I was thinking about some recent refunds that were issued for fraudulent credit card charges that were made to purchase some of my images. We've all seen these refunds, and generally I didn't think much of them until they started happening more frequently. After some discussion on the topic in another forum, I realized that these charge refunds are possibly being absorbed by the wrong party. We end up paying the price, when really the burden should fall to the sites that take the credit cards.

Think about it this way: Someone uses a stolen credit card to buy a lawnmower at Sears. Once the fraud is reported, the funds are returned to the cardholders account, and the credit card company absorbs the loss of funds. In some cases, the retailer (Sears in this example) is required to absorb the cost, especially if it is determined that the retailer violated any security procedure, such as comparing the signature if the card was used in-person. Either way, it's not the lawnmower manufacturer who gets stuck with the bill. They hand over the merchandise to the retailer, and from that point on it is the responsibility of that retailer to handle transactions.

Microstock sites often cite the fact that they take care of all the sales aspects of the business for us, which is part of the service we get for agreeing to have the companies keep a big percentage of each sale. Yet when a bad transaction happens, they ignore that part of the deal. I have found no examples anywhere that compare to how microstock companies handle these things. Manufacturers and suppliers never absorb the cost of fraudulent charges in other industries. So why are we, the manufacturers and suppliers of images, stuck with the frraudulent charges in this business?

We all know why this happens - always keep in mind that you are just small fish, who hears your complains on big Olymp? Who cares? Just another way to squeeze few extra bucks from us.

this was just being discussed here:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=5843.30

I agree it has to be the agency that foots the bill, otherwise there is no motivation for them to improve their security.

Quote from: Clivia on November 21, 2008, 02:54

The big difference... Microstock sites do not buy our images, they act as agents for the sale.

all the more reason, they need to foot the bill when they do not protect our goods properly. And all the more reason why they need to be motivated financially to look after them. If they had bought the goods they'd be doing a better job protecting them.

agree. if i leave something on consignment, eg. a used camera, used children's toys,etc...
and it gets shoplifted. when i go in to collect the commissions, i get paid.
it isn't our responsibilty to sit at the store to watch our consigned goods. it's the store's responsibility.that is why they are getting a portion of the take, in the commission split.

I agree,

 This should absolutely fall on the part of the agency. They make the transaction with the buyer. It is completely their responsibility to verify all sales that is part of a sellers job. This is a good example of all photographers that sell stock having all the proper insurance to cover your ass in this business. Don't count on the reseller handling the messy stuff every time. Cover yourself and be accountable.

Best,
AVAVA

What upsets memore is the frequency in which this seems to be happening.  Are the sites taking enough measures to avoid fraud?  Even if a site is paying our share and swallows the loss - and we may never know this happened - this isn't good. 

I have recently purchased Paint Shop Pro via a download from Corel's website.  It was all very fast.  I don't remember if I was asked my real address - an information that is not in the card and would help check if I was really the card owner.  Online sales have been around for a while and I am certain that there are many ways to at least try to reduce it.

Regards,
Adelaide

There were reports of this happening in FT and BigStock also, if I am not mistaken. 

I would also think so, but in some of these refunds this was the reason given (someone here mentioned having tons of sales in BigStock cancelled because of that).

I could imagine a teen would buy porn images this way, but this is not so common in microstock, is it?

Regards,
Adelaide

 Sometimes Credit Card thieves will run small sale tests to see if the card is active before making a large purchase somewhere else. It could be that Micro is a safe place for them to test their stolen info first. Just a guess.

Best,
AVAVA

There were reports of this happening in FT and BigStock also, if I am not mistaken. 

DT is the biggest offender for me.

We also know of FT and BigStock now. Any others? Let's get a complete list here of the sites that give refunds and deduct the funds from our accounts.

I had a couple from iStock also.

Ok: The list is now:

DT
BigStock
FT

Any others?

edited to remove istock from the list

You are right Adelaide, refund given by iStock were for these 3 reasons (quoted):

�We regret to inform you that a refund has been issued for a purchase of your file #XXXXXX:
Member was charged twice for image downloaded on the same day.�

�We regret to inform you that a refund has been issued for a purchase of your file #XXXXXXX:
client downloaded this size in error, refunded as first time user and made exception, large file purchased instead.�

and:
�We regret to inform you that a refund has been issued for a purchase of your file #XXXXXX:
Member realized that she only needed small size.�

So until someone else has that kind of refund from iStock (credit card fraud), I think we should remove iStock from that list.

Claude

i haven't read the post just the title

and i'm bit pissed off with refunds....

i have an overall (sites) and since i begin with this industry.

- 4% refunds (in money)

i think is a lot