While the Authors' Lending and Collecting Society (ALCS) has been bemoaning the predicted loss of substantial funds to distribute to its members (
here), another British collecting society has been rejoicing at its recent pay-outs: this is the Design and Artists Copyright Society (
DACS). According to a press release last Friday,
"Last month a record 14,500 visual artists enjoyed a share of £4.4 million in Payback royalties through DACS.
Payback is an annual service provided by DACS, which distributes royalties to visual artists whose work has been reproduced in UK books and magazines, and on certain UK television channels. ...
Payback royalties come from revenue generated through UK collective licensing schemes including the photocopying of books and magazines by local government departments, universities and other businesses. Collective licensing is used in situations where it would be difficult or near impossible for visual artists to licence their rights on an individual basis, for example, when a business wishes to photocopy a page of a book which features their work ...".
It's worth contrasting this with the earlier ALCS post. For DACS there's no post-Hargreaves anxiety about the threat of broader free use provisions diminishing the pot from which artists and designers are paid.
2 comments:
Thanks for posting our press release regarding our annual Payback distribution. It is always a highlight of our year to pay out these royalties to visual artists.
However, I do want to make it clear that DACS shares the concern expressed by ALCS regarding the proposals within the Government's latest consultation on copyright.
There is a very real risk of royalty income for visual artists declining as a result of these proposals.
We will be encouraging visual artists to make their views heard in the consultation process.
Tania Spriggens, Director of Communications, DACS
Personally speaking, reproduction of my work is free advertising. I never seek payment , it is counter productive.
In Australia the main (limited) effect of 'licensing' agencies has been to greatly reduce the amount of publishing about artists who were in some way connected to the Management entity Viscopy.
The most significant voluntary use of copyright by any group of Australian artists was to try to prevent the use of sacred indigenous images as carpet patterns; It was definitely not about payment for use.
As for levies on student copying ,taxes on education are a very dim anti-growth idea. Personally I love it if they do copy, they are offspring.
Post a Comment