Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Ian's;)

 

I haven't found page 94 yet?ūü§§

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Brian1947 said:

HMRC said thank you for the information

 

 

HMRC are welcome to it.

 

It will help explain when I buy equipment costing over £2000 and reclaim the VAT. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everybody,
how does the DACS payment work? In October of last year, I received $ 14. Are they being offered again this year?

Thank you and have a nice day (always from beautiful Italy)

lorenza

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, lorenza said:

Hello everybody,
how does the DACS payment work? In October of last year, I received $ 14. Are they being offered again this year?

Thank you and have a nice day (always from beautiful Italy)

lorenza

 

It pays out every year. If Alamy do the claim for you for the images sold through them then you'll get a payment later. The DACS payments mentioned here are for those of us that claim directly via https://www.dacs.org.uk/

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW !   ....a large increase here. Up 169.8% !

 

Worth the extra effort during the bleak winter months in tracking down where stuff is used, such as visiting a bookshop with vague details, and finding/collecting the info for DACS.

Quite a good few new publication details added to the DACS database.

I claim direct, as Alamy isn't the sole outlet for my work.

 

I'll get the drinks in. Pop round to the pub at 22.05 hours ! ūüėĄ

 

 

 

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, just noticed my (self claimed) DACs payment has arrived. It's 2.2x last year. :)

I've not received the breakdown letter yet to see where the increase came from.

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes everyone seems to have had a Brucie bonus. I wonder why. I reported about another 6 or 8 items, maybe it's enough to get into the next tier at last.

I was very much expecting the CLA rights grab to knock it down quite a bit over the next few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does put a bit of a spotlight on Alamy's contract change which takes 50% and does not allow contributors to claim direct ( after the date of opt out expiry).

 

No doubt the reason for this WOW factor will become clear in due course. 

 

 

 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Yes everyone seems to have had a Brucie bonus.....

I added thirteen for 2019 and fell from £250 to £160 (On top of around 500 historically). Not so many scores on the doors

Edited by Avpics
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Avpics said:

I added thirteen for 2019 and fell from £250 to £160. Not so many scores on the doors

Too bad.

I have no more than a few dozen and it's £106, so unless I've scored some jackpots on the publication matches I don't know what's going on. Could just wait for the statement I suppose, but ill-informed speculation is such fun;)

And something to do.:blink:

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Avpics said:

I added thirteen for 2019 and fell from £250 to £160 (On top of around 500 historically). Not so many scores on the doors

 

 

13 + 500 in terms of ISBNs/ISSNs?

 

Or in terms of additions to totals for books/mags?

 

One thing that we knew was coming was an increased/increasing %  on actual usages recorded and matched.

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

13 + 500 in terms of ISBNs/ISSNs?

 

Or in terms of additions to totals for books/mags?

13 + 500 total images, though few would be more than one image per publication. Eight publications for 2019 + perhaps 400-450 publications historically. These are direct sales only as I let Alamy claim for sales licensed through them. I don't feel confident that I could find even 50% of those sales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Avpics said:

13 + 500 total images, though few would be more than one image per publication. Eight publications for 2019 + perhaps 400-450 publications historically. These are direct sales only as I let Alamy claim for sales licensed through them. I don't feel confident that I could find even 50% of those sales.

 

 

Hard to understand what has happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine went down by 14%, but I didn't claim any ISBNs this time (can't remember if I was too late or too much hassle to find them). Think I claimed about 6 last year. So my payout is only on numbers sold through Alamy (direct claim via spreadsheet), which would have increased, but not by enough to compensate for the reduction in ISBN claims.

 

I think that is the key to maximising the payout - get as many ISBNs as you can.

 

John. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stokie said:

Mine went down by 14%, but I didn't claim any ISBNs this time (can't remember if I was too late or too much hassle to find them). Think I claimed about 6 last year. So my payout is only on numbers sold through Alamy (direct claim via spreadsheet), which would have increased, but not by enough to compensate for the reduction in ISBN claims.

 

I think that is the key to maximising the payout - get as many ISBNs as you can.

 

John. 

As i understand it,  ISBNs roll over each year. So you just add to them, or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

As i understand it,  ISBNs roll over each year. So you just add to them, or not.

 

I know previous sales roll over, I wasn't sure ISBNs did - thanks for that.

 

In that case my claim should have gone up this year with the same number of ISBNs but more Alamy sales?

 

I'll have to try harder to find more ISBNs next claim.

 

John.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stokie said:

 

I know previous sales roll over, I wasn't sure ISBNs did - thanks for that.

 

In that case my claim should have gone up this year with the same number of ISBNs but more Alamy sales?

 

I'll have to try harder to find more ISBNs next claim.

 

John.

I'm pretty sure that when I've logged in to add ISBNs the old ones have still been there. It makes sense- the books are still in print, so the images are still  "earning" royalties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very odd news from me. I claim for myself and my late wife Shirley. Both claims were repeats of past years, and included new titles/sales added. My total uses are over 18,000 (there was a period when I illustrated step by step books using 400 images at a time and some of these were republished as new ISBNs repurposing the same photographs). In 2019 I received £2294.75 inc VAT (2017, £2404 including Shirley's - 2018, £1903) but for 2020 this fell to £425 which has come at the worst time. Shirley's claims were worth £274 (2018) then £364 (2019) and now £325 which seems balanced. DACS don't seem to be willing to explain why my claim has fallen and simply say it's due to a change using Copyright Licensing Agency data, then when queries again, saying it's because I also had a claim via Alamy (that makes no sense as the Alamy claim is for a very small number of uses). Seems to be nothing I can do about this, or to find out how others could avoid it happening. - David

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, David Kilpatrick said:

Very odd news from me. I claim for myself and my late wife Shirley. Both claims were repeats of past years, and included new titles/sales added. My total uses are over 18,000 (there was a period when I illustrated step by step books using 400 images at a time and some of these were republished as new ISBNs repurposing the same photographs). In 2019 I received £2294.75 inc VAT (2017, £2404 including Shirley's - 2018, £1903) but for 2020 this fell to £425 which has come at the worst time. Shirley's claims were worth £274 (2018) then £364 (2019) and now £325 which seems balanced. DACS don't seem to be willing to explain why my claim has fallen and simply say it's due to a change using Copyright Licensing Agency data, then when queries again, saying it's because I also had a claim via Alamy (that makes no sense as the Alamy claim is for a very small number of uses). Seems to be nothing I can do about this, or to find out how others could avoid it happening. - David

 

David, the system has changed to give more weight to uses that are matched with actual records from CLA licence holders. The details are on the DACs site somewhere. . So it is quite possible that if your older uses are not being photocopied as much in libraries, schools etc that you aren't getting the same share as you did under the previous system which was purely cumulative. This is why they are telling you that it is 'due to a change using Copyright Licensing Agency data'. 

 

Adding new titles/sales won't make much difference to a claim unless they are matched with records from CLA users. Exactly how this works is not clear but I should think that if a use appears multiple times in the records kept by different CLA licence users there would be a multiplier effect. If on the other hand you have older titles which are not being copied much then you will not get the same sort of rewards as you would have under the previous system.

 

So, for example, pics used in a current textbook which records show has been copied in schools around the country will provide lots of matches, having a pic in a 20 year old magazine might get no recorded matches at all. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

David, the system has changed to give more weight to uses that are matched with actual records from CLA licence holders. The details are on the DACs site somewhere. . So it is quite possible that if your older uses are not being photocopied as much in libraries, schools etc that you aren't getting the same share as you did under the previous system which was purely cumulative. This is why they are telling you that it is 'due to a change using Copyright Licensing Agency data'. 

 

Adding new titles/sales won't make much difference to a claim unless they are matched with records from CLA users. Exactly how this works is not clear but I should think that if a use appears multiple times in the records kept by different CLA licence users there would be a multiplier effect. If on the other hand you have older titles which are not being copied much then you will not get the same sort of rewards as you would have under the previous system.

 

So, for example, pics used in a current textbook which records show has been copied in schools around the country will provide lots of matches, having a pic in a 20 year old magazine might get no recorded matches at all. 

 

Useful info. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Adding new titles/sales won't make much difference to a claim unless they are matched with records from CLA users.

 

This is from DACs

Why is Publication History important?

It makes your claim more accurate, maximising the amount you are paid.
 
DACS receives Payback royalties from the¬†CLA¬†(Copyright Licensing¬†Agency). In 2017, the CLA split this money between Payback‚Äôs regular bracketed scheme and a more detailed list of uses ‚Äď now known as Publication History.
 
DACS submits your Publication History claim to the CLA where it is matched against their list of UK photocopied titles, and their ISSN and ISBN numbers. If they match, you’ll get royalties.
 
The division of money between the two processes has risen year-on-year. For the 2019 campaign, the Publication History pot will be worth 25% of the overall money available.

 

Full article can be found here. https://www.dacs.org.uk/latest-news/payback-top-tip-increasing-your-royalties-with-pub?category=For Artists|For Art Market Professionals|Campaigns & Lobbying|Latest News&title=N

 

I'm sure I've seen a table of how the Publication History percentages are changing each year, but can't find it. Anyway, if my reading of the above is correct, only 25% of the 2019 payment is coming from CLA matches, and 75% comes from the unmatched entries. Not sure what hapens next year. That's not to say that any individual's payment is split 75%/25%. It all depends how many matches they get.

 

More (but potentially out of date) info here.

http://www.epuk.org/news/update-dacs-payback-and-creators-rights

https://www.dacs.org.uk/latest-news/mediation-collective-licensing-outcome?category=For+Artists&title=N

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites

We got  >10x compared to last year. Our main market is textbooks and scientific journals. Not sure what is going on. Expect an e-mail any day now, asking for money to be returned...

GI

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what is going on in 2020. Like Mark I looked and couldn't find the table showing how the percentage will change - but change it will.

 

So finding textbook uses  - books which are expensive to buy and widely copied in schools and colleges is going to be a money maker.

 

My underlining.

 

 

We are changing how we share money from the Publication History pot

An increasing share of the Payback money comes from the Publication History pot. This is the money paid out according to the ISBNs and ISSNs you provide. You are paid when your data matches the lists of books and magazines held by the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA). In 2020 this pot of money will be 30% of the money available from the CLA (up from 25% the year before).
 
Sharing money according to accurate data makes the scheme fairer for everyone claiming royalties.
 
When the Publication History pot was introduced in 2017, we wanted royalty payments to be balanced fairly. Having looked at data from the last three years, we are changing our method for dividing the money, to ensure the best value for everyone claiming royalties.
 
Until now, we have shared the Publication History money, based on how many images matched to a publication. We haven’t taken into consideration how often a publication is copied. We will do this going forward.
 
From 2020 the royalties you receive from the Publication History pot will be calculated according to this method to support the fairest possible method for dividing the money.
 
The share of royalties paid according to matched data will continue to grow, so we encourage people to make a Publication History claim.


 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.