Jump to content

Recommended Posts

With the $70 I received recently as my part of the DACS claims from Alamy and the reports in this thread, I am not prepared to take over the reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way i understand it if you do not supply isbn numbers you will not get a cut of another pot of money (which is a lot smaller). You will still get a cut of the normal pot of money. Will alamy search through for every sales isbn numbers? I am not sure. Even if they do will the extra you make from the extra pot be more than the 50% they take from your main payout. I personally dont think so , so i will continue submitting myself

Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest, how do you make an accurate, self-filed DACS claim when Alamy does not provide us with sufficient details relating to image sales? DACS requires ISBN/ISSN and relevant publication titles as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hotbrightsky, I have wondered this myself. It does appear that there is a void of specific info needed to claim under the ISBN numbers. First you have to know where the image appeared. Without that you can only use some of the on-line search companies to track that search. It does seam that if you are going to have such a good program as the DACS, then the needed info needs to be provided. Especially if you live elsewhere than UK.

Have a good Christmas or Holiday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Online search engines are of no use to identify images which appear in print publications, and these are the images that DACS is concerned with I believe.

 

By withholding sales details from us and then claiming a percentage to make DACS claims on our behalf, using that same information, Alamy is exploiting their position at our expense surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but then Alamy is our agent and the publishers are its customers, not ours.

Exploiting a position is what a business does, as long as it's done lawfully.  We provide the product, it provides the market. It has information we don't have, and it sells it on to us.

We have the option of making our own claim on less informstion.

In my case, I win, because I know my volume so there can't be much that i''ve missed.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Online search engines are of no use to identify images which appear in print publications, and these are the images that DACS is concerned with I believe.

 

By withholding sales details from us and then claiming a percentage to make DACS claims on our behalf, using that same information, Alamy is exploiting their position at our expense surely?

 

I find myself in the embarrassing position of having inadvertently claimed twice, through DACs myself, and having Alamy make a claim on my behalf. The Alamy payment was the larger of the two. In future I'll be allowing Alamy to do the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Online search engines are of no use to identify images which appear in print publications, and these are the images that DACS is concerned with I believe.

 

By withholding sales details from us and then claiming a percentage to make DACS claims on our behalf, using that same information, Alamy is exploiting their position at our expense surely?

 

I find myself in the embarrassing position of having inadvertently claimed twice, through DACs myself, and having Alamy make a claim on my behalf. The Alamy payment was the larger of the two. In future I'll be allowing Alamy to do the work.

 

I've mentioned this.

You should send back the DACS payment, then the rest of us will get a crack at it next year.

A few posters have said they didn't get the opt-out email, but even if they didn't it's referred to in the new contract.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the second year I've had a DACS payment - $140.13 added to my January payout. Since I'm in the US and really don't have a clue about DACS I'm happy to have Alamy claim for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've mentioned this.

You should send back the DACS payment, then the rest of us will get a crack at it next year.

A few posters have said they didn't get the opt-out email, but even if they didn't it's referred to in the new contract.

 

I did get the DACS email last year, but didn't get the email about the new contract. If I didn't follow these forums I wouldn't have known about the contract changes.

 

I remember others at the time the contract changed also didn't get the email, but I know many did. I think Alamy should look into why not everyone is sent important emails.

 

Geoff.

 

 

I had the email from Alamy this year and sent an opt in reply for Alamy to process my DACS claim. I emailed and queried why i had not had any payment to be told they had not heard

from me since 2014. I forwarded a copy of the email i sent then,they are looking into this and will get back to me after the holidays. I wish I had claimed through DACS this year, looks like i will miss out altogether.

 

 

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I find myself in the embarrassing position of having inadvertently claimed twice, through DACs myself, and having Alamy make a claim on my behalf. The Alamy payment was the larger of the two. In future I'll be allowing Alamy to do the work.

 

I've mentioned this.

You should send back the DACS payment, then the rest of us will get a crack at it next year.

A few posters have said they didn't get the opt-out email, but even if they didn't it's referred to in the new contract.

Mark, as I made plain in a previous posting, I contacted DACs as soon as I was aware of the error. Not sure what else I can do!

 

Thinking back, I don't recall the e-mail that you refer to, and I have never read (and probably never will read) the small print of the Alamy contract, but I suspect that, had I received the email during my holiday, I may have deleted it assuming that it was a repeat of the previous year's offer which required a positive response to allow Alamy to collect on contributors' behalf. It appears that I am not alone in this.

 

Water under the bridge, time to move on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I am over here in Sweden I am very happy that Alamy claims DACS for me. Wouldn't have got it otherwise. I got $240 last year and §234 this year, so I'm quite pleased.

Rolf

Stockholm, Sweden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why some of you say "Since I don't live in the UK I'm happy to have Alamy claim on my behalf".  You don't have to live in UK to file the claim yourself.  It makes no difference where you live.

Edited by tarsierspectral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I find myself in the embarrassing position of having inadvertently claimed twice, through DACs myself, and having Alamy make a claim on my behalf. The Alamy payment was the larger of the two. In future I'll be allowing Alamy to do the work.

I've mentioned this.

You should send back the DACS payment, then the rest of us will get a crack at it next year.

A few posters have said they didn't get the opt-out email, but even if they didn't it's referred to in the new contract.

Mark, as I made plain in a previous posting, I contacted DACs as soon as I was aware of the error. Not sure what else I can do!

 

Thinking back, I don't recall the e-mail that you refer to, and I have never read (and probably never will read) the small print of the Alamy contract, but I suspect that, had I received the email during my holiday, I may have deleted it assuming that it was a repeat of the previous year's offer which required a positive response to allow Alamy to collect on contributors' behalf. It appears that I am not alone in this.

 

Water under the bridge, time to move on.

 

FYI 15/6/16.

The links are live.

 

We've made some changes

 

68089_alamy_transparent.png s.gif

Changes to your Contributor contract

Hi Mark

 

We've made some changes to the Alamy contract and we're writing to give you 45 days notice of these changes.

The new contract is here and the key changes are listed here. The changes will come into place on 30th July 2016.

 

We don't need anything from you, but we recommend you keep a copy of the contract for your records once you've read it through.  

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems Alamy has made a claim for me. It's less than I made myself, as I also sell elsewhere, but they must have identified more relevant Alamy files than I did.

I didn't notice that clause in the revised contract, and can't find the reference to DACS in that link posted in the previous post.

Could you please specify the clause which mentions DACS?

Tx

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't notice that clause in the revised contract, and can't find the reference to DACS in that link posted in the previous post.

Could you please specify the clause which mentions DACS?

Tx

 

Clause 28...  for DACS read 'Collecting Society'

 

http://tinyurl.com/zkdeh2j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't notice that clause in the revised contract, and can't find the reference to DACS in that link posted in the previous post.

Could you please specify the clause which mentions DACS?

Tx

 

Clause 28...  for DACS read 'Collecting Society'

 

http://tinyurl.com/zkdeh2j

 

Thank you; no wonder I missed it, that's a bit sneaky IMO.

Not realising that meant DACS, I'd assumed that as Alamy hadn't claimed for me before, that would be the status quo going on, unless I told them otherwise.

I'll send my payment from Alamy back to DACS, but presumably Alamy will need to send theirs too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I didn't notice that clause in the revised contract, and can't find the reference to DACS in that link posted in the previous post.

Could you please specify the clause which mentions DACS?

Tx

 

Clause 28...  for DACS read 'Collecting Society'

 

http://tinyurl.com/zkdeh2j

 

Thank you; no wonder I missed it, that's a bit sneaky IMO.

Not realising that meant DACS, I'd assumed that as Alamy hadn't claimed for me before, that would be the status quo going on, unless I told them otherwise.

I'll send my payment from Alamy back to DACS, but presumably Alamy will need to send theirs too?

 

 

I informed both Alamy and DACS straight away, and let them sort it out. Within a day I had the statement 'DACS Payment 2016 reversal' posted in to my balance account.

 

By the way, do other picture libraries try and get a slice of DACS etc. from contributors ?  Another library I'm with don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By the way, do other picture libraries try and get a slice of DACS etc. from contributors ? 

 

 

 

 

It is their slice of Christmas cake. :)

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I didn't notice that clause in the revised contract, and can't find the reference to DACS in that link posted in the previous post.

Could you please specify the clause which mentions DACS?

Tx

 

Clause 28...  for DACS read 'Collecting Society'

 

http://tinyurl.com/zkdeh2j

 

Thank you; no wonder I missed it, that's a bit sneaky IMO.

 

Not really- the term has to be widely drawn because DACS isn't the only collecting society and it may not always be the only show in town for photographers.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I didn't notice that clause in the revised contract, and can't find the reference to DACS in that link posted in the previous post.

Could you please specify the clause which mentions DACS?

Tx

 

Clause 28...  for DACS read 'Collecting Society'

 

http://tinyurl.com/zkdeh2j

 

Thank you; no wonder I missed it, that's a bit sneaky IMO.

Not realising that meant DACS, I'd assumed that as Alamy hadn't claimed for me before, that would be the status quo going on, unless I told them otherwise.

I'll send my payment from Alamy back to DACS, but presumably Alamy will need to send theirs too?

 

 

I informed both Alamy and DACS straight away, and let them sort it out. Within a day I had the statement 'DACS Payment 2016 reversal' posted in to my balance account.

 

By the way, do other picture libraries try and get a slice of DACS etc. from contributors ?  Another library I'm with don't.

 

Thanks. I'll do that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to file my own DACS claim. I don't see why agencies should take a percentage of money intended for creators.

 

Is it possible to get the necessary information from Alamy or not in other people's experience? Do Alamy even have this information themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to file my own DACS claim. I don't see why agencies should take a percentage of money intended for creators.

 

Is it possible to get the necessary information from Alamy or not in other people's experience? Do Alamy even have this information themselves?

They do and they won't give it to you. See my post no. 61.

Nonetheless it's possible to gather enough information yourself to make a meaningful claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is about DACS, can I vent about withholding tax again?

Last year I went through a whole lot of trouble getting DACS to reverse the UK tax they withheld.  In the end they paid it back to me rather than me claiming from HMRC. 

I filled in the form for HMRC, signed by the Canadian government to avoid withholding tax for at least the next 5 years.

Guess what?  DACS withheld my 50 bucks again.  Arghh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy is using the term "Collecting Agency" because things may change soon. DACs is about to have competition (that's a kindly way of putting it) and Alamy may well be considering their options when things become clearer. So nothing "sneaky" on the part of Alamy in this regard

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

×
×
  • 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.