Frage von Freddi:
Hi - following s.die KSK discussion here recently on Slashcam we had yesterday in a relaxed atmosphere is not an everyday question regarding payments s.die KSK.
Cases, there was a very simple example: someone wants his photographs of rare flowers and plants (or animals, or buildings ... absolutely no preference), raw material as an archive for example s.Doku film stands or s.lokale TV Channel sale (the question of the success of this idea we can contact times outside the front).
Some felt that incurred in the sale of its own (usually unprocessed) material not KSK charges - no preference whether the clips are sold online or on disk - two from our group that looked different.
Since the "manufacture" these clips "of their own accord" was the result should be seen as an "artistic product in the broadest sense" -> so dutiable.
Sounds both reasonable - in the pages of the KSK, we are not (yet) has been made.
As the question for us was really more theoretical and for anyone existential nature, we would spare ourselves the course (and cost) to a "lawyer specializing in media law - perhaps somebody else knows of you about it - is basically we are concerned with the Question: yes or no tax liability.
THANK YOU!
PS How is that actually runs on these "stock footage" stock power?
Is actually nothing else and because it can (theoretically) any offer to purchase his material ...
Antwort von Alf_300:
OT
If I ect Merine pictures / videos. as a private citizen at or above iNet Sell, s.Wen Regardless of the KSK gets nothing, not at all synonymous know why there should be some art for sale
Antwort von Jott:
KSK charges do not relate to the "artist", but only the one who buys something.
Users of Blue Valley, for example (GEMA-free Music) always had to pay taxes KSK until the company had changed about a year ago, the corporate form to avoid that. So I think for sure the footage is analog - thereby license or sell you s.jemanden, one must pay the levy. The KSK is - if it's about cashing - every artist who is not at three in the trees or a limited company.
Antwort von Freddi:
KSK charges do not relate to the "artist", but only the one who buys something.
...
The KSK is - if it's about cashing - every artist who is not at three in the trees or a limited company. OK - thanks.
That is, in principle, would have a tax liability and, where that would mean, therefore, who he (as sole traders) sold for example s.einen local stations which takes care of the (commercial) recycling question .. but what if he sells s.einen dentist, the whole thing without sound on a screen in his waiting room "presents"?
And is synonymous these restrictions if it a "private person" leaves a few snippets to enhance its holiday film?
Antwort von Jott:
There must be an invoice, or nothing happens, of course.
Antwort von Freddi:
Ok - let's say he is a proper account (he is a sole trader) ...
Actually it is "only" to the question: yes or no tax liability ... and if "yes" - who pays it.
Antwort von iMac27_edmedia:
The customer buys a film of an artistic or performance of graphic designer without knowing it is liable to pay a levy KSK. End users need not pay, but commercial customers.
This concerns everyone. If the seller is a limited company but that is bypassed, all other individual entrepreneurs GbR etc. must still inform the customer, but the commercial customer is in service of artistic KSK levy required! It can then be synonymous recovery over several years, often under the Treaties of house inside, the customer removes the KSK levy! But it does not stand in it in the contract!
