Author Topic: Refund calculation? (Read 5742 times)

delphinium · « **on:** March 25, 2011, 20:36 »

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?

red · « **Reply #1 on:** March 25, 2011, 20:40 »

I'm sure no one here knows the answer. Have you contacted them for more details. They usually answer quickly, but not on weekends.

delphinium · « **Reply #2 on:** March 25, 2011, 21:15 »

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.

ibogdan · « **Reply #3 on:** March 26, 2011, 00:41 »

I'm curious about their answer.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #4 on:** March 26, 2011, 02:49 »

Quote from: ibogdan on March 26, 2011, 00:41

I'm curious about their answer.

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 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 26, 2011, 03:46 »

Because at DT it is an occasional genuine mistake by the buyer with IS it was a huge security breach which they should have stopped.

hose · « **Reply #6 on:** March 26, 2011, 08:25 »

fotografer - unfortunately it's not occasional

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

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #7 on:** March 26, 2011, 10:18 »

There should be no such thing as refunds in Microstock period. If a buyer buys an image "by accident" the policy should be tough luck. No one has to mortgage their house to afford a microstock image so if a buyer realizes they spent $10 on a photo they don't need they should just accept the loss of that money and move on.

If someone steals credit card info, buys a bunch of credits and starts downloading images then the problem is for the credit card company. That's why they have fraud insurance.

The only one that loses in a refund situation is the photographer as there is little to no way to track the use of a royalty free image once it's downloaded. If an image has been purchased 100 times how would you track which usage is the illegal one? I wish the stock agencies would look out for the photographers a little better and either absorb the refunds themselves or just refuse to give them. Put it in the legal sign up agreement that sales are final.

cathyslife · « **Reply #8 on:** March 26, 2011, 12:44 »

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on March 26, 2011, 10:18

There should be no such thing as refunds in Microstock period. If a buyer buys an image "by accident" the policy should be tough luck. No one has to mortgage their house to afford a microstock image so if a buyer realizes they spent $10 on a photo they don't need they should just accept the loss of that money and move on.

If someone steals credit card info, buys a bunch of credits and starts downloading images then the problem is for the credit card company. That's why they have fraud insurance.

The only one that loses in a refund situation is the photographer as there is little to no way to track the use of a royalty free image once it's downloaded. If an image has been purchased 100 times how would you track which usage is the illegal one? I wish the stock agencies would look out for the photographers a little better and either absorb the refunds themselves or just refuse to give them. Put it in the legal sign up agreement that sales are final.

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.

hose · « **Reply #9 on:** March 26, 2011, 15:37 »

digitalexpressionimages - absolutely!

cclapper - if you want to change just the size or license of image you already bought, it could be made as an option and I believe it is not complicated to do it, and just to take a little more credits

RacePhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** March 27, 2011, 02:19 »

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on March 26, 2011, 10:18

If someone steals credit card info, buys a bunch of credits and starts downloading images then the problem is for the credit card company. That's why they have fraud insurance.

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.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #11 on:** March 27, 2011, 08:26 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 27, 2011, 02:19

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on March 26, 2011, 10:18

If someone steals credit card info, buys a bunch of credits and starts downloading images then the problem is for the credit card company. That's why they have fraud insurance.

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.

Yes, like I said it's the credit card companies that should be responsible. They charge 18+% interest on balances, take a cut from transactions and in some cases charge a yearly membership fee, they are among the most profitable corporations in the world. They should be held responsible when fraud is committed using their service. But it's the lowly struggling photographers that get the shaft and even the stock agencies won't look out for us.

As far as non credit card fraud goes: I live in a small town and do design work for businesses that circulate promotional materials in a 25-50km radius. In other words the stock I buy doesn't end up in national magazine ads for everyone to see. If I were the type of person to do evil, what would stop me from buying an image, claiming it was a mistake and getting a refund, then using the image anyway for a local brochure that no one outside my area will see, then hitting my client with a bill for the purchase of stock (oh yeah, I would print the receipt from the original purchase BEFORE the refund)? I get a free image and get reimbursed by my client for the "purchase" and the poor photographer, who maybe lives in Romania thousands of miles away from me, gets hit with the refund. The honour system just doesn't work.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Refund calculation? (Read 5742 times)

delphinium

red

delphinium

ibogdan

RacePhoto

fotografer

hose

digitalexpressionimages

cathyslife

hose

RacePhoto

digitalexpressionimages

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors