Any ideas to stop people thinking they're buying a product?

[Cryptoprocta]

Having had several sales of pics of medications refunded in the past, because the buyer thought they were getting the medicine, I have gone through all my pics of medicines etc and put 'Stock photo of ..." in the caption and something like "This is a stock photo and NOT the medicine" in the description, and ticking 'editorial only'. I got a sale of a box of pills with the tablets showing sold on the 2nd for 'presentations and newsletters', but predictably, the refund has just dropped in.

I'm guessing it was someone who thought they were getting the medicine, and doesn't know enough English to know what a stock photo is.

Desperate people who must be even more disappointed than I am.

But for sure, if true, that proves that if someone can't buy for PU they just buy 'newsletters and presentations'.

Of course, they might just not have liked the photo ...

Edited February 7, 2022 by Cryptoprocta

[Nodvandigtid]

38 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

But for sure, if true, that proves that if someone can't buy for PU they just buy 'newsletters and presentations'.

 

Those who do so continue to short-change contributors.....Alamy reluctant to do anything about it it would seem.....  

[Cryptoprocta]

2 minutes ago, Nodvandigtid said:

 

Those who do so continue to short-change contributors.....Alamy reluctant to do anything about it it would seem.....  

Except that PU sales which stick are worth more than most of my other sales.

[Nodvandigtid]

1 minute ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Except that PU sales which stick are worth more than most of my other sales.

Yes Elizabeth - that is sadly true for a lot of us now but equally  I resent the fact that there are those who are not in fact buying it for PU or indeed newsletter/presentation but avoiding a commercial licence that is dearer that x.xx.

And in the case of those of buy for PU etc they can cancel within 30 odd days, get a refund and has that full res file really been deleted?? 

[Cryptoprocta]

2 minutes ago, Nodvandigtid said:

Yes Elizabeth - that is sadly true for a lot of us now but equally  I resent the fact that there are those who are not in fact buying it for PU or indeed newsletter/presentation but avoiding a commercial licence that is dearer that x.xx.

And in the case of those of buy for PU etc they can cancel within 30 odd days, get a refund and has that full res file really been deleted?? 

We never know, but in the case of people who think they're buying the product, I assume (but don't know for a fact) that Alamy can see that the file was never downloaded.

[Joseph Clemson]

There is a very simple solution. If Alamy made the most expensive licence the default selection, instead of the cheapest, personal use, dim-witted buyers might look twice at their purchase and perhaps realise they are buying an image licence. It might also have the benefit of causing people who ARE genuinely looking for an image to use to look at the type of licence they are purchasing, rather than just accepting the default, cheap, PU.

 

Better still, if Alamy were to also couple this with enforcing clause 11:2 of their customer licence contract 'Once you download a purchased item of Content, you agree that you have no right to a refund, unless expressly stated otherwise in the Agreement.', then I suspect refunds would become a less common occurrence.