pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My Fotolia account will be cancelled - with this message!  (Read 28548 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 04, 2009, 16:52 »
+1
I am warned by Fotolia, that my account will be cancelled, if I carry the issue that I will explain below, to microstock forums. I believe, however, that the only way to save my dignity after such a threat, is to explain the issue to you - risking 110 earned credits, amounting to about 110 USD.

Today, I checked my Credit details on Fotolia to see 43 notes, dated today, of earned credit cancellations. Suddenly my account balance dropped down to -37 (minus 37) credits- with pending request for 110 credits payment. About 10-15 out of these 43 notes are the infamous "Credit card denied" issue. That is, a credit card fraud bought my pictures, and because of Fotalia's insufficient credit card validation process, Fotolia cancelled my "earned credits" on pictures already sold, used, and most probably distributed freely on some pirate's website. I know this issue was discussed before and Fotolia rejects to solve the issue, to the frustration of the members, but this is not my only complaint because the money I lost to credit card issue is only about $5 compared to $35 I lost for "intellectual property" reasons.

Yes, you heard it right. Those are the pictures Fotolia accepted in the past, through their supposedly rigorous selection process, and suddenly they decided that they are not acceptable anymore. Allright, it's OK by me, (new) rules are rules. I understand that there is reason to delete those pictures which don't fit to new rules. But how they dare to cancel already earned money from those pictures? When those pictures were acceptable to Fotolia, some buyers bought them, used them on magazines, billboards, websites etc. Fotolia pocketed its own commission, now, all of a sudden, they decided to take back my share of the profit - oh, no, not their own commission, of course!

So, beware: Fotolia can invent a new rule every day, to take back what youve already earned in the past months. How much did you earn from Fotolia until now? Well, by staying at Fotolia, you are risking every penny of them!

By the way, when I filed a complaint to Fotolia about the subject, and said that I will carry the subject to Fotolias and microstock communities forums if a solution is not proposed, this is the kind of reply I get from Fotolia: I do not appreciate your tone nor that you threaten us. If I see any kind of trashing information on any forum from you, I will close your account, end of story!

Ok, go ahead! Close my account. I would consider myself spineless if I stay after you insult me just because I was trying to defend my rights for the money stolen from me.


zzz

« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2009, 18:01 »
0
I would want to hear the other side of the story as well but whatever you did their answer is unacceptable.

Milinz

« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2009, 18:41 »
0
I am sorry... My English is not so good... Did you say that Agency DEDUCTED money from your images which are sold in past and that is just because they decided that images are to be put off-line? You've sure you said that as I interpreted?

Is there any other reason for agency to do that?

I am with that agency for a long time (it was my starter agency) and I really don't believe it is deduction just because they have power to deduct. I am banned on their forum from start - by my own beginners mistake, but that doesn't mean I hate agency. I earn money there and they are correct with payouts.

To put images off-line is not someones will I persume if they already accepted them and even sold them... Maybe someone accused you for copyright infringement? It may be even false accusation - but agency must do something about it!
And if you was very loud and breaking TOS and rules in forum then they may close your account - they are private held!

Since you are giving only last message in corespondence there is not enough evidence to be able to conclude who is right or wrong as well why that is happening.

So, you must save and provide full correspondence with agency and issue you have.

I don't believe we will see any response here from agency than exactly just that they promissed to you!

[edit] 'Intellectual property' means that you probably had some images sold with breaking rules about copyright ot trademark and you are in that case to be loosing money because that is not allowed. Any author should know what is subject to intellectual property. It is the same when someone breaks terms of licence and then he must pay money for excuse or go in jail!
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 18:51 by Milinz »

« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2009, 19:19 »
0
Well, images that StockXpert now consider that do not comply with copyright issues sold in the past and they did not debit those sales from my account.  (knock on wood)

It looks more like FT considers that you uploaded images that weren't yours.  The deduction and the closing of your account would make sense, were it the case.  

« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2009, 19:58 »
0
@Milinz:
Yes, they deducted money from the images I've already sold. That's why it is "minus" 37 now. First I have to earn 37 credits to close the deficit, then I can continue to  make money for myself.

I don't think it's a case of somebody accusing me of copyright infringement because they didn't warn me about it, they don't even say which picture it is. I have a good guess though: It's a Parisian metro sign. Paris has two types of metro signs: One modern, and one retro style. Almost a year ago, I took pictures of both of them and submitted to Fotolia. Fotolia rejected the modern one, and accepted the retro one. I wrote to Fotolia, asking the reason for the rejection. In my message, I also wrote that my other picture - of the retro metro sign - was accepted. Actually that was the reason why I was surprised: why modern one was rejected while the retro one was accepted?  They didn't replied me back at that time. But 5 days ago, after 11 months of submitting these pictures, I received a message that the retro one was also declined. In the message, they don't say it was deleted or cancelled, they say it was "not accepted", as if I submitted it recently. And although Fotolia still sells about 10 different pictures of the same retro metro sign, mine is deleted.

By the way, I also sell the same retro metro sign picture on other microstock agencies. Istock, for example, did the same: They rejected the modern one, accepted the retro one, which is still being sold on istock.  So there is clearly a problem with the modern one, but not with the retro one. If there is, then they should have told me so when I submitted them together; and I even reminded them 11 months ago that one was accepted, one was rejected.

And I believe that Fotolia pocketed its own share, only deducting from me. I dont even believe that they returned the money to the buyers, but if so, I request from Fotolia the receipts of repayments to 30+ buyers so that I can believe they are not thieves.

@madelaide: All images are mine and FT cannot even dare to imply otherwise and they didnt, of course.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2009, 20:14 »
0
Wow that is rather scary...one of my biggest sellers there is three cans of vegatables. They are also on Big Stock and sell great there. All the other agency's turned them down for copyright issues although they don't have the brand names on them. Maybe I need to cash out and close my account before they do the same to me.. ???

« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2009, 20:36 »
0
Fotolia replied me back. They still mention about "credit card denied" issue and try to explain it (not convincingly, IMO).  They don't even mention about the main issue - i.e. deduction of earned credits for intellectual property reasons. Not a single word about it. I gues they are trying to avoid what they can't answer.

Here is what they replied:

"Not all banks have the same refund / card rejection time period and we take action of course only after we find out a charge has been rejected. You don't "lose" credits, you simply do not receive the credits you would have gotten if the image license had been sold properly and thus the already paid credit earned by you is being pulled back. No loss, no gain. The person who downloaded the license does not have the right to use the image legally. Those dangers always persist, by the way. With each image license purchase. Do we "guarantee" that each person uses the image properly? Of course not. How could we? No library can. We have no guarantee over what people end up doing with the images! It is their breach of license law if they use the image in a way they should not. Does theft exist? Of course it does. We have no control over everything. No one does. If you want complete guarantee over your images then you have to keep them at home and not upload them to any server.

In any case, this is how it works and while I understand your frustration, there is no more I can say about this and ranting on any forums will not change this either. You may proceed as you wish. These are our rules.

Kind regards,

Fotolia Team U.K.
0208 816 72 84

« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2009, 22:14 »
0
'Intellectual property' means that you probably had some images sold with breaking rules about copyright ot trademark and you are in that case to be loosing money because that is not allowed. Any author should know what is subject to intellectual property. It is the same when someone breaks terms of licence and then he must pay money for excuse or go in jail!
Don't give lessons about intellectuel property too fast.
Me too, for the first time, I had few cents refund for intellectual proprety issue. I'm very careful with IP so I know that cannot be true reason. Maybe they just need money.
I think everybody should check credit page at FT (only there you can find it, FT doesn't send any message about it).

« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2009, 00:30 »
0
A few dollars here and there make millions....   Its so easy to belive theyre fakeing fraud to get more money, since we have no way of controlling this.   Maybe this is very common and Fotolia is the only ones taking it back from customers.   It must happen at other agencies too.   What do they do?

Up to a point I think this should be Fotolias problem to deal with not us.  There must be solutions for creditcard-fraud.

« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2009, 00:48 »
0
A few dollars here and there make millions....   Its so easy to belive theyre fakeing fraud to get more money, since we have no way of controlling this.   Maybe this is very common and Fotolia is the only ones taking it back from customers.   It must happen at other agencies too.   What do they do?

Up to a point I think this should be Fotolias problem to deal with not us.  There must be solutions for creditcard-fraud.


from past users comments it appears that Dreamstime does the same as Fotolia, as well as Canstock and probably a few others.

iStock however, takes the hit themselves.

« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2009, 01:23 »
0
Quote
from past users comments it appears that Dreamstime does the same as Fotolia, as well as Canstock and probably a few others.

iStock however, takes the hit themselves.


It's a subject that needs to be discussed and microstock agencies - and banks - should give us more information us about the precautions.

But let's not miss the point: My main complaint is not the credit card fraud refunds. My complaint is, Fotolia suddenly decided that one of my photos does not comply with their rules any more, and when deleting the photo, they also took back past earnings.

Milinz

« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2009, 03:13 »
0
Quote
from past users comments it appears that Dreamstime does the same as Fotolia, as well as Canstock and probably a few others.

iStock however, takes the hit themselves.


It's a subject that needs to be discussed and microstock agencies - and banks - should give us more information us about the precautions.

But let's not miss the point: My main complaint is not the credit card fraud refunds. My complaint is, Fotolia suddenly decided that one of my photos does not comply with their rules any more, and when deleting the photo, they also took back past earnings.


Well... About Paris: Eiffel Tower is perfectly OK to shoot and sell images taken by day. But, it is not smart to sell images taken during night because company which lights that tower has copyright on appearance of tower at night! I say this just as example. I am not 'teaching' anyone as well I didn't wanted to give lesson on 'intellectual property'... They are right about that different banks have different times to cancel some transactions! In some cases that may be even 3 months after card has been charged with simple calling bank and asking to cancel transactions!
Still it is unclear about your problem where they say it is card-fraud and they've put down your image and deducted more credits than it was done in particular card-fraud... Or it is card-fraud done 3 months ago! Also, they should provide information about IP from which that fraud(s) done!
Yes, you have right to have better explanation as well they need to make this issue more clear than they did in their response to you.

Anyhow, if some legal issues appear in 'intellectual property' use of some image frst who takes a hit is buyer who uses such image. Then, buyer contacts agency and asks covering of his expences due to he thought  he bought legal image and then agency is after author if TOS and Licence terms aren't written on that way to be sure that only buyer is responsible for final use of image - as on Alamy for example!

Ths problem may be settled on two ways:
1. either agency changes its Licencing terms in that part
2. or there is some action through SAA needed...

Or maybe there is someone inside agency who wants to get rich and doing that on very smart and secret way?

At last - maybe only some better explanation from agency will do!

[EDIT] fixed some typos and added few words!
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 03:41 by Milinz »

« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2009, 04:17 »
0
I would be livid if fotolia took away all the earnings from one of my images without a very good reason and a full explanation.  This doesn't seem right but I would like to hear the fotolia side.  Hopefully they can come here and explain what happened.  It looks like they monitor the forums, so they must of seen this thread.

They might be justified in taking this action but we wont know until we have an explanation.

« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2009, 06:45 »
0
I would be livid if fotolia took away all the earnings from one of my images without a very good reason and a full explanation. 
I have not official response from FT but after checking my portfolio it seems that they have remove few of my images. For each removed image they take 2cts. They don't take away the earnings. All removed images have unrecognizable persons in background.

« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2009, 06:46 »
0
perhaps those images were uploaded when we got paid for uploading?

« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2009, 07:32 »
0
I worked in loss prevention for a major corporation for a number of years after I retired from the military.  And, as far as I know, the company is not out anything when a fradulant charge is made on the card.  I know the company  (very LARGE retailor) I worked for could care less, only if the card was accepted.  They got their money.  It's the credit card company that takes the loss.

I don't understand how a company can "charge" the loss to you.  Believe me, they got their money.  It's up to the credit card company to recoup or eat the loss.  Seems like a little "double dipping" going on here.

« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2009, 07:46 »
0
I worked in loss prevention for a major corporation for a number of years after I retired from the military.  And, as far as I know, the company is not out anything when a fradulant charge is made on the card.  I know the company  (very LARGE retailor) I worked for could care less, only if the card was accepted.  They got their money.  It's the credit card company that takes the loss.

I don't understand how a company can "charge" the loss to you.  Believe me, they got their money.  It's up to the credit card company to recoup or eat the loss.  Seems like a little "double dipping" going on here.

If that is true this really needs looking into.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2009, 09:20 »
0
A few dollars here and there make millions....   Its so easy to belive theyre fakeing fraud to get more money, since we have no way of controlling this.   Maybe this is very common and Fotolia is the only ones taking it back from customers.   It must happen at other agencies too.   What do they do?

Up to a point I think this should be Fotolias problem to deal with not us.  There must be solutions for creditcard-fraud.


from past users comments it appears that Dreamstime does the same as Fotolia, as well as Canstock and probably a few others.

iStock however, takes the hit themselves.

Doesn't Big Stock do this also??I know they started holding some of your earning untill it cleared the bank. So if you made say 20.00 and your balance shows 80.00, only 60.00 could be cashed out untill the 20.00  through the 7 day hold process. I think more of the sites should do it like that.

« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2009, 09:35 »
0
It's laughable.

I'm a software devoloper and I manage a commercial web site that sells software products and runs credit card transactions. Every CC transaction is automatically approved before the sale completes.  If the CC processing company is successfully scammed, my company takes a hit. We don't try to pass it on to any suppliers, vendors or employees. 

I cant even imagine a retail business trying to back-charge its vendors for its credit card problems. It shows once again that to these companies "contributors" are just a mob of transients at the back door, waiting for their table scraps.     

These microstocks are like hobby businesses run by rich kids.  And Old Hippy is right, people.  Accept it.

 

« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2009, 09:45 »
0


iStock however, takes the hit themselves.


Nope - I was given notice of a refund by iStock yesterday. Luckily, it was small (only a couple dollars).

« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2009, 09:46 »
0
I'm a software devoloper and I manage a commercial web site that sells software products and runs credit card transactions. Every CC transaction is automatically approved before the sale completes.  If the CC processing company is successfully scammed, my company takes a hit. We don't try to pass it on to any suppliers, vendors or employees. 

I cant even imagine a retail business trying to back-charge its vendors for its credit card problems. It shows once again that to these companies "contributors" are just a mob of transients at the back door, waiting for their table scraps.     

These microstocks are like hobby businesses run by rich kids.  And Old Hippy is right, people.  Accept it.

That's a pointless and irrelevant comparison as you are not acting as the 'agent' for your suppliers, vendors or employees.

In this 'contributor/agency' relationship we are taking a share of the proceeds of a sale __ so if it turns out that there is no 'sale' then we don't get our share.

Does anyone know how this works for the trad/macro agencies? I know someone who made a dozen sales in one day on Alamy __ and then they were all withdrawn a couple of weeks later for reasons which weren't made clear at the time.

lisafx

« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2009, 09:46 »
0
Well, I know that Fotolia didn't want this brought to the forums, but now that it has been, I would be interested to hear their side of it.  

There are several issues raised.  The chargebacks on stolen credit cards are a bummer, but I understand it and like it or not, this seems to be the industry standard to also deduct our commissions back.  

The issue of deleting images for copyright and then deducting the commissions paid on those for past sales is another issue altogether.   As I understand it from the Fotolia reply, they take back the credits paid on these images because the buyer cannot legally use the image.  Are they refunding the past buyers on these images?

To be honest, if it was inspected by their team and accepted for sale at the time, then the sales should be paid.  In all likelihood those images have already been used.  I would be interested to know if Fotolia is refunding the buyers from years and months past or if they are just charging the contributors.  Either way, it's their mistake and that of their inspection process.  There is an old saying "eat your own mistakes" and it seems that they are passing them on to the contributor instead.  

Hopefully a Fotolia admin will post here and clear this up if it is a misconception?

« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2009, 10:01 »
0


iStock however, takes the hit themselves.


Nope - I was given notice of a refund by iStock yesterday. Luckily, it was small (only a couple dollars).


Nope. Refunds at istock don't are related at CC frauds, nor to past sales of deactivated files for copyrigth reasons --we would had known that when they decided to deactivate hundreds of "luxury cars" images-- but to files being returned right after being bought; normally because of mistakes of the buyers when downloading (wrong size, dowloading several times the same file etc). And for me it's a very different matter and it's ok.

« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 10:07 by loop »

« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2009, 10:22 »
0
Don't get me wrong - I am upset by these issues also, but...

An artist hangs a canvas in a coffee shop and sells it on consignment - but later the coffee shop is dinged back because the credit card was stolen.  The coffee shop did everything properly by verifying the card through their credit card terminal.  Should the coffee shop take the loss or should the artist?

« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2009, 11:01 »
0
Don't get me wrong - I am upset by these issues also, but...

An artist hangs a canvas in a coffee shop and sells it on consignment - but later the coffee shop is dinged back because the credit card was stolen.  The coffee shop did everything properly by verifying the card through their credit card terminal.  Should the coffee shop take the loss or should the artist?

It would be a nice world for retailiers if all their risks could be simply pushed back to suppliers.  A pipe breaks and you lose inventory - no problem, just don't pay the distributor.  You install a cheap door lock, someone breaks in and consignment items are stolent - too bad, artists.    Oh and that framed photo of yours that sold last week? Sorry, the check bounced - give me back the money, please.   Oh and I sold your stock photo to someone who used it for illegal purposes - even though at the time, I wouldn't tell you who he is.  Better call your lawyer.


« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2009, 11:05 »
0
I'm a software devoloper and I manage a commercial web site that sells software products and runs credit card transactions. Every CC transaction is automatically approved before the sale completes.  If the CC processing company is successfully scammed, my company takes a hit. We don't try to pass it on to any suppliers, vendors or employees.  

I cant even imagine a retail business trying to back-charge its vendors for its credit card problems. It shows once again that to these companies "contributors" are just a mob of transients at the back door, waiting for their table scraps.      

These microstocks are like hobby businesses run by rich kids.  And Old Hippy is right, people.  Accept it.

That's a pointless and irrelevant comparison as you are not acting as the 'agent' for your suppliers, vendors or employees.


How did you reach that conclusion, without knowing anything about our business or products?  The software actually includes contributions from many employees, contractors and a other vendors and suppliers.  Graphics designers, FTP hosts, developers, consultants.  All expect to be paid even if we lose a CC transaction. In some cases our products are resold in bundles by other software companies. We give them serialized copies and expect to be paid even for ones that are lost to scammers.  The bundling resellers think of us as a partner, and feel they need our product, and they know that a scam sale cheats us out of a real sale, so they aren't going to try and stiff us.   How quickly these traditional business ethics are discarded in the wonderful new world of "crowdsourcing".

  
« Last Edit: June 05, 2009, 11:41 by stockastic »

« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2009, 11:23 »
0
Don't get me wrong - I am upset by these issues also, but...

An artist hangs a canvas in a coffee shop and sells it on consignment - but later the coffee shop is dinged back because the credit card was stolen.  The coffee shop did everything properly by verifying the card through their credit card terminal.  Should the coffee shop take the loss or should the artist?

Neither - if the card was correctly verified, it's the card issuers responsibility, surely?

« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2009, 11:44 »
0
I am also interested to hear what Fotolia has to say about these two issues.

My understanding is that almost all credit card fraud is absorbed by the credit card companies (hence the high rates that are charged for borrowing money).

And if an image was approved by inspectors, sold multiple times, and later removed, I would think that it would be Fotolia that had made the mistake in the first place and should absorb any losses that might have occurred (although I highly doubt that they are going to contact a buyer months or years later and give them a refund anyway).

« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2009, 11:49 »
0
Don't get me wrong - I am upset by these issues also, but...

An artist hangs a canvas in a coffee shop and sells it on consignment - but later the coffee shop is dinged back because the credit card was stolen.  The coffee shop did everything properly by verifying the card through their credit card terminal.  Should the coffee shop take the loss or should the artist?

Neither - if the card was correctly verified, it's the card issuers responsibility, surely?

I think that's right, although there's a cap on the amount.  But it costs money to verify CC transactions on the fly, during an online sale. We pay a CC processing company for this service. Occassionaly we do see a number denied, and the sale doesn't complete.   Maybe these microstocks aren't doing this and if the CC charge is refused later, they just pull their money back from the contributor's account.      

What's worse is this business of trying to deflect legal liability back to the contributor.  At the time of the sale, the microstock will not tll the contributor who the buyer is so we have no opportunity to say "no thanks".  But later, if there's trouble, the microstock is apparently only too happy to give the conrtibutor's name to the buyer.


puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2009, 12:03 »
+1
Since we don't know FT's side of the story, I will take your story at face value.
And yes, I think stock site should make it a practice to verify with credit cards before dealing with a buyer. After all, if they have been stung once before, should not they try to be more vigilant?  And yes also, that once the card is verified (it's only a local call or toll free to the card company, no matter where you are), the responsibility is on the card company if it turns out to be fraud.To leave it so , without calling in to verified the cardholder's status, is to encourage fraud.
This much , the only thing left is to hear Fotolia's side of the story.

« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2009, 12:04 »
0
I am also interested to hear what Fotolia has to say about these two issues.

My understanding is that almost all credit card fraud is absorbed by the credit card companies (hence the high rates that are charged for borrowing money).

And if an image was approved by inspectors, sold multiple times, and later removed, I would think that it would be Fotolia that had made the mistake in the first place and should absorb any losses that might have occurred (although I highly doubt that they are going to contact a buyer months or years later and give them a refund anyway).

I know FOR SURE it's like that at the corporate level.  The credit card company takes the loss.  After all, a credit transaction is each given an "OK" by the card issuer.  At that point in time, the money goes to the company.  The company is paying anywhere from a 0.5% to 5.0 % transaction fee (based on sales volume,etc. for the right to accept credit cards.  Heck, there's not a company in America that's being asked to refund money for credit card fraud.

I (of all people being in loss prevention) had a number on one of my cards compromised about three-years ago.  Over $5500 in unauthorized charges.  I contacted the card company, and I was off the hook.  They took the loss.  And believe me, most credit agencies have huge investigative services.  They go after these folks stealing numbers hard.  But that's another story.  No way the company took the hit.

« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2009, 12:08 »
0
...And yes also, that once the card is verified (it's only a local call or toll free to the card company, no matter where you are), the responsibility is on the card company if it turns out to be fraud.

Not even a phone call; it's done automatically over the internet, by our web site talking to their web site. 





« Reply #32 on: June 05, 2009, 12:36 »
0
I know FOR SURE it's like that at the corporate level.  The credit card company takes the loss.  After all, a credit transaction is each given an "OK" by the card issuer.  At that point in time, the money goes to the company.  The company is paying anywhere from a 0.5% to 5.0 % transaction fee (based on sales volume,etc. for the right to accept credit cards.  Heck, there's not a company in America that's being asked to refund money for credit card fraud.

...  No way the company took the hit.

I'm not sure about this. When the card is 'verified' at the point of purchase maybe all that is being checked is that the card is valid and that there are sufficient funds for the transaction. The owner of the card may not yet have reported it stolen and also the card may have been 'cloned' (happens a lot at gas stations where I live).

There's no way that DT for example would be making these deductions if they weren't suffering a loss.

In the UK the police seem to have a very strange attitude to credit card fraud. My brother was recently contacted by his bank (who were also the card issuer) regarding suspicious activity on his card. When he confirmed that several transactions were nothing to do with him he was eventually refunded by the bank. Some of the transactions were for goods bought over the internet and delivered to addresses in the UK __ so presumably easily traceable. However when he tried to report it to the police they weren't interested at all and even refused to record the event or issue a 'crime number'. As far as they were concerned he wasn't the victim of the crime (because he had been reimbursed by the bank) and therefore they wouldn't accept his complaint.

« Reply #33 on: June 05, 2009, 12:47 »
0
Presumably if credit card fraud involves the purchase of actual physical goods, and those are delivered the loss would be borne by the credit card company because the transaction couldn't be reversed without loss to the merchant - in respect of transactions for licenses to intellectual property - while the seller loses the value of the sale, the transaction can still be voided - ie. although the "product" has been sent, the sale is actually for the license to use it - so in a way the fraudulent buyer would be in no different position to someone downloading images illegally.

I can understand the loss of credits due to fraud - however what I'm more concerned about is whether there is truth to the deductions for sales on refused images that have been previously sold. If that's true it sounds more like a breach of contract by fotolia to me....   

« Reply #34 on: June 05, 2009, 12:55 »
0
I know FOR SURE it's like that at the corporate level.  The credit card company takes the loss.  After all, a credit transaction is each given an "OK" by the card issuer.  At that point in time, the money goes to the company.  The company is paying anywhere from a 0.5% to 5.0 % transaction fee (based on sales volume,etc. for the right to accept credit cards.  Heck, there's not a company in America that's being asked to refund money for credit card fraud.

...  No way the company took the hit.

I'm not sure about this. When the card is 'verified' at the point of purchase maybe all that is being checked is that the card is valid and that there are sufficient funds for the transaction. The owner of the card may not yet have reported it stolen and also the card may have been 'cloned' (happens a lot at gas stations where I live).

There's no way that DT for example would be making these deductions if they weren't suffering a loss.

In the UK the police seem to have a very strange attitude to credit card fraud. My brother was recently contacted by his bank (who were also the card issuer) regarding suspicious activity on his card. When he confirmed that several transactions were nothing to do with him he was eventually refunded by the bank. Some of the transactions were for goods bought over the internet and delivered to addresses in the UK __ so presumably easily traceable. However when he tried to report it to the police they weren't interested at all and even refused to record the event or issue a 'crime number'. As far as they were concerned he wasn't the victim of the crime (because he had been reimbursed by the bank) and therefore they wouldn't accept his complaint.

Well, all I can tell you is my experience in the retail loss prevention world in the US.  And the company I worked for has a "bullseye" for their logo.  Quite large.  Credit card companies take the loss on all of those type sales.  Otherwise, it would make no sense in paying a transaction fee in order to do business.

Now, if it's a card through paypal; that might be a horse of a different color.  I don't really know that process well.  Only the major credit issuers.  And you're right about the police, they for the most part in my experience, don't get involved in that.  If there is a major identification theft ring going on it's usually passed to an external agency.

« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2009, 13:04 »
0
I know FOR SURE it's like that at the corporate level.  The credit card company takes the loss.  After all, a credit transaction is each given an "OK" by the card issuer.  At that point in time, the money goes to the company.  The company is paying anywhere from a 0.5% to 5.0 % transaction fee (based on sales volume,etc. for the right to accept credit cards.  Heck, there's not a company in America that's being asked to refund money for credit card fraud.

...  No way the company took the hit.

I'm not sure about this. When the card is 'verified' at the point of purchase maybe all that is being checked is that the card is valid and that there are sufficient funds for the transaction. The owner of the card may not yet have reported it stolen and also the card may have been 'cloned' (happens a lot at gas stations where I live).

There's no way that DT for example would be making these deductions if they weren't suffering a loss.

In the UK the police seem to have a very strange attitude to credit card fraud. My brother was recently contacted by his bank (who were also the card issuer) regarding suspicious activity on his card. When he confirmed that several transactions were nothing to do with him he was eventually refunded by the bank. Some of the transactions were for goods bought over the internet and delivered to addresses in the UK __ so presumably easily traceable. However when he tried to report it to the police they weren't interested at all and even refused to record the event or issue a 'crime number'. As far as they were concerned he wasn't the victim of the crime (because he had been reimbursed by the bank) and therefore they wouldn't accept his complaint.

But even if the card holder had not reported it stolen, that's between the card holder and the card issuer, not the retailer.

As for the thing about the police - well, that's true really, there is no reason why the police should be concerned with your brother, he has lost nothing and it's the bank that has suffered the loss, and presumably has all the details.  Unless the card was actually stolen from him perhaps.

« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2009, 13:05 »
0
I can understand the loss of credits due to fraud - however what I'm more concerned about is whether there is truth to the deductions for sales on refused images that have been previously sold. If that's true it sounds more like a breach of contract by fotolia to me....   

I'll bet there's a 'catch-all' clause in the TOS somewhere that allows them to do whatever they want!

I don't know if it's still true but when I joined IS the TOS were written in such a way that they didn't actually have to pay you. Although they always did pay they wouldn't have been in breach of contract if for whatever reason they chose not to.

« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2009, 13:16 »
0
But even if the card holder had not reported it stolen, that's between the card holder and the card issuer, not the retailer.

As for the thing about the police - well, that's true really, there is no reason why the police should be concerned with your brother, he has lost nothing and it's the bank that has suffered the loss, and presumably has all the details.  Unless the card was actually stolen from him perhaps.

You'd think so __ but apparently it doesn't work like that.

I'm struggling to get my head around the police's attitude though. A crime has been committed and there's plenty of information with which to persue it. I think one of the main problems is that there are 43 individual police forces in the UK and their efficiency is assessed by government statistics on things like 'clear-up rates', etc. Unfortunately a consequence of that is that they can be unwilling to record minor crime when they have little chance of solving it and they sometimes see other police forces as their competitors and so are unwilling to pass on information that will help them. That's government stat's for you __ they always seem to have unintended effects.

« Reply #38 on: June 05, 2009, 13:23 »
0
I just checked with our business manager.  We see lots of CC transactions denied by the processing company, but have never seen one approved that turned out to be fraudulent later. Or rather, if that happens, we never hear about it.  This is part of what the processing fees cover.  I'll bet 1 subscription commission that Fotolia is short-cutting by not properly verifying the CC during the online transaction because its cheaper just to pull it back from the contributor.  They probably think they can get away with this for funds that haven't been paid out yet to the contributor.  What if a fraudulent transaction put me over the payout level?


« Reply #39 on: June 05, 2009, 15:13 »
0
Anyhow, if some legal issues appear in 'intellectual property' use of some image frst who takes a hit is buyer who uses such image. Then, buyer contacts agency and asks covering of his expences due to he thought  he bought legal image and then agency is after author if TOS and Licence terms aren't written on that way to be sure that only buyer is responsible for final use of image - as on Alamy for example!

I think someone said it is always the final user's responsability to see if he is infringing something.  I would like to know if there is any legal basis for this statement or if this is only an assumption.

Milinz

« Reply #40 on: June 05, 2009, 16:29 »
0
Anyhow, if some legal issues appear in 'intellectual property' use of some image frst who takes a hit is buyer who uses such image. Then, buyer contacts agency and asks covering of his expences due to he thought  he bought legal image and then agency is after author if TOS and Licence terms aren't written on that way to be sure that only buyer is responsible for final use of image - as on Alamy for example!

I think someone said it is always the final user's responsability to see if he is infringing something.  I would like to know if there is any legal basis for this statement or if this is only an assumption.


Well, you are Alamy contributor - did you read their TOS and Licences?

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #41 on: June 05, 2009, 17:06 »
0
In almost all cases of online transactions where no tangible goods are shipped (i.e. digital) chargebacks, especially with credit card-funded transactions,  are almost always a lost cause to the online retailers. You can mitigate risks in a variety of ways, but in the end even the most upstanding upper-middle class joe consumer can have his credit card info ripped off and used for fraud - it's no use just to filter based on fraud cliches, you can only do so much to head off these types of situations.  It only makes business sense for the banks and credit card companies to just put their foot down and lean heavily towards the consumer than to launch a detailed investigation requiring several man hours for a fraudulent $8 transaction.

Think of the plastic in your own wallet: if you checked your statements one month and found some funds spent on a website you'd never visited, you would surely expect a quick resolution in your favour by the credit card company - even if you knew that you really shouldn't have entered your CC info on dodgywebsite.com a few months ago or as someone stated, unknowingly had your card scanned at a retail outlet.   

I don't know why anyone would expect that a business would not do the best job possible to mitigate these cases - it's not a very good business model to annoy your suppliers while at the same time losing money - not to mention reputation with your merchant service provider and also the unmeasurable loss of digital 'inventory' to the wilds of the internet (see: heroturko).

And in short, Paypal is the major player in online transactions, and I love 'em (anyone else notice they upgraded the UI today?), but their policy towards digital transactions is pretty strict: the customer is always right.   

Off topic, why hasn't the US invented an online currency yet? They did the internet, why not a way to pay for it.. credit cards are so 80s..




« Reply #42 on: June 05, 2009, 18:44 »
0
I cancelled my account at Fotolia. They rejected to give any explanation about why they chargebacked my earned credits.

Anyway, I don't think it's an isolated case, it's the way they decided to do business. Check this out: http://easymicrostock.com/?p=37

« Reply #43 on: June 05, 2009, 19:07 »
0
I think someone said it is always the final user's responsability to see if he is infringing something.  I would like to know if there is any legal basis for this statement or if this is only an assumption.
Well, you are Alamy contributor - did you read their TOS and Licences?

I'm not talking about Alamy only.  What was said is that, regardless whether it's clearly stated (like at Alamy) or not, it's always the final user's responsability.  But, as I said, I don't know if this statement is true.  By writing it, Alamy is cleared of any responsability, which is smart.  But is the photographer clear, too?  What if we check the button that says no property release is required when it actually is?

Alamy failed to give me a straight answer about this issue.  For instance, if I have a photo of the Big Ben, like thousands of others (including in micros), can I say a property release is not required?  Should I limit it to editorial only - and reduce my chances of selling it by adding a restriction that others didn't?  This goes for many city landmarks - churches, public buildings, museums, monuments.  I saw images of the London Eye as RF in Alamy, without property release and apparently not set as editorial only, and pointed this out, but they didn't seem concerned.  In a way I think Alamy washes its hands with that observation to the buyers, but I wonder if we photographers are really as safe.

« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2009, 21:08 »
0


iStock however, takes the hit themselves.


Nope - I was given notice of a refund by iStock yesterday. Luckily, it was small (only a couple dollars).


Nope. Refunds at istock don't are related at CC frauds, nor to past sales of deactivated files for copyrigth reasons --we would had known that when they decided to deactivate hundreds of "luxury cars" images-- but to files being returned right after being bought; normally because of mistakes of the buyers when downloading (wrong size, dowloading several times the same file etc). And for me it's a very different matter and it's ok.




Oops - yes, you are correct. I just went and looked at the refund message, and it was indeed refunded because of a size error. Not that it makes me feel any better though, because how do you "return" a digital item? Does anyone really think that the buyer actually deletes the large file when they repurchase a small one?? Hardly.

Oh well.

« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2009, 23:32 »
0
Just to pour some oil into the fire...:

Does anyone really know HOW the micros (or any of them) are processing credit cards?

I was also under the impression that when a buyer pays with credit card the information is being verified with the credit card company BEFORE the credits are transferred to the buyer's account.

Why on earth would someone transfer credits to an account without checking if the card is valid or not ???

A friend of mine mentioned that there is software available that just verifies possible combinations of credit card type, account numbers and expiration dates. So is it that those agencies that hand down refunds to the photographers ONLY check the given credit card information with such software BUT process the cards later during the month?

Reason for that: MONEY.

Supposedly an instant verification for a valid credit card means having a merchant account or something like that where the agency would have to pay processing fees etc. to the credit card companies. By just using the software they accept credit cards on a trust basis until they finally bill them and find out that they are non-existing cards or stolen.

Is this possible?

Also like mentioned before. If a credit card is stolen, all involved parties (except of the thief) are (usually) not liable. The credit card company takes the hit. If anyone had his/her credit card ever stolen knows that the cc company protects you from theft.

« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2009, 08:13 »
0
sorry i had my account blocked and a lot of credit card credits cancelled too...
They need money its easy and fast, no one starts a lawsuit for 100 dollars or less...
do you understand the word "fraud"? or "slaver"?

« Reply #47 on: December 31, 2015, 09:17 »
0
Fotolia is a scam.. please do not waste time..they have approved my pictures and later blocked my account saying i have some issues with pictures uplaoded...its property issues...i was nearly withdrawing my money since the sales was good..they said they cant sale my pictures...that is a lie..they are blocking many account when the sales are reaching high...then they do not pay the money...so careful...fotolia is no more a genuine site..they block account without warning...careful..soon ur hard money will be lost too..

« Reply #48 on: December 31, 2015, 10:24 »
+8
Warning! This is a 7 year old thread. Why not just start a new thread?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #49 on: January 02, 2016, 17:03 »
+2
Warning! This is a 7 year old thread. Why not just start a new thread?

I have no idea how it works, but lots of new posters seem easily able to find old (and very old threads) to latch onto.

« Reply #50 on: January 02, 2016, 20:26 »
+1
The problem may be that this site forum search does not come back sorted. It should be sorted with most recent threads on top.

OLD THREAD ALERT!

« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2016, 10:44 »
0
Does anybody got an update on their experience with Fotolia?
I just created an account with them and after reading this, I can't help but feel it might happen to us later on too.
sigh...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4905 Views
Last post December 13, 2007, 06:58
by rosta
27 Replies
13052 Views
Last post April 19, 2008, 09:29
by fotoKmyst
35 Replies
18889 Views
Last post May 19, 2009, 18:59
by madelaide
6 Replies
6171 Views
Last post February 19, 2011, 13:29
by jbarber873
13 Replies
11233 Views
Last post August 18, 2017, 18:20
by loop

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors