MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Declined credit card - it just won't add up...  (Read 13374 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 27, 2009, 09:15 »
0
I never checked this before but I can't get this straight now:

Today I got money deducted from my account due to a credit purchase from 2-22-2009 with a stolen credit card.

When I check all my sales from 2-22-2009 there is no amount from that day that matches the deduction or any combination of sales added together either.

Before I contact support I wanted to know if anyone else experienced this kind of math before.


« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2009, 10:25 »
0
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.

« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2009, 12:31 »
0
You are not alone... My Fotolia account was even blocked for few weeks due to number of problematic sales right around 2-22-2009.

More on this topic is here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-blocked-account/

« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2009, 18:05 »
0
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.

« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2009, 19:26 »
0
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.

That is correct.

I understand there is credit card fraud happening in this world.

But as long as the amounts are not matching up it leaves a sour taste...

« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2009, 08:25 »
0
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...

« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2009, 09:19 »
0
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...

Don't trust Fotolia. They took back money from my account, and not for credit card denial problem. They just deleted one of my photos without any understandable reason, and took back 1 year of earnings from that photo. They didn't even care to give an explanation.

And because of Fotolia's reluctance to pay for a reliable credit card verification system, credit card fraud is more frequent on Fotolia, which means that your photos are probably being distributed freely on the Net by pirates now.

Fotolia took back only 40 USD from me, noting to sweat over. However I cannot work with an agency which not only rejects to build a good relationship with me as its partner, but  also risk my future earnings by making things easier for pirates.

« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2009, 09:48 »
0

They just deleted one of my photos without any understandable reason, and took back 1 year of earnings from that photo. They didn't even care to give an explanation.

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.

« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2009, 03:44 »
0
another wave of credit cards refusal today (back from februrary).... :(

« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2009, 16:06 »
0
My first - a credit card purchased on March.  Lost one L credit sale.

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2009, 17:10 »
0
Have not had that problem with them but seeing this..along with some other things ..I just dropped Fotolia altogether.

« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2009, 00:57 »
0
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
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 01:07 by Adeptris »

« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2009, 01:25 »
0
Even if some submitters accept to undertake the full burden of credit card fraud, I just don't buy it that Fotolia is experiencing so many credit card frauds. I send pictures to 7 other microstock agencies, I never personally experienced such a thing with others. I heard that it happened to some Istock users, but they were rare occasions. Moreover, declined credit card problem sky-rocketed only within the last 3 months at Fotolia. It went out of proportions. I am not blind: It's obvious that Fotolia is trying to solve its cash flow problems by putting its hand to submitters' pockets. I quitted last month and I am happy.

« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2009, 05:27 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 05:31 by madelaide »

« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2009, 05:50 »
0
volk, are you implying that such frauds did not happen and FT is ismply taking our money?


Exactly.

I told my story (it's a different one) here before but let me repeat. 2 months ago, about 40$ was removed from my account. When I look through the details, I discovered about 40 credit removal instances and only about 10 of it were for credit card fraud. The remaining were for intellectual property rights. I also discovered that FT removed one of my photos (a Paris metro sign), which they approved a year ago, and took back all the money I earned from that photo. That photo was downloaded more than 30 times. This is a first that they took back earned credits for a reason other than credit card fraud. Furthermore, I don't think FT returned all their commission too to the relevant buyers. So they just pocketed their share. Morever, they rejected to give me an explanation other than for the credit fraud ones. So I cancelled my account.

Many readers here wanted to hear their side of the story but no explanation came. I'm sure they follow here.

Isn't it very clear?


« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2009, 06:02 »
0
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.

Even if some submitters accept to undertake the full burden of credit card fraud, I just don't buy it that Fotolia is experiencing so many credit card frauds. I send pictures to 7 other microstock agencies, I never personally experienced such a thing with others. I heard that it happened to some Istock users, but they were rare occasions. Moreover, declined credit card problem sky-rocketed only within the last 3 months at Fotolia. It went out of proportions. I am not blind: It's obvious that Fotolia is trying to solve its cash flow problems by putting its hand to submitters' pockets. I quitted last month and I am happy.

« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2009, 07:01 »
0
Wait wait wait,

I brought this up before as well:

Fotolia is MAYBE using a cheaper system to "process" credit card payments.

It appears that they do NOT verify the CC data right away when the buyer purchases credit packages.

What I mean is that they quickly run the number, expiration date and security code through a piece of software that ONLY determines if this particular card COULD be real. But then once Fotolia is actually processing the payments (I don't know, maybe once a week) - then they will find out in some cases that cards are fraudulent.

I could see this happen.

This may be a cheaper way for Fotolia rather than having a merchant account that verifies funds at the time of purchase but the fees for that are significantly higher. That's a guess. Otherwise I don't understand how so many stolen credit cards get through the system successfully as our images are being downloaded AND used and that's a bugger since it's not a real loss for Fotolia but for us.

« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2009, 07:28 »
0
Wait wait wait,

I brought this up before as well:

Fotolia is MAYBE using a cheaper system to "process" credit card payments.

It appears that they do NOT verify the CC data right away when the buyer purchases credit packages.

What I mean is that they quickly run the number, expiration date and security code through a piece of software that ONLY determines if this particular card COULD be real. But then once Fotolia is actually processing the payments (I don't know, maybe once a week) - then they will find out in some cases that cards are fraudulent.

I could see this happen.

This may be a cheaper way for Fotolia rather than having a merchant account that verifies funds at the time of purchase but the fees for that are significantly higher. That's a guess. Otherwise I don't understand how so many stolen credit cards get through the system successfully as our images are being downloaded AND used and that's a bugger since it's not a real loss for Fotolia but for us.

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.

« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2009, 07:53 »
0
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.

To 1:

My first declined credit card charge backs happened in early 2008 so it has nothing to do with the change of management. And I had quite some refunds there.
Back then barely anyone paid attention to it.

to 2:

Fotolia is running a successful business in tough economic times - that's rare. Despite such irregularities we should be happy that they are still around.

There is not one agency that does EVERYTHING correctly!

I know some will not agree with me on this one but sometimes an agency has to rule with an iron fist to make things "work".

IS used to do the same thing and everybody complained, well guess what, the biggest stock image agency on this planet decided to buy them because they are successful and know how to do business and not everybody likes their decisions. Plus you can't make everybody happy.

« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2009, 08:42 »
0
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?

« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2009, 09:03 »
0
Are you sure you are not from FT?

I'm not from Fotolia unless I suffer from long and short term memory loss but thanks for asking.

Just as a reminder, IS has pulled off stunts that makes Fotolia look like a little midget. The list is endless. However enough people support IS no matter what they'll come up with next so will most people with Fotolia. Do you really believe that any given agency really cares about every single contributor that has a portfolio of up to 2000 or 3000 images?

I don't know how long you've been doing this but when I started in 2005 customer service wost mostly run by the CEOs of the agencies and they did care about contributor's concerns. Times have changed. Now, when I contact support, sometimes I don't even get a response anymore. So what do you suggest I should do? Go crying to daddy that they won't respond? Or just keep doing what I'm good at and make more money?

If you don't like their attitude, nobody is forcing you to be with them...

Fotolia is performing very well for me. The charge backs are annoying so is image theft and copyright infringement. Unfortunately we can not control everything. I take it for what it is, a minimal reduction of my monthly income. The income stream far outweighs the little charge-backs. Maybe my pictures suck so bad that barely anyone is using a stolen credit card on them. Well then, more power to me.

« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2009, 09:14 »
0
Are you sure you are not from FT?

I'm not from Fotolia unless I suffer from long and short term memory loss but thanks for asking.

Just as a reminder, IS has pulled off stunts that makes Fotolia look like a little midget. The list is endless. However enough people support IS no matter what they'll come up with next so will most people with Fotolia. Do you really believe that any given agency really cares about every single contributor that has a portfolio of up to 2000 or 3000 images?

I don't know how long you've been doing this but when I started in 2005 customer service wost mostly run by the CEOs of the agencies and they did care about contributor's concerns. Times have changed. Now, when I contact support, sometimes I don't even get a response anymore. So what do you suggest I should do? Go crying to daddy that they won't respond? Or just keep doing what I'm good at and make more money?

If you don't like their attitude, nobody is forcing you to be with them...

Fotolia is performing very well for me. The charge backs are annoying so is image theft and copyright infringement. Unfortunately we can not control everything. I take it for what it is, a minimal reduction of my monthly income. The income stream far outweighs the little charge-backs. Maybe my pictures suck so bad that barely anyone is using a stolen credit card on them. Well then, more power to me.


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"?

« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2009, 09:23 »
0
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"?

Well if you want to put it that way, I'm defending both IS and Fotolia.

Quite some people have left them. Fine with me.

I'm not putting my eggs in one basket either also contribute to Macro and footage.

As long as I get more money from Fotolia and IS than 123RF, Crestock, FP, BigStock, Stockxpert, Canstock, Veer I will keep raking in the money with them.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather take the money and run than try to change the (stock) world...

« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2009, 14:04 »
0
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  :o
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 14:12 by Adeptris »

« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2009, 16:26 »
0
I have never purchased images, so I am curious to know how these sales work.  Can you download images as soon as you enter the CC data? 

Sites I bought things at say they need to verify information.  When purchasing software, this was immediate, as far as I remember.  When purchasing goods, which is common, it often takes a few hours before they consider the transaction approved. 

In stock photo sites, I suppose that once you are a new customer, it should be acceptable to wait a bit before your data is verified; further purchases would be faster, as it is less likely that it's a fraud.

« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2009, 20:35 »
0
But FT is fair, they only take backdrops if dailysales are high. Appears to me as a sign of high level kind of thievery.
My respect: they learn. That give me hope that they - one day in future - will treat constributors as they should be handled, like an annoying kind of crap on their sole.
This will help to shrink prices, earn more and reach the top.

regards
Bertold

« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2009, 03:19 »
0
Recently I've had:
2 x credit card deductions in May
2 x credit card deductions in June
and so far in July I have had 1 x "Credit cancellation" but it doesn't give me any more info than that, so i have no idea what that means.

Prior to these it was Oct '08 when I had the last credit card deduction, so I have definitely seen an influx recently.

« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2009, 04:14 »
0
With tens of thousands photos sold at Istockphoto I never have had one single "credit card fraud" redund there. Zero.

« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2009, 05:27 »
0
With tens of thousands photos sold at Istockphoto I never have had one single "credit card fraud" redund there. Zero.

It doesn't mean it doesn't happen - IS may well keep the loss for itself.  With their 80% share I think it's feasible.  It is harder for DT with 50%.

« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2009, 06:01 »
0
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!

Sorry David, your comparisons don't make any sense. There is a difference between agency business and retailer business. An agency doesn't take ownership of your property at any point, they just offer you to market your product on your behalf. They also deal with payment and delivery of the product. If they sell one of your products, they are taking a share of the sales they have made. But at no point they are the owner of your product and as such they are at no point obliged to pay for a product of yours.

That's how agencies are working in principle (I'm not talking about stock images here but a business model that applies to different industries).

Edit: Doesn't add to the actual debate of this topic, of course.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2009, 06:03 by MichaelJay »

« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2009, 07:15 »
0
Sorry David, your comparisons don't make any sense. There is a difference between agency business and retailer business.
Michael sorry but you are assuming I was in retail,
Let me explain better I was in construction, no products but contract labour (A.K.A. the suppliers) they were the services that we 'sold' to our customers, we always paid our contractors weekly and 'on time' against timesheets as we had a liability to do so, then we invoiced customers monthly and were paid about 60 -90 days later, we made our money as a commission on the supply of resource and allowed for bad debt provision in our accounts, we then could run the risk of any bad debt which was offset against our commission percentage, at no point would we have gone back to the supplier (tradesman) if we were not paid by our customers, as our suppliers had no legal contract with the customers and could not use the courts for any claims, the only time we withheld payment was if their work was sub standard.

I currently work as a freelance IT contractor, I expect that from the 15%-28% the employment agency adds to my rate that they take any risk of non payment, once I have supplied a service I expect payment from the agency in full not their customer, so this would be the same for digital assets.

Other businesses see the need for bad debt provision and factor this into thier accounts, this should be the same for stock sites, our assets are supplied in good faith and any transaction should be honoured, any bad debt due to Credit Card fraud is not the fault of any artist but a factor in the industry.

The stock sites should have good systems in place to minimise the risk, the ones that do not pass this down likely have better systems of control and are more careful who they partner with.
The others stock sites may not care as much because they will just claw it back months later, as this is the 'wild wide web' and not subject to good business practice.

Just to make it fair, the agencies should do as IS have done and build it in to thier percentage, this spreads the cost of bad debt over all sales, otherwise it just becomes a lottery if the sale of your asset will be claimed back for no fault of the artist.

David  ;)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2009, 07:33 by Adeptris »

« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2009, 07:28 »
0
Michael sorry but you are assuming I was in retail,

No, I don't. You posted a different example from a supermarket before already which had no connection to agency business model. The other example you are bringing now is sub-contracting, yet another way of doing business, very common in construction and IT. Also, comparing physical products with licenses for digital media is just not right. There is no (direct) loss occurring when somebody copies a file. There only is a potential indirect loss of unlicensed use. That's why I object to all those comparisons.

Why not keep it simple and discuss the matter at hand?

« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2009, 07:44 »
0
No, I don't. You posted a different example from a supermarket before already which had no connection to agency business model.
Why not keep it simple and discuss the matter at hand?

Michael,
No Problem a supermarket was used before as an analogy, the quote above was a real business, my background, is engineering, construction, and IT, from an apprentice at 15 to business owner.

Keeping it simple:
The matter at hand is Credit Card fraud, in my experiences I do not know of any other business that passes bad debt down to the suppliers, as most businesses from the multi-national, supermarket chain, high street shop, to the various agencies build in bad debt provision from thier own revenue.

David  ;D 

« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2009, 17:42 »
0
If I am a business and I accept a credit card payment with all data checked (I suppose the sites have online verification with Mastercard, Visa, and etc), then the CC company find the card is a clone or has been robbed, they have to stand the loss, right?

But if I am a business that does not check data (to speed the process, for instance), then in this case I have to stand the loss, because I was careless.

Am I wrong?

« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2009, 03:44 »
0
Despite good sales yesterday i ended the day with a negative balance due to refunds...  >:(

I was wondering, what is Fotolia doing after the credit card is being declined to prevent those fraudsters from using the downloaded images..?..

Patrick H.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
8002 Views
Last post October 08, 2006, 05:39
by mjp
0 Replies
1451 Views
Last post February 19, 2007, 14:11
by Istock News
33 Replies
14008 Views
Last post November 23, 2008, 12:07
by helix7
6 Replies
3697 Views
Last post October 24, 2009, 17:56
by lisafx
30 Replies
12125 Views
Last post December 30, 2010, 08:36
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle