Jump to content
  • 0

DACS decimated


Question

Any else had their last year's DACS claim (direct) massively reduced? I can't get a straight answer from them, as my late wife's DACS has not been affected (more or less the same this year as last) but mine has been cut by about 75%, very unwelcome when other income is greatly reduced. One of the answers as to why has been 'because Alamy has claimed for me' too - but Alamy only claims a tenner or so, not many hundreds, and I've lost about £1600 compared to previous recent years. I can't find out where, on Alamy, to withdraw my authority for them to claim on my behalf, as if it is having this effect, that's a serious prospect for the future. My wife's work is on the same Alamy account, different pseudonym, but can't work out why it would not affect her claim too (DACS continues to be paid to the heirs of a photographer's work).

Edited by David Kilpatrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Odd, there's a thread here

in which many, including me,  are reporting big increases.

Alamy set a deadline for opting out of having them claim for you at the last contract change, unfortunately if you missed it that's apparently that.

Incidentally welcome back, David. You've been missed.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hello David,

 

You are missed on the forums.

 

Can't answer the first part about deduction / cut except for what I know, which is that Alamy takes 50%.

I do think you can still opt-out for future claims, I could be wrong but you can Opt-in, Opt-out every year,  just don't know what the deadline to do this would be.  Best to ask dacspayback@alamy.com team for most accurate info on this, as I said I could be wrong.

 

Helen

 

 

Edited by hsessions
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, hsessions said:

I do think you can still opt-out for future claims, I could be wrong but you can Opt-in, Opt-out every year,

 

Helen

 

 

No.

Alamy changed it a few years ago and gave a deadline for those opted-in to opt out. It's permanent.

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.aspx#Collecting-societies

"If you have specifically informed us not to claim on your behalf for Collection in the United Kingdom before July 30th 2016 then we will not claim for you under Collection unless instructed to do so. If you do instruct us to claim on your behalf this will continue for the contract duration."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

No.

Alamy changed it a few years ago and gave a deadline for those opted-in to opt out. It's permanent.

https://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.aspx#Collecting-societies

"If you have specifically informed us not to claim on your behalf for Collection in the United Kingdom before July 30th 2016 then we will not claim for you under Collection unless instructed to do so. If you do instruct us to claim on your behalf this will continue for the contract duration."

 

I see thank you for that.  Did not dig deep enough into the contract so was not aware of it. Good to know.

Edited by hsessions
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I also suffered a large percentage cut, though on figures not especially large. £250 down to £160. I'm awaiting a reply to querying it. The new website doesn't seem to allow much access to any records to be of use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Another computer algorithm going wrong??? We've had a few of these in the UK recently.:wacko:

 

My DACS payment (all claimed direct for myself and my late father) has more than doubled this year. Until I get the statement I won't know what's changed.

It maybe, as the percentage allocated to actual publication history is increasing, that my efforts to track down publications and their ISBN nos etc. is starting to pay dividends?

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

Another computer algorithm going wrong................that my efforts to track down publications and their ISBN nos etc. is starting to pay dividends?

Just to throw another spanner in the algorithm, most of my claim is historical and similarly required a huge effort to track down old numbers using the tear-offs I'd saved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

David I cannot help you with your question about your DACS payment but would like to offer my sympathies over the loss of your wife.

 

Allan

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Alamy take 50% and also charge an admin fee. They will not disclose ISBN/ISSN details to contributors. They do not inform contributors of what they claim for or how many ISBNs/ISSNs are found and included ie) how much hard work they put into finding any that they don't already know. It is a black hole.

 

One suspects that given the time/cost tracing unknown ISBNs/ISSNs there would be a compromise rather than optimum search process aimed at finding each and every one. They will pick the low lying fruit, ignore the rest, and move on to the next tree.

 

There is an obvious tension here between Alamy's interests - taking the easy money and keeping staff costs down - and that of the photographer who deserves for return for their creative efforts ( which is what the system is supposed to do).

 

To me there is a fundamental flaw in the system by which the agencies which have better access to the information necessary to make a claim are able to withhold that information from the image creators and are incentivised by the system for doing so. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It'll be interesting to compare the Alamy figure with the direct result. If my Alamy payout shows an increase over 2019 then that would indicate more weight towards new additions rather than historical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 minutes ago, Avpics said:

It'll be interesting to compare the Alamy figure with the direct result. If my Alamy payout shows an increase over 2019 then that would indicate more weight towards new additions rather than historical.

 

 

I wasn't aware that you could still double-dip. ie) both claim direct and have Alamy claim - except for TV uses

 

I think that it is not so much about new additions but more about getting matches with the submitted ISBNs/ISSNs and actually recorded uses by CLA licence holders. 

 

As DACS increases the % that comes from matches I assume that they are taking more actual real usage records from schools, college, libraries etc. So if somebody has images that are used in lots of schools/colleges/libraries - textbooks for example - there is going to be a multiplier effect. If you have lots of recorded uses but they aren't being photocopied much then that might explain why you take has fallen. If most of yours are in old magazines it is quite possible that you simply aren't getting many matches.

 

All supposition. 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I file my own DACS claim (except TV), and my DACS payment remains pretty much the same from year to year. This is no doubt because I make very few UK region sales and manage to unearth only a couple of eligible ISBNs every year. That said, how DACS calculates payments is a total mystery to me. It certainly doesn't seem to be an exact science. I wasn't aware that you could "double dip". Isn't it an either/or kind of thing -- either you claim yourself or let Alamy do it for you?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I wasn't aware that you could still double-dip. ie) both claim direct and have Alamy claim - except for TV uses

I only claim directly for work not sold via Alamy (Edit: Or any agency ie. sold directly to publishers). Your supposition does make sense.

Edited by Avpics
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, Avpics said:

I only claim directly for work not sold via Alamy. Your supposition does make sense.

 

Got it now. I thought the same thing. However, I'd be surprised if there isn't some true double-dipping going on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Mine seems to have increased by about 20% - and I don't think I updated it. I think I let Alamy claim for TV a couple of years ago, but nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If it's impossible to withdraw from allowing Alamy to claim, and it has the effect DACS suggest, I'm very unhappy. But they have not been able to explain why my claim has been reduced by 82% in fact, and my late wife's claim by only 11%, when my activity in general has been higher and the submission process for DACS was followed in the same way for both. Nor do they seem particularly interested in trying to explain. I appreciate that once done, it's done, and I can not reverse it but I need to know what to avoid in future. Alamy has claimed in past years ($179 last year for us) without damaging the main claim which should be nearly entirely for non-Alamy stuff, any duplication would be a result of my finding Google books bylines. Perhaps I never authorised Alamy to claim for Shirley, without realising it. It's damaging for me as I'm mostly dependent on pension now, and DACS was worth as much as doing two months' work, it was about the same as I make out of publishing a magazine edition these days and that's all I am doing now, just six times a year, except for stock photography of course! - David

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, David Kilpatrick said:

If it's impossible to withdraw from allowing Alamy to claim, and it has the effect DACS suggest, I'm very unhappy. But they have not been able to explain why my claim has been reduced by 82% in fact, and my late wife's claim by only 11%, when my activity in general has been higher and the submission process for DACS was followed in the same way for both. Nor do they seem particularly interested in trying to explain. I appreciate that once done, it's done, and I can not reverse it but I need to know what to avoid in future. Alamy has claimed in past years ($179 last year for us) without damaging the main claim which should be nearly entirely for non-Alamy stuff, any duplication would be a result of my finding Google books bylines. Perhaps I never authorised Alamy to claim for Shirley, without realising it. It's damaging for me as I'm mostly dependent on pension now, and DACS was worth as much as doing two months' work, it was about the same as I make out of publishing a magazine edition these days and that's all I am doing now, just six times a year, except for stock photography of course! - David

 

The DACS system has changed. I just replied to you on the other thread that is running.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks Ian - I guess that could explain my reduction as a lot of my history is now very old, but it does not in any way explain Shirley's figure because she also had a lot of work published in the past. I do note that URLs are now included in uses which can be reported and this could be significant next year, depending on how many you are allowed to report. If you have list the URLs of specific images I could be spending weeks copying them... - David

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.