RedSnapper

DACS - and REX /Shutterstock......

Recommended Posts

Received that email directly this morning, luckily REX is not suppose to have any of

my images any more, pulled out a decade ago.

 

I was surprised to see that they are now owned by SHUTTERSTOCK?  Many Many

years ago they were a good organization.

Edited by Chuck Nacke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting! Time to ask DACS how much they paid to the various agencies who have insisted on making a claim on my behalf!

 

Regen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think terminating the employee was a little drastic though. Surely just terminating his employment would have been sufficient?

 

Alan

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think terminating the employee was a little drastic though. Surely just terminating his employment would have been sufficient?

 

Alan

 

:D :D :D  We live in tough times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that agencies should not be involved in the DACS scheme. It is for artists and photographers to make their own personal claims.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that agencies should not be involved in the DACS scheme. It is for artists and photographers to make their own personal claims.

 

Yeah, it leaves the system open to abuse. I wonder if DACS will provide a tick box option to say they should not handle any application from a third party. It could act as a safe guard?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem does not initially lay with DACS. It lies first of all with the photographer who signs a contract with an agency where the small print is legally binding allowing the agency to collect on behalf of the photographer. And then with the agency which insists on making this collection by forcing the photographer to sign the permission doc for DACS. - In the case of REX it appears that they went ahead anyway without valid signatures.

 

Alamy are one of the better agencies in that they do not insist on making the collection and will even provide the photographer with most of the details required to make a claim. However they do take their 50% PLUS EXPENSES and in my case have not been prepared to tell me how much they have taken in spite of a written request. Whilst it is theoretically possible to work it out if the actual bands and combinations there of were published by DACS the only reason for using an agency to claim is not to have to get involved. What a pity there is a lack of transparency.

 

Regen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Alamy need to deduct expenses when they have already taken 50%? Surely the 50% should cover these!

Michael.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the case of REX it appears that they went ahead anyway without valid signatures."

 

No

 

They forged signatures

 

 

km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Alamy need to deduct expenses when they have already taken 50%? Surely the 50% should cover these!

Michael.

Agreed.  And since they won't tell us what the "expense" amount is, going through Alamy doesn't make sense to me (even with all my RF images).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Alamy need to deduct expenses when they have already taken 50%? Surely the 50% should cover these!

Michael.

Because when you give them authority to claim you agree to the expenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Why do Alamy need to deduct expenses when they have already taken 50%? Surely the 50% should cover these!

Michael."

 

Of course 50% should be enough but you do need to take into account that most agencies are basically greedy, lack transparency and care little about the individual photographer.

 

From the 2014 DACS payback authorisation form.

 

I further confirm that I have been made aware of the admin charges made by DACS and by the authorised representative (if applicable)

 

To date Alamy have not replied to my written request for 2014 so i had to withdraw authorisation in 2015.

 

Regen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 you do need to take into account that most agencies are basically greedy, lack transparency and care little about the individual photographer.

 

 

 

Bad form to run down your agent on a public forum. If you have a complaint take it up with MS.

If you think Alamy are "basically greedy, lack transparency and care little about the individual photographer" why not go elsewhere ?

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that agencies should not be involved in the DACS scheme. It is for artists and photographers to make their own personal claims.

 

Indeed, DACS bang on about helping creatives in the UK on their website but they, IMO, shouldn't be dealing with claims from countries that don't have reciprocal deals. After all the money is mostly tax money in origin. I certainly won't be sad to see other organisations taking a bite out of DACS if they are more focussed on what DACS are supposed to be doing. They just seem to have lost their way in past few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.. agencies should not be involved in the DACS scheme. It is for artists and photographers to make their own personal claims.

 

Agencies, traditionally, like to involve themselves with all aspects of representation and the trafficking of monies to and from a photographer. Contracts are generally very tight and there's no room for manoeuvre so you're either in, or out. I've never been with Rex so I don't know how tight their agreements are - and by default, how you can ask not them not to collect for you although it seems that they were still asking for people to sign the mandate - hence the misdemeanor.

 

It's a rum old business, alright!

 

Rgds,

Richard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

. After all the money is mostly tax money in origin.

 

What do you mean by that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

. After all the money is mostly tax money in origin.

 

What do you mean by that?

 

 

To quote DACS

 

"In fact, the money comes from a variety of collective licensing schemes, the main one being the Copyright Licensing Agency's (CLA) scheme. Every year this organisation sells photocopying licences to schools, universities, local councils, central government and business organisations."

 

That's only a part of it but take out the last one mentioned and guess who funds the rest...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

. After all the money is mostly tax money in origin.

 

What do you mean by that?

 

 

 

In the Dutch scheme (which you can claim through DACS) as well as the library stuff, there is an additional sales tax on recording media... CD's, DVD's, cassettes etc. So it is tax money... in the sense that it is money which has been taxed by the government to be redistributed by the various distribution organistaions like DACS.

 

After the actors version won a case against the government last year for short changing them the minister in charge stated that he and his party (backed up by the retail lobby) wanted to get rid of all such collection schemes. But he has recently been forced to resign after it was found that he was giving tax money to criminals.

Edited by funkyworm

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