Is anyone getting more refunds lately? I've had more and more lately . The most common reasons are duplicate download and accidental download. Accidental download??? How could that happen? 

Never had one ever.

Hmmm, nobody else?

Quote from: aremafoto on September 17, 2008, 02:39
Is anyone getting more refunds lately? I've had more and more lately . The most common reasons are duplicate download and accidental download. Accidental download??? How could that happen? 

I've never had one. Sounds fishy. Have you contacted support or asked in the forum?

Quote from: epantha on September 17, 2008, 16:05

I've never had one. Sounds fishy. Have you contacted support or asked in the forum?

Yes I did, all that they can say is that it's the site's policy to allow returns 

I had some at iStock but never anywhere else.

Frustrating...

Claude

If I ever had a refund, I am unaware of. What would be the reason? Client not satisfied with the image?

Unless the buyer purchased one single image and asked for a refund on it, I wouldn't find anything fishy about it. I mean, if he purchased 10 images and asked for a refund on one, that would sound ok.  I think it would be likely that he changed his mind about an image and not that he was trying to get two images for the price of one.

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: madelaide on September 17, 2008, 22:15
If I ever had a refund, I am unaware of. What would be the reason? Client not satisfied with the image?

DT will send you an email if you had a refund.

The two reasons I've had so far:
1. Duplicate download, which I can somewhat understand.
2. Accidental download, which I can't really understand how it could happen. Don't they have to go through several steps to buy an image? It's not like there is a one click download button.

Quote from: aremafoto on September 17, 2008, 22:19
1. Duplicate download, which I can somewhat understand.

Always been reason no 1 (on iStock).

Of course I do also understand, but I'm amazed at it.  Taking the time to write or call iStock or Dreamstime to explain that you clicked twice on the download button  and asking for a 3$ refund... But I respect it, customer is allways right!

Claude

I was had an image sold twice within seconds in the same site (IS, I think), second was larger.  I supposed it was the same person who purchased it, noticed a mistake in size and purchased it again. My images don't normally sell so much to justify two different buyers getting the same image almost at the same time, so that was my conclusion.

Also I think in BigStock once the same image sold 2-3 times in a row also within minutes.  This case I thought could be some problem with repeated attemps to dld, but also there was no refund.

Regards,
Adelaide

I had one EL sale from August refunded today. Reason : "Customer mistake".

Indeed, I had 3 EL sales on August 28th, all of the same subject. So I guess they were purchased by the same customer, who could have pre-selected several images in a lightbox, and then downloaded one of them instead of the one he/she wanted.

about 5-6 refunds in 2 weeks. don't remember them ever before

I suspect that a batch of new buyers from South Florida and the Palm Beach area have joined the service. They have problems with buttons and clicking the right box for what they want. 

In the last years we used to cover all these refunds from the agency's share, leaving royalties to the photographers. The amount of refunds is the same as before, just that we always deduct them from royalties now.
The volume of downloads is too high and as the prices and RPD were increased significantly, we believe it was time to do this.

Achilles,

Could you tell us what are the reasons stated for these refunds? Do subscribers also have the right to ask a refund?

Regards,
Adelaide

And one more thing. How can we (the photographs) be sure that the buyer will not use the photo for which he claims refund?

Quote from: zstoimenov on October 03, 2008, 13:43
And one more thing. How can we (the photographs) be sure that the buyer will not use the photo for which he claims refund?

Exactly! I would understand multiple downloads - they are obvious mistakes. But the rest is unacceptable! One would download a file, use it as they wish and then claim they do not like it and want a refund. As simple as that. If you want to refund that, then do it from your own money and not from ours!

I should have returned one shot to DT that had so much NR it was unuseable to me, but for the small amount of $ it didn't seem worth the effort.  Now that prices are higher than a couple years ago I bet we see more and more returns, I know this is a DT thread, but on Istock to buy a single large photo it is a little over $10 (I'd have to look up DT).  I would definitely return a single purchase for that amount if I felt it was too different from the thumb.

Quote from: Pixart on October 03, 2008, 15:39
I should have returned one shot to DT that had so much NR it was unuseable to me, but for the small amount of $ it didn't seem worth the effort.  Now that prices are higher than a couple years ago I bet we see more and more returns, I know this is a DT thread, but on Istock to buy a single large photo it is a little over $10 (I'd have to look up DT).  I would definitely return a single purchase for that amount if I felt it was too different from the thumb.

If you bought from IS, you can zoom in 100% before you purchase, so there shouldn't be any reason to refund other than duplicate download.

Quote from: zstoimenov on October 03, 2008, 13:43
And one more thing. How can we (the photographs) be sure that the buyer will not use the photo for which he claims refund?

Isn't it obvious? You can't. He doesn't have the right to use the photo, but nothing impedes him, as much as nothing impedes a buyer from using the image outside the license terms. He may not do it, but he can do it.

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: aremafoto on October 03, 2008, 18:09
If you bought from IS, you can zoom in 100% before you purchase, so there shouldn't be any reason to refund other than duplicate download.

You are right, but the one I should have returned was from DT.  Maybe DT needs to implement a zoom feature now that they have so many returns they put the cost on the photographer.

Quote from: Pixart on October 04, 2008, 00:23
You are right, but the one I should have returned was from DT.  Maybe DT needs to implement a zoom feature now that they have so many returns they put the cost on the photographer.

That's why I asked Achilles what are the reasons given (and accepted) for refunds.  Mistaken double dlds are obvious, so we are not talking about this.  If a customer complains of sharpness or focus in a crisp image, it's nonsense - does DT accept that on a "the customer is always right" basis?   

But then, as I said, I wouldn't find suspicious if a buyer would return one image from a bunch of purchased ones.  If he does it repeatedly, that would be suspicious.

I agree however that a zoom tool would reduce the refund requests for (allegedly) technical quality.

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: madelaide on October 04, 2008, 02:07

Quote from: Pixart on October 04, 2008, 00:23
You are right, but the one I should have returned was from DT.  Maybe DT needs to implement a zoom feature now that they have so many returns they put the cost on the photographer.

That's why I asked Achilles what are the reasons given (and accepted) for refunds.  Mistaken double dlds are obvious, so we are not talking about this.  If a customer complains of sharpness or focus in a crisp image, it's nonsense - does DT accept that on a "the customer is always right" basis?   

But then, as I said, I wouldn't find suspicious if a buyer would return one image from a bunch of purchased ones.  If he does it repeatedly, that would be suspicious.

I agree however that a zoom tool would reduce the refund requests for (allegedly) technical quality.

Regards,
Adelaide

One reason for refund that was given to me was accidental download, which I find to be ridiculous...

Quote from: madelaide on October 03, 2008, 21:05

Quote from: zstoimenov on October 03, 2008, 13:43
And one more thing. How can we (the photographs) be sure that the buyer will not use the photo for which he claims refund?

Isn't it obvious? You can't. He doesn't have the right to use the photo, but nothing impedes him, as much as nothing impedes a buyer from using the image outside the license terms. He may not do it, but he can do it.

Regards,
Adelaide

Yeah! I know the answer, that is why I am asking the question.

We do various checks to limit any kind of false claims. Your assumption that we check the customer's behaviour is correct, we may tolerate some accidents, but not if it becomes a pattern. Technical reasons are also checked and the file disabled only if needed (noise tolerance can be different from one customer to the other, depending on the final use).

The speculation that they may still use the file is invalidated by our experience so far. Yes, one in a million might do it, but there are plenty of penalties to enforce if that happens. No one wants to pay an expensive penalty just because they didn't want to pay $5-10. If value is a problem for them, they go via subscriptions for the same file or the free images section.

A zoom feature was delayed until we are sure that the technical solution limits almost all kinds of fraud. It's tricky to remove watermarks, but not impossible. There are people who would be doing it. Even if the solution is extremely easy for the agency, contributors need to be protected. Doing this might limit the refunds, but would increase the fraud a lot. It would be exactly the opposite of the things mentioned above.