Author Topic: My Fotolia account will be cancelled - with this message! (Read 31775 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #25 on:** June 05, 2009, 11:05 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 05, 2009, 09:46

Quote from: stockastic on June 05, 2009, 09:35
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".

Gannet77 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 05, 2009, 11:23 »

Quote from: Pixart on June 05, 2009, 10:22

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?

GeoPappas · « **Reply #27 on:** June 05, 2009, 11:44 »

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).

stockastic · « **Reply #28 on:** June 05, 2009, 11:49 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on June 05, 2009, 11:23

Quote from: Pixart on June 05, 2009, 10:22
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 · « **Reply #29 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:03 »

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.

dmark3 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:04 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on June 05, 2009, 11:44

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #31 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:08 »

Quote from: puravida on June 05, 2009, 12:03

...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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:36 »

Quote from: dmark3 on June 05, 2009, 12:04

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.

travelstock · « **Reply #33 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:47 »

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....

dmark3 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:55 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 05, 2009, 12:36

Quote from: dmark3 on June 05, 2009, 12:04
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.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #35 on:** June 05, 2009, 13:04 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 05, 2009, 12:36

Quote from: dmark3 on June 05, 2009, 12:04
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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #36 on:** June 05, 2009, 13:05 »

Quote from: holgs on June 05, 2009, 12:47

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #37 on:** June 05, 2009, 13:16 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on June 05, 2009, 13:04

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #38 on:** June 05, 2009, 13:23 »

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?

madelaide · « **Reply #39 on:** June 05, 2009, 15:13 »

Quote from: Milinz on June 05, 2009, 03:13

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 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 05, 2009, 15:13

Quote from: Milinz on June 05, 2009, 03:13
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 »

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..

volk65 · « **Reply #42 on:** June 05, 2009, 18:44 »

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

madelaide · « **Reply #43 on:** June 05, 2009, 19:07 »

Quote from: Milinz on June 05, 2009, 16:29

Quote from: madelaide on June 05, 2009, 15:13
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.

Norebbo · « **Reply #44 on:** June 05, 2009, 21:08 »

Quote from: loop on June 05, 2009, 10:01

Quote from: Norebbo on June 05, 2009, 09:45
Quote from: leaf on June 05, 2009, 00:48

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.

click_click · « **Reply #45 on:** June 05, 2009, 23:32 »

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.

michey · « **Reply #46 on:** June 11, 2009, 08:13 »

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"?

Lady Teresa · « **Reply #47 on:** December 31, 2015, 09:17 »

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..

rimglow · « **Reply #48 on:** December 31, 2015, 10:24 »

Warning! This is a 7 year old thread. Why not just start a new thread?

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** January 02, 2016, 17:03 »

Quote from: rimglow on December 31, 2015, 10:24

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: My Fotolia account will be cancelled - with this message! (Read 31775 times)

stockastic

Gannet77

GeoPappas

stockastic

puravida

dmark3

stockastic

gostwyck

travelstock

dmark3

Gannet77

gostwyck

gostwyck

stockastic

madelaide

Milinz

zymmetricaldotcom

volk65

madelaide

Norebbo

click_click

michey

Lady Teresa

rimglow

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors