geogphotos

Please provide ISBN details

Recommended Posts

geogphotos    194

Maybe this is contentious and maybe already discussed.

 

I've just spent 30 minutes using Google to try and track down image uses for the new DACS form - trying to periodically update the form. This is a very hit and miss, time-consuming process.

 

I have asked previously and been told by Alamy that ISBN information for our sales information is confidential.

 

Am posting to raise it again to see what contributors think. Perhaps it really would be hard for Alamy to provide this I don't know.

 

But I am going to claim DACS direct and not use Alamy. Missing out on ISBNs costs me but does not affect Alamy.

 

Could this be a useful, helpful gesture from Alamy towards contributors especially given falling fees and sales - an encouragement and reward even?

 

Any thoughts and views?

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,386

Already discussed. The publishers are Alamy's customers, not ours. They won't give them up.

Either let Alamy do it and take 50%, or track down what numbers you can and claim yourself as I do. One finds quite a few over the years. In 2014 Alamy sent round an email saying how many licences they could claim for, and I already had most of them, but I haven't had one since. If the difference is enough to take you into a higher claim category it may be worth handing it over. Mine certainly isn't. Alamy may give you those numbers, at least.

 

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194

Thanks for the answer. I am in the top category but as you know there is a new element to the claim from this year.

 

In the previous discussion was there an explanation about why ISBN's are confidential? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,386

Not as such, but they identify the publisher, and as I said they're Alamy's customers, and that information has some value. Not least if it makes a claim on a contributor's behalf.

If you're in the top category, presumably you can't benefit any further. Presumably, also, some contributors, not us of course, would try to approach publishers direct if they knew who they were.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194

I can see that the information has value if Alamy make a claim and in a sense that is what concerns me about the withholding of the information. Especially so now that the Alamy contract includes an automatic opt in for Alamy to claim on the photographers' behalf. 

 

Yes I am in the top categories for everything except TV uses ( and once again can't get sufficient information from Alamy to claim for these).

 

Under the new DACS system  I can benefit further but only if I know the ISBNs of publications, and that is what I am asking about. It didn't matter until the system changed this year but now there is an element of the entire claim that is set aside for those who supply specific usage detail and that requires ISBNs. 

 

It bothers me that Alamy now has a financial interest in NOT assisting photographers claim what they are entitled to by instead claiming on their behalf for 50%.

 

The DACS scheme is there to reward creators. That is the purpose behind it. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too would like to find the ISBNs for my uses, and while I understand the reasoning behind wanting to keep it confidential, that argument doesn't hold up whenever a Google Image search brings back a few. In addition, the description in the sales often allows me to identify where it's been used, particularly when you get a few which are obviously the same publisher.

I can also understand why Alamy don't want to issue this info to noobs who will go along pestering publishers for tearsheets etc.  However, I think it's safe to assume that DACS claimants don't really fall into this category.  So, why not have a separate NDA (non-disclosure agreement) for the likes of us which will legally protect Alamy's interests and the confidentially of customers, but also give us the ability to claim what we're entitled to?

 

It really isn't acceptable that Alamy has a vested interest in not providing this information!  The whole point of DACS is to provide fairness to artists, not the agents, galleries, shops etc.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194
12 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Alamy won't know the ISBN number in the majority of cases....

 

 

Don't they have to have ISBNs in order to claim for DACs? Or do you think that they just claim based on the uses?

 

I wasn't told that they didn't have this information but that it was confidential. 

 

As a general point I think the system has a major flaw in the way that it gives conflicting interests to creators and agencies/distributors. 

 

A s fas as I understand it DACS is for the creator of works not the middlemen. The work is ours not Alamy's  - they get their income from commission. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,386

I'd assume Alamy would get the number from the voucher copy but I don't know what information is required of the publisher for a licence grant.

Alamy doesn't claim DACS off its own bat- it can't. It can only claim as agent if you authorise it to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194
15 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I'd assume Alamy would get the number from the voucher copy but I don't know what information is required of the publisher for a licence grant.

Alamy doesn't claim DACS off its own bat- it can't. It can only claim as agent if you authorise it to.

 

Not quite. The new contract requires an opt out from the contributor otherwise Alamy will claim.

 

It is this sort of conflict of interest that I am referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecadet    1,386

Then it's acting as per contract, but it's not claiming as creator. It's claiming as agent.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194

Just to elaborate in 2016- 2017 there was a change to the system where a certain proportion ( which will increase each year until it reaches its maximum- I can't remember the details offhand) is reserved only for ISBNs which match with those in the copyright reporting system. For example, a textbook copied in a  school and reported to the Copyright Agency cn be matched with somebody claiming for that precise ISBN. It is this change to the system which disadvantages the creator because they may not have any of the ISBNs unless they happen to come across them through searches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194
10 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Then it's acting as per contract, but it's not claiming as creator. It's claiming as agent.

 

But it can do so without explicit authorisation since the contract changed, previously that couldn't happen and the creator had to authorise Alamy as their agent.

 

Now, obviously for many contributors all around the world this seems like money for nothing. For those contributors who do claim on their own behalf it stacks the odds against them because the necessary information is withheld  by their agent!

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194

Here are the details of how the percentage in the ISBN pot is going to increase:

 

These changes will be introduced incrementally over the next five years starting at 10% of the overall share of royalties for visual artists in 2017 and stopping in 2021 at 30% for non-education publications and 40% for educational publications that are matched with the CLA photocopying publications:

 

To get money from this pot you have to provide an ISBN which matches one that has been reported to the Copyright Licensing Agency.

 

 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.Chapman    518
5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Don't they have to have ISBNs in order to claim for DACs? Or do you think that they just claim based on the uses?

 

I wasn't told that they didn't have this information but that it was confidential. 

 

 

No Alamy don't have to have the ISBNs to make the usual DACs claim, just like we don't (a copy of the Alamy sales report is accepted as evidence).

 

But, as of this year, if we want to make a separate claim for a share of the new "distinct royalty pot" we do need ISBN numbers for every item.

 

Has it been confirmed that Alamy will (for those who haven't opted out) be making a claim on their behalf for both regular and the new "distinct royalty pot"? I don't think it has... Maybe I missed something?

 

My "Distinct Royalty Pot" claim form went in months ago (deadline was 17th Feb 2017) using ISBN numbers I've been lucky enough to track down over the years (which unfortunately only cover a small proportion of my publications that would otherwise have been eligible)

 

Heres' the relevant text from DACs website.

  • In addition to your usual claim, you can also claim from a distinct royalty pot worth 10% of the overall share of royalties for all visual artists. To claim from this pot you must complete a separate Publication History Claim Form by 17 February. If any of your UK publication history is matched by the Copyright Licensing Agency in their list of UK photocopied publications, you can get additional royalties. The deadline for this has now passed, however you can submit a Publication History Claim Form for us to keep on record for your future Payback claims. We will not, however, be able to process this as part of your 2017 claim.
Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194
44 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

 

My "Distinct Royalty Pot" claim form went in months ago (deadline was 17th Feb 2017) using ISBN numbers I've been lucky enough to track down over the years (which unfortunately only cover a small proportion of my eligible publications.

 

 

 

 

Indeed, I was able to claim only about 20 uses. This is the major flaw in the new system because creators who use agents do not have easy access to this information and for education uses it will be 40% of that part of DACS pot by 2020. 

 

I'll repeat what I was told by Alamy was that this information is confidential rather than that they didn't have it. 

 

As to your highlighted text. I can't remember precisely what Alamy told me, but as I recall they said that they could claim this element on my behalf ( similar to TV uses) but I decided that I did not want to lose 50%. My impression was that Alamy had the ISBN data but would not be passing it on to me ( or contributors in general).

 

If Alamy do not have ISBN information I don't see how they can claim from this 'pot' any more than we can.

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194

Another weakness of the new system is that it depends on CLA license holders such as schools keeping accurate records of what they photocopy. Unless things have changed a lot since I last worked in schools this just doesn't happen. Teachers are in a rush, have direct access to photocopiers and if there is a reporting system it is ignored more often than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jools Elliott    183

I'm with Ian on this. 

 

If Alamy say the information is confidential but you can then Google image search and then see the book doesn't that pretty much circumvent the confidentiality?

Edited by Jools Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marianne    244
On 6/23/2017 at 15:56, M.Chapman said:

Alamy won't know the ISBN number in the majority of cases....

 

They look for uses. 

Years ago, when they invited a bunch of us to their new Brooklyn office, there were employees there with stacks of magazines they were going through to look for image uses. They know who is downloading their content and the ISBN numbers are readily available to them. 

 

But I see the issue with their not wanting to give up client information. That's their prerogative. 

 

I'm not sure a non-disclosure would be enough - I think they'd want a non-compete. For those of us who license work directly from our sites or who take on assignments, that could be problematic. I've licensed work directly from my site to various publishers and have found my Alamy images and my images from other agencies in those publications months or years later. There's a lot of overlap. So, between my site and other agencies, I couldn't sign anything saying I wouldn't license images to Alamy's clients, because I can't control where my other agencies license images. A non-compete would effectively make Alamy my exclusive agent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marianne    244

Agencies that license images exclusively give you this information because you cannot license those images yourself. Alamy lets us license the same images wherever we want, so we don't get the same kind of reporting that we would with an agent that licenses those images exclusively. It's not great for us, but it makes sense. 

 

50% seems like a big cut to let them do DACS for you, and I have other agencies licensing my work in the UK, so for these reasons, I do it myself, but I know I've lost out because I can't find some images that Alamy shows as being licensed in the UK, though the other license make up for it as does the fact I get 100%.

 

Still, it's frustrating. If they took a smaller cut, I might have let them do it for me, just to save the hassle. But now that I can build on the information I have, it seems worth doing it myself. There are sites that let you search for ISBN numbers. If you search other DACS threads, you'll find them. 

Edited by Marianne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194

Thanks Marianne,

 

Just want to add that the CLA have stated that they want feedback on the changes that have started in 2017, and I'm sure DACS too would be interested to know more about the scheme from the photographer's perspective. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marianne    244
5 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Thanks Marianne,

 

Just want to add that the CLA have stated that they want feedback on the changes that have started in 2017, and I'm sure DACS too would be interested to know more about the scheme from the photographer's perspective. 

 

 

 

You're welcome. 

What is the CLA? 

I think the scheme on the whole is a great idea. I wish the US, where I make the bulk of my sales, had something similar. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194
9 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

You're welcome. 

What is the CLA? 

I think the scheme on the whole is a great idea. I wish the US, where I make the bulk of my sales, had something similar. 

 

 

 

Copyright Licensing Agency

 

https://www.cla.co.uk

 

Yes, it would be great if other countries had something similar that we could all benefit from.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194

And now there are other changes to consider such as this new alternative to DACs set up by BAPLA members

 

As I understand it there is no requirement for the agencies to have a mandate from their photographers. Reading the Picsel information it seems that agencies are deemed to be the Rights Holder of images. And each new Picsel member will have to withdraw from the DACs scheme. I have absolutely no idea where Alamy fits into any of this.

 

http://www.picsel.org.uk/about-picsel/

 

PICSEL membership is open to all picture libraries and agencies – large or small – who license images for books, magazines (excluding newspaper supplements), and TV broadcasting, in the UK.

  • Membership gives you the right to govern your collecting society for the benefit of all rights holders in your repertoire and importantly, the opportunity for you to input directly into discussions on secondary rights licensing.
  • To become a member, you must be operating as a picture library or agency that issues licences to UK book and magazine publishers and TV broadcasters. You may be a sole trader, an SME, a cultural heritage organisation, or a medium to large agency. Membership is free to BAPLA members.
Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geogphotos    194

We promise to read everything posted if you promise to keep all posts constructive, deal?

 

I wonder if Alamy could let us know if they are joining Picsel and in general what approach the company is taking to the subject of secondary rights payment claims  in the changing landscape that we have in 2017.

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now