MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Blatant Lies - iStock Refund Policies  (Read 2703 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 13, 2012, 07:49 »
+5
Quote

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.

Is this saying the only reason they charge back contributors on fraud is to prevent contributors from using stolen credit cards to download their own content and then pocket the royalties?

Interesting. How many stolen credit cards do you have lying around at the moment? Well, last time I checked, I had none. Funny that.

iStock really has a lot of gaul suggesting their contributors use stolen credit cards to steal money from iStock. This is simply salt in the wound and what they have done here is twisted things around to say contributors are guilty of fraud and the punishment is for contributors to be charged back when in fact it is iStock that permits a contributor's intellectual property to be stolen and wrongfully used by criminals. Leave it to lawyers to come up with schemes like this though. Well, I think it's more than obvious the real reason they charge back contributors on fraud. Nuff said.

Quote
4. What is the refund policy on iStockphoto.com?

Customers have 14 days to return a file for credit. When they return a file, they agree to not use that file going forward. In order to reduce any abuse of their agreement, we closely monitor patterns of refund behavior by customers. Additionally our compliance enforcement team handles unlicensed uses.

I have at least 120 refunds this year. 40% of them are from sales that were made last year and at least 80% are on sales that are older than 14 days.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 08:29 by iStop »


« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2012, 08:04 »
0
istock needs to be investigated.. obviously %85 they are getting for doing nothing, is not enough for them..

« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2012, 10:36 »
0
They need to be sued.
There was a "decency" post that got deleted on istock before i read it, was it yours?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2012, 10:50 »
+2
"Additionally our compliance enforcement team handles unlicensed uses."
... and sometimes they get the offending unlicensed uses taken down, and sometimes they stay up for over a year and counting.

« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2012, 10:55 »
+5
The claim that refunds  are within 14 days flies in the face of everyone's experience. But it's typical that companies who don't follow their own stated policies fall back on the "official" line when challenged.

And the nonsense about having to to reclaim fraudulent sales to prevent contributors defrauding them is ridiculous. If that ever happened, you could deal with it on a case by case basis. But refusing to implement decent security measures (that's our art that's then floating around out there because of iStock's negligence) - probably because you don't want to spend the money to do so - and then justifying your actions by blaming crooked contributors is truly rich.

They wouldn't say, but did they ever uncover a scheme like this, even once?

« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2012, 10:58 »
0
Ne, but they said that they never refunded a single account (too many)
Means it hasnt happened.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors