Author Topic: 12 emails - Refund for a Purchase of Your File (Read 25534 times)

LOKHK · « **on:** February 27, 2013, 12:07 »

Are you kidding me istock???
I got 12 emails to ask me refund within 10 minutes!

I pay my effort to draw something. But istock you didn't protect me!
I can download files from istock and it cab be free. Just download and refund. Istock won't protect the contributors in this way!

I can accept "Accidental/Duplicate download" but can you believe accidental/Duplicate download 12 times one day?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2013, 12:31 »

Dan · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2013, 12:41 »

They're shady. Delete your files and run for the hills.

goober · « **Reply #3 on:** February 28, 2013, 08:56 »

It works for IS because the refunded credits often get spent on other images at IS. The artist gets to wear it.

dhanford · « **Reply #4 on:** February 28, 2013, 09:09 »

I wonder if some of this refunding happens due to the client finding out the same images are available at TS and Photos(dot)com and although it is through subscription, it is still a much reduced price.

Soon, there will no longer be refunding of IS purchases to clients through IS contributor's purses. Everyone will just use IS images for free from Google Drive. Think of all the money IS will save in bookkeeping.

goober · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2013, 19:31 »

Just this morning and I had over 30 refund of purchase notifications. Way to go IS. All on the same date so probably a fraudulent credit card.

changgonggao · « **Reply #6 on:** August 24, 2013, 02:42 »

I wonder if some of this refunding happens due to the client finding out the same images.

tickstock · « **Reply #7 on:** August 24, 2013, 11:59 »

heywoody · « **Reply #8 on:** August 24, 2013, 18:56 »

Quote from: goober on February 28, 2013, 19:31

Just this morning and I had over 30 refund of purchase notifications. Way to go IS. All on the same date so probably a fraudulent credit card.

If I had a dodgy card and was buying stuff of the internet, I wouldn't be wasting it on stock images that's for sure

Ron · « **Reply #9 on:** August 25, 2013, 04:15 »

I have said this many times before, its the responsibility of the merchant to protect their business from fraud. The credit card companies have plenty of documentation about fraud and how to protect yourself. Also, they offer passwords now to protect CC purchases like Verified by VISA. Also the use of fraud filters, blacklisting, velocity caps, price caps, etc, is common for merchants selling intangible goods. IS seems to fail to protect their 'assets' from fraud, but they pass on the damages to the suppliers. Its like someone robs a shoe store and the owner sends the bill to Nike. I cant even fathom why a company think that is the right way to do business.

Carl · « **Reply #10 on:** August 25, 2013, 06:12 »

I had never heard of Potos.com until I read Dhanford's post, so I checked it out. I don't understand why anyone would offer their material for so little money. When prices go lower and lower, there comes a point at which it's no longer profitable for the artist to create material, and Photos.com has gone way beyond that point. Perhaps if we could create material in the computer and take no longer than 30 seconds per item, it might be worth it. Otherwise,...

(Apologies for diverting the topic.)

JPSDK · « **Reply #11 on:** August 25, 2013, 06:16 »

Quote from: Ron on August 25, 2013, 04:15

I have said this many times before, its the responsibility of the merchant to protect their business from fraud. The credit card companies have plenty of documentation about fraud and how to protect yourself. Also, they offer passwords now to protect CC purchases like Verified by VISA. Also the use of fraud filters, blacklisting, velocity caps, price caps, etc, is common for merchants selling intangible goods. IS seems to fail to protect their 'assets' from fraud, but they pass on the damages to the suppliers. Its like someone robs a shoe store and the owner sends the bill to Nike. I cant even fathom why a company think that is the right way to do business.

I totally agree with you there, Ron.
It is their shop, it is there loss if they do not want to protect it.
I have also said it many times before. i have also said many times that their policy would not hold water in court, and i wished someone would sue them for damage from not protecting our files from fraud and misuse.
To pass a loss onto a contributor who has no chance of preventing it is utterly absurd.

Ron · « **Reply #12 on:** August 25, 2013, 06:19 »

Quote from: dhanford on February 28, 2013, 09:09

I wonder if some of this refunding happens due to the client finding out the same images are available at TS and Photos(dot)com and although it is through subscription, it is still a much reduced price.

Soon, there will no longer be refunding of IS purchases to clients through IS contributor's purses. Everyone will just use IS images for free from Google Drive. Think of all the money IS will save in bookkeeping.

Quote

Featured offer: 65% off
Get a new one-month Thinkstock image subscription for just $299 $99. Offer expires September 30, 2013. Use promo code C7PPC46N.

Save at Thinkstock

http://www.photos.com/promos?esource=Mtg_US_PDCHomePage_PDC10OFFimage_Q3_2013

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** August 25, 2013, 06:27 »

Quote from: Carl on August 25, 2013, 06:12

I had never heard of Potos.com until I read Dhanford's post, so I checked it out. I don't understand why anyone would offer their material for so little money.

indies at iStock don't have any choice.
Some exclusives also chose to do so, for whatever reason (short-term gain, presumably).

bunhill · « **Reply #14 on:** August 25, 2013, 07:09 »

Quote from: Ron on August 25, 2013, 04:15

I have said this many times before, its the responsibility of the merchant to protect their business from fraud.

How does Symbiostock implement cc fraud protection ?

Ron · « **Reply #15 on:** August 25, 2013, 07:14 »

Quote from: bhr on August 25, 2013, 07:09

Quote from: Ron on August 25, 2013, 04:15
I have said this many times before, its the responsibility of the merchant to protect their business from fraud.

How does Symbiostock implement cc fraud protection ?

I only use PayPal to process credit card payments, so I dont have to worry about it but if a stolen credit card is used, I will lose the money, and the victim will get their money back. Not sure what your point is, as there is no middle man, the financial losses are inflicted directly on me.

bunhill · « **Reply #16 on:** August 25, 2013, 07:34 »

Quote from: Ron on August 25, 2013, 07:14

I only use PayPal to process credit card payments, so I dont have to worry about it but if a stolen credit card is used, I will lose the money, and the victim will get their money back. Not sure what your point is, as there is no middle man, the financial losses are inflicted directly on me.

In terms of the loss to you, is that effectively any different from a payment at one of the agencies being reversed ? Either way there is no direct financial loss - only (and I am not diminishing the importance of this) that your content is likely to be out there being redistributed and monetized in ways which will not earn you the royalties.

The point is that if you do enough transactions to make a business worth bothering with you are going to attract attention and get reversals. It seems inevitable currently. What I am wondering is whether there is anything smart in place which prevents, for example, someone turning up at your site and downloading the whole lot. Eg perhaps they have to make contact before adding more than a certain number to the basket, or something.

I guess that these are the sorts of monitoring issues which would need to be thought about before you could ever move to towards a unified buyer login experience.

heywoody · « **Reply #17 on:** August 25, 2013, 16:57 »

Quote from: Carl on August 25, 2013, 06:12

I had never heard of Potos.com until I read Dhanford's post, so I checked it out. I don't understand why anyone would offer their material for so little money. When prices go lower and lower, there comes a point at which it's no longer profitable for the artist to create material, and Photos.com has gone way beyond that point. Perhaps if we could create material in the computer and take no longer than 30 seconds per item, it might be worth it. Otherwise,... (Apologies for diverting the topic.)

You know, I actually don't mind low unit prices if I move enough units - I'd be happy enough getting 1 cent per DL if every image was downloaded 100 times a day because there is zero ongoing effort after the initial creation and upload. There has to be some combination of price and volume that makes it worthwhile - this just about exists on the top 4.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #18 on:** December 11, 2013, 11:47 »

I read that IS's whole idea of removing money from the contributor's account after a refund (often probably because of credit card fraud) is to prevent contributors from buying their own images and then refunding the whole batch to make money.

Quite a bollocksy argument, I might add.

tickstock · « **Reply #19 on:** December 11, 2013, 12:05 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** December 11, 2013, 12:39 »

iStocklawyer:
"3. Why do we remove royalties for fraudulent downloads?
It stops contributors (real or faked) from self downloading with credits bought with stolen credit cards and absconding with the royalties."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349717&messageid=6798577

tickstock · « **Reply #21 on:** December 11, 2013, 12:43 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** December 11, 2013, 13:10 »

Quote from: tickstock on December 11, 2013, 12:43

Quote from: ShadySue on December 11, 2013, 12:39
iStocklawyer:
"3. Why do we remove royalties for fraudulent downloads?
It stops contributors (real or faked) from self downloading with credits bought with stolen credit cards and absconding with the royalties."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349717&messageid=6798577

Thanks Shady, it's not the most believable reason is it? I'm glad I haven't had any in I think over 4 months so maybe they've fixed the problem?

The reason was so ludicrous I had to wonder if it had been happening on some incredible scale, or was it just made up. I have no idea which.

cthoman · « **Reply #23 on:** December 11, 2013, 13:48 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 11, 2013, 12:39

iStocklawyer:
"3. Why do we remove royalties for fraudulent downloads?
It stops contributors (real or faked) from self downloading with credits bought with stolen credit cards and absconding with the royalties."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349717&messageid=6798577

What are fake contributors?

My legal team doesn't allow refunds because it prevents penguins from growing mustaches. It's a huge problem that needs to be contained.

pancaketom · « **Reply #24 on:** December 11, 2013, 13:49 »

Quote from: cthoman on December 11, 2013, 13:48

Quote from: ShadySue on December 11, 2013, 12:39
iStocklawyer:
"3. Why do we remove royalties for fraudulent downloads?
It stops contributors (real or faked) from self downloading with credits bought with stolen credit cards and absconding with the royalties."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349717&messageid=6798577

What are fake contributors?

Fake contributors work with fake agencies.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 12 emails - Refund for a Purchase of Your File (Read 25534 times)

LOKHK

ShadySue

Dan

goober

dhanford

goober

changgonggao

tickstock

heywoody

Ron

Carl

JPSDK

Ron

ShadySue

bunhill

Ron

bunhill

heywoody

Noedelhap

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

cthoman

pancaketom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors