losdemas

Yes, I remember attending one of those sessions. Seriously doubt if they are available anymore - funds won't permit. They do, however, schedule many interactive online sessions, have a useful Twitter feed (doubtless other social media, too), and you can sign up to receive emails with all this information. In my experience, HMRC do all they can to help you get it right. I messed up in a big way when I was in partnership a few years back, but they helped out tremendously. The most important thing is to be totally up front and honest with them. Sadly, though, very recent experience suggests that the knowledge and quality of first-line telephone staff can be poor at times. Online resources are pretty thorough though and, for the most part, in plain English! Yes, do keep good records. I have never been checked, but believe that I am well-prepared should it ever happen. The six-year requirement commences from the final submission/payment date for the tax year. So records for the current tax year have to be retained until 30th January 2026, and so on.

"large format"! LMAO😂

Senior couple enter Wokingham railway station. Wokingham, Berkshire, England, GB, UK.

LOL - one of the essential accessories in my 'camera' bag!

Alamy have never seemed concerned enough to offer a private forum.

I only got pointed towards it once I'd been denied access. Surely the sensible path in all this would have been to write these new guidelines, then push it out in an email to all current news contributors, advising us all that if the updated guidelines were not adhered to, then a cull would be taking place. New potential contributors could have been pointed in the direction of the PDF. Would have saved a lot of potential surprise and upset. I understand totally why they've done what they have, but the method and communication leaves much to be desired.

Absolutely agree. Sorry, Alamy, but this is absolutely pointless. Why would someone who has been denied access to the news feed want to attend a news event in order to upload images for archive / reportage (possibly of lower quality - bypassing QC)? I'm not going out of my way to do this and I can't for the life of me understand why anyone else would want to do so! If someone is covering news, then they are more likely to seek other outlets. If anyone is going to cover something in passing, then surely they will just upload to normal stock? Am I missing something here?

That was quick! Thanks so much, that answers my queries, even if it doesn't resolve them immediately! I didn't have 'studies' enabled either, neither (having enabled it) has it resolved the problem. But they do say that a general fix (ex-studies) should be available soon. Again - many thanks. EDIT: the studies intermediate fix is now working for me.

A large number of Firefox extensions (add-ons) have suddenly been disabled for apparent 'security' reasons. Those I have (had) installed include various useful search options: DuckDuckGo search EXIF Viewer Search by Image (for Google RIS) TinEye reverse image search Search by Image - Reverse Image Search (using multiple sources) Link Checker View Cookies LastPass Password Manager (as good as damned near essential!) The reasoning behind this is totally sound, but the information and 'help' regarding the 'update' goes back to 2017! What has happened today? Have I done something inadvertently? Will be changing browsers pretty damned quickly if I can't get this resolved.

Moved to the Tech forum

Do you do your own claims, Betty?

I know that many of you will have received an email from DACS regarding claims in Germany ("Had visual works published in Germany? Apply for royalties now.") The limitations on the information that we are able to garner from (specifically) Alamy make this difficult, but far from impossible. A useful way of adding more beans to the pot... Anyhow, the main point of this post is that I just received an email from DACS ("Great News! We have royalties for you"). Initially, I thought that this must be just an advanced missive confirming that my regular claim had been successfully processed, but no! It is to advise me that "DACS has received a back payment via the German society VG BildKunst for private copy in Germany. This is due to a recent change in German law, resulting from a court ruling." and thus "we have retrospective royalties to pay you" This, they say, relates to Payback in 2016! I'm going to email them to garner more info, as I don't know how they have ascertained that I have specific German licenses, as my Payback claims have (naturally) related to UK licenses. Has anyone else received similar emails?

Thanks, wim, but really more of a rhetorical question, born of ongoing stunned disbelief of the workings of - and what we tolerate in - this Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World.

Good. Thanks for sharing. The original lower court decision was an absolute nonsense. How do some of these powerful people get to sit in those seats?

A pro-Israel group published a full-page fundraising ad in The Washington Post. The group then defended its use of the photo as within its First Amendment rights, and “in accordance with Facebook standards” From PDN Pulse Facebook standards?! Fair Use?! Having a larf, surely?!