Your latest DACS news: Payback royalties coming your way!

[Young]

On 12/10/2018 at 12:33, NYCat said:

 

I don't have mine yet either. I'd wait until someone reports they have received theirs from Alamy. If you haven't at that point contact them.

 

Paulette

Good idea.

By the way I received mine today :-)

 

Young

[DJ Myford]

Slightly down on last year, but with no additional qualifying sales that was expected.

[MariaJ]

Alamy does mine and it was double last year's amount so I'm happy with that.

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Bryan said:

 

Hi John

 

Presumably I wasn't able to provide sufficient information to DACs. I just sent them a spreadsheet of my sales edited to take out those that I thought were not appropriate - and , to be honest, I wasn't really sure what could and could not be included. 

 

I did spend some (a lot actually) time trying to pin down the book sales, but was never sure if I have got the lot, or whether they were covered by the DACs agreement.

 

Hope that people don't follow my lead next year and then find themselves short changed  

 

Not sure if this helps but Alamy paid me $204 this year. 

 

Thanks. That's about what I received after filing on my own (no 50% hit). You probably get many more UK book and mag sales, though. I only see a handful of new ones every year. I'm useless at finding ISBN's, etc. Shall have to think about this...

[parischris]

41% increase on last year, triple figures even with Alamy's 50% cut. Very happy :-)

[John Mitchell]

Interesting -- and a bit confusing -- to see some people reporting higher payouts when letting Alamy do the work, despite the 50% cut.

 

Since we don't have the ISBN/ISSN info needed to file a full DACS claim now, is it time to turn the job over to Alamy? I've always filed myself.

 

Any thoughts on this?

[Michael Ventura]

John, not sure if this provides any helpful info.  I let Alamy do my DACs and last year I received $200 and this year I got $250.  I have never done it myself so no clue if I would do better or worse.

[MariaJ]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

Interesting -- and a bit confusing -- to see some people reporting higher payouts when letting Alamy do the work, despite the 50% cut.

 

Since we don't have the ISBN/ISSN info needed to file a full DACS claim now, is it time to turn the job over to Alamy? I've always filed myself.

 

Any thoughts on this?

 

I can't compare either as I have always let alamy do mine.  I think my amount went up because I've added more images and had more sales compared to previous years.

 

I'm trying to figure out the Canadian access copyright at the moment.  It looks like applications are open again.

 

Maria

[John Mitchell]

17 hours ago, MariaJ said:

 

I can't compare either as I have always let alamy do mine.  I think my amount went up because I've added more images and had more sales compared to previous years.

 

I'm trying to figure out the Canadian access copyright at the moment.  It looks like applications are open again.

 

Maria

 

Good luck with Access Canada. I gave up. I should give it another try. Filing your own DACS claim is a dream in comparison, or at least it used to be.

 

 

[John Mitchell]

19 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

John, not sure if this provides any helpful info.  I let Alamy do my DACs and last year I received $200 and this year I got $250.  I have never done it myself so no clue if I would do better or worse.

 

Thanks. It seems that those filing claims on their own are reporting drops in their payments this year, while contributors allowing Alamy to do the job are tending to see increases despite the big cut, which is not what you might expect. Obviously things have changed...

[Niels Quist]

57 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Thanks. It seems that those filing claims on their own are reporting drops in their payments this year, while contributors allowing Alamy to do the job are tending to see increases despite the big cut, which is not what you might expect. Obviously things have changed...

 

- and taking your own time rate into consideration it's even more. 

[losdemas]

5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Thanks. It seems that those filing claims on their own are reporting drops in their payments this year, while contributors allowing Alamy to do the job are tending to see increases despite the big cut, which is not what you might expect. Obviously things have changed...

 

I don't believe that that's correct. Some have seen decreases, some increases. My impression is that those on the higher or maxed-out levels have seen the biggest falls, while those on the lower levels and those who have gone up a rank (self included) have seen rises, whether claiming directly or via Alamy. 

 

I do my own submissions to DACS and saw my returns increase substantially this year. I think you'll find that many of the most recent posts to this thread by those who submit directly to DACS showed decent returns. 

[John Mitchell]

4 hours ago, losdemas said:

 

I don't believe that that's correct. Some have seen decreases, some increases. My impression is that those on the higher or maxed-out levels have seen the biggest falls, while those on the lower levels and those who have gone up a rank (self included) have seen rises, whether claiming directly or via Alamy. 

 

I do my own submissions to DACS and saw my returns increase substantially this year. I think you'll find that many of the most recent posts to this thread by those who submit directly to DACS showed decent returns. 

 

My concern is that with ISBNs and ISSNs becoming more important, filing the claim ourselves might become less of a good idea than it used to be since Alamy has that info (hopefully) and we don't, or at least I don't.

[Bryan]

Difficult to make meaningful comparisons with so many variables, e.g. some contributors are Alamy only others not, different emphasis in collections  etc. etc.

 

However it might be useful if those who only contribute to Alamy provide their net DACs payment as a % of their total gross income since joining, and state whether they made their own claim or used Alamy for the purpose.

 

In my case  0.61%  and I had Alamy do it

 

 

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Bryan said:

Difficult to make meaningful comparisons with so many variables, e.g. some contributors are Alamy only others not, different emphasis in collections  etc. etc.

 

However it might be useful if those who only contribute to Alamy provide their net DACs payment as a % of their total gross income since joining, and state whether they made their own claim or used Alamy for the purpose.

 

In my case  0.61%  and I had Alamy do it

 

 

For last year, 2.8%, self.

2016, 5%. That's down to a sharp increase in my gross, but not in DACS qualifying categories. I'm pretty sure Alamy can't identify many more uses than I can.

[Bryan]

7 hours ago, spacecadet said:

For last year, 2.8%, self.

2016, 5%. That's down to a sharp increase in my gross, but not in DACS qualifying categories. I'm pretty sure Alamy can't identify many more uses than I can.

Hi Mark

 

That's a very impressive return, I am getting nowhere near that figure!

 

 Could you please confirm that you are using your total gross income since starting with Alamy, and not your annual gross income?

[spacecadet]

I did say that was for the particular years. I've only been claiming DACS for a few years so going back before that wouldn't mean much.

I don't care to do the arithmetic on every year, but it used to be even higher. Presumably it's because I'm at the low end of both revenue and DACS claims and there's a mimimum payout, although I get more than the minimum.