummm, really nice. Two completely different assumptions in just 2 paragraphs... yeah, the contributors need to be protected.

Exactly. Why would anybody steal images (or "buying" them with a stolen card) if they did not want to use them?

I, too, received an email on Oct 20 advising of a refund for reason of "fraud". It's my most downloaded image, so I have to agree the reason for downloading is most likely to steal the image for sale elsewhere.

It would be nice if DT could reassure us that they are doing more to pursue and persecute such buyers in addition to taking back their commission.

Another one this morning.

It doesn't seem like this problem is going away anytime soon. 

Me to, it was $2.00 today for credit card fraud.