MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My Fotolia account will be cancelled - with this message!  (Read 28547 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.



 

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