Royalties From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Not to be confused with Royal family.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2012) This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (January 2012) This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2008) Royalties (sometimes, running royalties, or private sector taxes) are usage-base d payments made by one party (the "licensee") to another (the "licensor") for th e right to ongoing use of an asset, sometimes an intellectual property (IP). Roy alties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derive d from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, bu t there are also other modes and metrics of compensation.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] A royalty interest is the right to collect a stream of future royalty payments, o ften used in the oil and music industries to describe a percentage ownership of future production or revenues from a given leasehold, which may be divested from the original owner of the asset.[8] A license agreement defines the terms under which a resource or property such as petroleum, minerals, patents, trademarks, and copyrights are licensed by one pa rty to another, either without restriction or subject to a limitation on term, b usiness or geographic territory, type of product, etc. License agreements can be regulated, particularly where a government is the resource owner, or they can b e private contracts that follow a general structure. However, certain types of f ranchise agreements have comparable provisions.[clarification needed] Contents [hide] 1 Non-renewable resource royalties 2 Patent royalties 2.1 Patent royalty rates 3 Trade mark royalties 3.1 Trade mark royalty rates 3.2 Franchises 4 Copyright 5 Book publishing royalties 6 Music royalties 6.1 Print rights in music 6.1.1 Brief history 6.1.1.1 American contribution: The Origins of Music Copyright and Royalties 6.2 Print royalties (music) 6.3 Foreign publishing 6.4 Mechanical royalties 6.5 Performance royalties 6.5.1 Conventional forms of royalty payment 6.6 Royalties in digital distribution 6.6.1 US regulatory provisions 6.6.2 UK legislation 6.7 Synchronization royalties 6.8 Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 7 Art royalties 7.1 Resale royalty or droit de suite 7.2 Artwork royalties 8 Software royalties 9 Other royalty arrangements 9.1 Alliances and partnerships 9.1.1 Technical Assistance and Technical Service in technology transfer 10 Approaches to royalty rate 10.1 Intellectual property

10.2 Rate determination and illustrative royalties 10.2.1 Cost approach 10.2.2 Comparable market approach 10.2.3 Income approach 10.3 Other compensation modes 11 See also 12 References 13 External links Non-renewable resource royalties[edit] The owner of petroleum and mineral resources may licence a party to extract thos e resources while paying a resource rent, or a royalty on the value or the resul tant profits. When a government is the owner of the resource the terms of the li cence and the royalty rate are typically legislated or regulated. In the United States, Fee simple ownership of the mineral is possible by a private individual, therefore payments of mineral royalties to private citizens occurs quite often. Local taxing authorities may impose a severance tax on the unrenewable natural resources extracted (or severed) from within their authority. The Federal Govern ment receives royalties on production on federal lands, managed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Mana gement Service. An example from Canada's north is the federal Frontier Lands petroleum royalty r egime. The royalty rate is determined as an incremental rate from 1 5% of gross re venues until costs have been recovered, at which point the royalty rate increase s to 30% of net revenues or 5% of gross revenues. In this manner risks and profi ts are shared between the government of Canada (as resource owner) and the petro leum developer. This attractive royalty rate is intended to encourage oil and ga s exploration in the remote Canadian frontier lands where costs and risks are hi gher than other locations.[citation needed] In many jurisdictions oil and gas royalty interests are considered real property under the NAICS classification code and qualify for a 1031 like-kind exchange.[ 9] Royalties are paid as a set percentage on all revenue, without regard to profits or revenues to the operator. As a standard example, for every $100 bbl of oil s old on a U.S. federal well with a 25% royalty, the U.S. government receives $25. The U.S. government does not pay and will only collect revenues. All risk and l iability lie upon the operator of the well. Royalties in the forestry industry are called "stumpage". Patent royalties[edit] Licensing of patents Overviews Licensing Royalties Types Compulsory licensing Cross-licensing Defensive Patent License Defensive terminat ion Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND, RAND) Shop right Strategies Catch and release Defensive patent aggregation Patentleft Patent monetization Pa tent pool Stick licensing Clauses in patent licenses Field-of-use limitation v t e A patent[4][5] gives the owner an exclusive right to prevent others from practis ing the patented technology in the country issuing the patent for the term of th e patent. The right may be enforced in a lawsuit for monetary damages and/or imp risonment for violation on the patent. In accordance with a patent licence, roya lties are paid to the patent owner in exchange for the right to practise one or more of the four basic patent rights: to manufacture with, to use, to sell, or t o advertise for sale of a patented technology. Patent rights may be divided and licensed out in various ways, on an exclusive o

r non-exclusive basis. The licence may be subject to limitations as to time or t erritory. A licence may encompass an entire technology or it may involve a mere component or improvement on a technology. In the United States, "reasonable" roy alties may be imposed, both after-the-fact and prospectively, by a court as a re medy for infringement. Patent royalty rates[edit] The following are prevalent rates for gross sales within the United States pharm aceutical industry:[10] a pending patent on a strong business plan, royalties of the order of 1% issued patent, 1%+ to 2% the pharmaceutical with pre-clinical testing, 2 3% with clinical trials, 3 4% proven drug with US FDA approval, 5 7% drug with market share, 8 10% With regards to the actual rates of royalty payments in the industry, the Licens ing Economics Review,[11][12] reported in 2002 that in a review of 458 licence a greements, over a 16-year period, it found that an average royalty rate of 7.0%. However, the range extended from 0% to 50%. All of these agreements may not hav e been at "arms length". In the Arab countries, it may be found, that a royalty as a percentage of sales may be difficult to transact; a flat fee may be preferred as percentages may be interpreted as percentage of profit.[13] Trade mark royalties[edit] Trade marks are words, logos, slogans, sounds, or other distinctive expressions that distinguish the source, origin, or sponsorship of a good or service (in whi ch they are generally known as service marks). Trade marks offer the public a me ans of identifying and assuring themselves of the quality of the good or service . They may bring consumers a sense of security, integrity, belonging, and a vari ety of intangible appeals. The value that inures to a trade mark in terms of pub lic recognition and acceptance is known as goodwill. A trade mark right is an exclusive right to sell or market under that mark withi n a geographic territory. The rights may be licensed to allow a company other th an the owner to sell goods or services under the mark. A company may seek to lic ense a trade mark it did not create in order to achieve instant name recognition rather than accepting the cost and risk of entering the market under its own br and that the public does not necessarily know or accept. Licensing a trade mark allows the company to take advantage of already-established goodwill and brand i dentification. Like patent royalties, trade mark royalties may be assessed and divided in a var iety of different ways, and are expressed as a percentage of sales volume or inc ome, or a fixed fee per unit sold. When negotiating rates, one way companies val ue a trade mark is to assess the additional profit they will make from increased sales and higher prices (sometimes known as the "relief from royalty") method. Trade mark rights and royalties are often tied up in a variety of other arrangem ents. Trade marks are often applied to an entire brand of products and not just a single one. Because trade mark law has as a public interest goal of the protec tion of a consumer, in terms of getting what they are paying for, trade mark lic ences are only effective if the company owning the trade mark also obtains some assurance in return that the goods will meet its quality standards. When the rig hts of trade mark are licensed along with a know-how, supplies, pooled advertisi ng, etc., the result is often a franchise relationship. Franchise relationships may not specifically assign royalty payments to the trade mark licence, but may involve monthly fees and percentages of sales, among other payments. Trade mark royalty rates[edit] In a long-running dispute in the United States involving the valuation of the DH L trade mark of DHL Corporation,[14] it was reported that experts employed by th e IRS surveyed a wide range of businesses and found a broad range of royalties f or trade mark use from a low of 0.1% to a high of 15%. Franchises[edit]

While a payment to employ a trade mark licence is a royalty, it is accompanied b y a "guided usage manual", the use of which may be audited from time to time. Ho wever, this becomes a supervisory task when the mark is used in a franchise agre ement for the sale of goods or services carrying the reputation of the mark. For a franchise, it is said, a fee is paid, even though it comprises a royalty elem ent. To be a franchise, the agreement must be a composite of the items: the right to use a trade mark to offer, sell or distribute goods or services (th e trademark element) payment of a required royalty or fee (the fee element) significant assistance or control with respect to the franchisee s business (the s upervisory element) One of the above three items must not apply for the franchise agreement to be co nsidered a trade mark agreement (and its laws and conventions). In a franchise, for which there is no convention, laws apply concerning training, brand support, operating systems/support and technical support in a written format ("Disclosur e").[15] Copyright[edit] Copyright law gives the owner the right to prevent others from copying, creating derivative works, or using their works. Copyrights, like patent rights, can be divided in many different ways, by the right implicated, by specific geographic or market territories, or by more specific criteria. Each may be the subject of a separate license and royalty arrangements. Copyright royalties are often very specific to the nature of work and field of e ndeavor. With respect to music, royalties for performance rights in the United S tates are set by the Library of Congress' Copyright Royalty Board. Mechanical ri ghts to recordings of a performance are usually managed by one of several perfor mance rights organizations. Payments from these organizations to performing arti sts are known as residuals. Royalty-free music provides more direct compensation to the artists. In 1999, recording artists formed the Recording Artists' Coalit ion to repeal supposedly "technical revisions" to American copyright statutes wh ich would have classified all "sound recordings" as "works for hire", effectivel y assigning artists' copyrights to record labels.[16][17] Book authors may sell their copyright to the publisher. Alternatively, they migh t receive as a royalty a certain amount per book sold. It is common in the UK fo r example, for authors to receive a 10% royalty on book sales. Some photographers and musicians may choose to publish their works for a one-tim e payment. This is known as a royalty-free license. Book publishing royalties[edit] All book-publishing royalties are paid by the publisher, who determines an autho r's royalty rate, except in rare cases in which the author can demand high advan ces and royalties. For most cases, the publishers advance an amount (part of the royalty) which can constitute the bulk of the author s total income plus whatever little flows from the "running royalty" stream. Some costs may be attributed to the advance paid, which depletes further advances to be paid or from the running royalty paid. The author and the publisher can independently draw up the agreement that binds the m or alongside an agent representing the author. There are many risks for the au thor definition of cover price, the retail price, "net price", the discounts on th e sale, the bulk sales on the POD (publish on demand) platform, the term of the agreement, audit of the publishers accounts in case of impropriety, etc. which a n agent can provide. The following illustrates the income to an author on the basis chosen for royalt y, particularly in POD, which minimizes losses from inventory and is based on co mputer technologies. Book-publishing Royalties - "Net" and "Retail" Compared Retail Basis Net Basis Cover Price 15.00 15.00

Discount to Booksellers 50% 50% Wholesale Price, $ 7.50 7.50 Printing Cost,$ (200 pp Book) 3.50 3.50 Net Income,$ 4.00 4.00 Royalty Rate 20% 20% Royalty Calcn. 0.20x15 0.20x4 Royalty,$ 3.00 0.80 Hardback royalties on the published price of trade books usually range from 10% to 12.5%, with 15% for more important authors. On paperback it is usually 7.5% t o 10%, going up to 12.5% only in exceptional cases. All the royalties displayed below are on the "cover price". Paying 15% to the author can mean that the other 85% of the cost pays for editing and proof-reading, printing and binding, overh eads, and the profits (if any) to the publisher. The publishing company pays no royalty on bulk purchases of books since the buyi ng price may be a third of the cover price sold on a singles basis. Unlike the UK, the United States does not specify a "maximum retail price" for b ooks that serves as base for calculation. Music royalties[edit] Unlike other forms of intellectual property, music royalties have a strong linka ge to individuals composers (score), songwriters (lyrics) and writers of musical plays in that they can own the exclusive copyright to created music and can lic ense it for performance independent of corporates. Recording companies and the p erforming artists that create a "sound recording" of the music enjoy a separate set of copyrights and royalties from the sale of recordings and from their digit al transmission (depending on national laws). With the advent of pop music and major innovations in technology in the communic ation and presentations of media, the subject of music royalties has become a co mplex field with considerable change in the making. A musical composition obtains protection in copyright law immediate to its reduc tion to tangible form a score on paper or a taping; but it is not protected from infringed use unless registered with the copyright authority; for instance, the Copyright Office in the United States, administered by the Library of Congress. No person or entity, other than the copyright owner, can use or employ the musi c for gain without obtaining a license from the composer/songwriter. Inherently, as copyright, it confers on its owner, a distinctive "bundle" of fiv e exclusive rights: (a) to make copies of the songs through print or recordings (b) to distribute them to the public for profit (c) to the "public performance right"; live or through a recording (d) to create a derivative work to include elements of the original music; and (e) to "display" it (not very relevant in context). Where the score and the lyric of a composition are contributions of different pe rsons, each of them is an equal owner of such rights. These exclusivities have led to the evolution of distinct commercial terminology used in the music industry. They take four forms: (1) royalties from "print rights" (2) mechanical royalties from the recording of composed music on CDs and tape (3) performance royalties from the performance of the compositions/songs on stag e or television through artists and bands, and (4) synch (for synchronization) royalties from using or adapting the musical sco re in the movies, television advertisements, etc. and With the advent of the internet, an additional set of royalties has come into pl ay: the digital rights from simulcasting, webcasting, streaming, downloading, an d online "on-demand service". In the following the terms "composer" and "songwriter" (either lyric or score) a re synonymous.

Print rights in music[edit] Brief history[edit] While the focus here is on royalty rates pertaining to music marketed in the pri nt form or "sheet music", its discussion is a prelude to the much more important and larger sources of royalty income today from music sold in media such as CDs , television and the internet. Sheet music is the first form of music to which royalties were applied, which wa s then gradually extended to other formats. Any performance of music by singers or bands requires that it be first reduced to its written sheet form from which the "song" (score) and its lyric are read. Otherwise, the authenticity of its or igin, essential for copyright claims will be lost as has been the case with folk songs and American "westerns" propagated by the aural tradition. The ability to print music arises from a series of technological developments in print and art histories over a long span of time (from the 11th to the 18th cen tury) of which two will be highlighted. The first, and commercially successful, invention was the development of the "mo vable type" printing press, the Gutenberg press in the 15th century. It was used to print the well-known Gutenberg bible and later the printing system enabled p rinted music. Printed music, till then, tended to be one line chants. The diffic ulty in using movable type for music is that all the elements must align the not e head must be properly aligned with the staff, lest it have an unintended meani ng. Musical notation was well developed by then, originating around 1025. Guido d'Ar ezzo developed a system of pitch notation using lines and spaces. Until this tim e, only two lines had been used. Guido expanded this system to four lines, and i nitiated the idea of ledger lines by adding lines above or below these lines as needed. He used square notes called neumes. This system eliminated any uncertain ty of pitch which existed at that time. Guido also developed a system of clefs, which became the basis for our clef system: bass clef, treble clef, and so on. ( Co-existing civilizations used other forms of notation). In Europe, the major consumers of printed music in the 17th and 18th centuries w ere the royal courts for both solemn and festive occasions. Music was also emplo yed for entertainment, both by the courts and the nobility. Composers made their livings from commissioned work, and worked as conductors, performers and tutors of music or through appointments to the courts. To a certain extent, music publ ishers also paid composers for rights to print music, but this was not royalty a s it is generally understood today. The European Church was also a large user of music, both religious and secular. However, performances were largely based on hand-written music or aural training . American contribution: The Origins of Music Copyright and Royalties[edit] Until the mid-18th century, American popular music largely consisted of songs fr om the British Isles, whose lyric and score were sometimes available in engraved prints. Mass production of music was not possible until the movable type was in troduced. Music with this type was first printed in the US in 1750.[18] At the b eginning the type consisted of the notehead, stem and staff which were combined into a single font. Later the fonts were made up of the notehead, stems and flag s attached to the staff line. Until that time, prints existed only on engraved p lates. The first federal law on copyright was enacted in the US Copyright Act of 1790 w hich made it possible to give protection to original scores and lyrics. America's most prominent contribution is jazz and all the music styles which pre ceded and co-exist with it its variations on church music, African-American work songs, cornfield hollers, wind bands in funeral procession, blues, rag, etc. an d of innovations in church music, rhythmic variations, stamping, tapping of feet , strutting, shuffling, wailing, laments and spiritual ecstasy. Until its recent sophistication, jazz was not amenable to written form, and thus not copyrightable, due to its improvisational element and the fact that many of the creators of this form could not read or write music.[19] It was its precurs or, minstrelsy, which came to be written and royalties paid for the use of popul

ar music. Blackface minstrelsy, in which white men parodied black music of the day with ma keup-blackened faces was the first distinctly theatrical form. In the 1830s and 1840s, it was at the core of the rise of an American music industry. For several decades it provided the means through which white America saw black America. Th e blackfaces were not products of the American South, but first prevailed in the midwest and the north, starting in low-level white establishments, and later mo ving to upscale theaters. White, working-class northerners could identify with t he characters portrayed in early performances with images of "white slavery" and "wage slavery".[20] In 1845, the blackfaces purged their shows of low humor. Christy's Minstrels, fo rmed by C.F. Christy, among the major minstrels of that time, was to epitomize t he songs of its best known composer, Stephen Foster. Stephen Foster was the pre-eminent songwriter in the United States of that time. His songs, such as "Oh! Susanna", "Camptown Races", "My Old Kentucky Home", "Be autiful Dreamer" and "Swanee River") remain popular 150 years after their compos ition and have worldwide appreciation.[21] Foster had little formal music training. While he was able to publish several so ngs before he was twenty, his sophistication came from Henry Kleber and Dan Rice . Kleber was a classically-trained German immigrant, and Rice was a popular blac kface performer who befriended Foster. But it was his joining the Christy Minstr els which made him, and his songs, favorites in North America. W.C. Peters was the first major publisher of Foster s works, but Foster saw very l ittle of the profits. "Oh, Susanna" was an overnight success and a Goldrush favo rite but Foster received just $100 from his publisher for it - in part due to hi s lack of interest in money and the free gifts of music he gave to him. Foster's first love lay in writing music and its success. Foster did later contract with Christy (for $15 each) for "Old Folks at Home" and "Farewell my Lilly Dear". "O h, Susanna" also led Foster to two New York publishers, Firth, Pond and Co. and F.D. Benson, who contracted with him to pay royalties at 2 cents for every print ed copy sold by them.[22] Minstrelsy slowly gave way to songs generated by the American Civil War, followe d by the rise of Tin Pan Alley and Parlour music,[23] both of which led to an ex plosion of sheet music, greatly aided by the emergence of the player piano. Whil e the player piano was to make inroads deep into the 20th century, more and more music was reproduced through radio and the phonograph, leading to new forms of royalty payments, but leading to the decline of sheet music. American innovations in church music also provided royalties to its creators. Wh ile Stephen Foster is often credited as the originator of print music in America , William Billings is the real father of American music. In 1782, of the 264 mus ic compositions in print, 226 were his church-related compositions. Similarly, B illings was the composer of a quarter of the 200 anthems published until 1810. N either he nor his family saw any royalties, although the Copyright Act of 1790 w as in place by then. Church music plays a significant part in American print royalties. When the Luth eran Church split from the Catholic Church in the 16th century, more than religi on changed. Martin Luther wanted his entire congregation to take part in the mus ic of his services, not just the choir. This new chorale style finds its way in both present church music and jazz. Print royalties (music)[edit] The royalty rate for printing a book, or its download,(a novel, lyrics or music) for sale varies from 8 20% of the suggested retail sales value, typically 12 14%, f or a new writer. The payment is made by the publisher and corresponds to the agr eement (license) between the writer and the publisher as with other music royalt ies. The agreement is typically non-exclusive to the publisher and the term may vary from 3 5 years. Established writers favor certain publishers and usually rece ive higher royalties. All of the royalty does not occur to the writer. It is shared with the publisher on of book sales income on a 50:50 basis. If a book involved is a play, it might be dramatized. The right to dramatize is

a separate right known as a grand right. This income is shared by the many perso nalities and organizations who come together to offer the play: the playwright, composer of the music played, producer, director of the play and so forth. There is no convention to the royalties paid for grand rights and it is freely negoti ated between the publisher and the mentioned participants. If the writer s work is only part of a publication, then the royalty paid is pro-r ata, a facet which is more often met in a book of lyrics or in a book of hymns a nd sometimes in an anthology. Church music that is, music that is based on written work is important particula rly in the Americas and in some other countries of Europe. Examples are hymns, a nthems and songbooks. Unlike novels and plays, hymns are sung with regularity. V ery often, the hymns and songs are sung from lyrics in a book, or more common no wadays, from the work projected on computer screen. In the US, the Christian Cop yright Licensing Incorporated is the collection agency for royalties but song or hymn writers have to be registered with them and the songs identified.[24] Foreign publishing[edit] Viewed from a US perspective, foreign publishing involves two basic types of pub lishing sub-publishing and co-publishing occurrences in one or more territories outside that of basic origin. Sub-publishing, itself, is one of two forms: sub-p ublishers who merely license out the original work or those which make and sell the products which are the subject of the license, such as print books and recor ds (with local artists performing the work). Sub-publishers who produce and market a product retain 10 15% of the marked retail price and remit the balance to the main publisher with whom they have the copyr ight license. Those sub-publishers who merely license out the work earn between 15 25%.[25] Mechanical royalties[edit] The term "mechanical" and mechanical license has its origins in the "piano rolls " on which music was recorded in the early part of the 20th Century. Although it s concept is now primarily oriented to royalty income from sale of compact discs (CDs), its scope is wider and covers any copyrighted audio composition that is rendered mechanically; that is, without human performers: tape recordings music videos ringtones MIDI files downloaded tracks DVDs, VHS, UMDs computer games musical toys etc. The United States treatment of mechanical royalties is in sharp contrast to inte rnational practice. In the United States, while the right to use copyrighted music for making record s for public distribution (for private use) is an exclusive right of the compose r, the Copyright Act provides that once the music is so recorded, anyone else ca n record the composition/song without a negotiated license but on the payment of the statutory compulsory royalty. Thus, its use by different artists could lead to several separately-owned copyrighted "sound recordings". The following is a partial segment of the compulsory rates as they have applied from 1998 to 2007 in the United States.[26] The royalty rates in the table have two elements: (i) a minimum rate applies for a duration equivalent to 5 minutes, or less, of a musical composition/song and (ii) a per-minute rate if the compos ition exceeds it, whichever is greater. Compulsory Mechanical Royalty Rates - United States Period Royalty Rate 1 January 1998 31 December 1999 7.10 cents or 1.35 cents/min 1 January 2000 31 December 2001 7.55 cents or 1.43 cents/min 1 January 2002 31 December 2003 8.00 cents or 1.55 cents/min 1 January 2004 31 December 2005 8.50 cents or 1.65 cents/min 1 January 2006 31 December 2007 9.10 cents or 1.75 cents/min

In the predominant case, the composer assigns the song copyright to a publishing company under a "publishing agreement" which makes the publisher exclusive owne r of the composition. The publisher's role is to promote the music by extending the written music to recordings of vocal, instrumental and orchestral arrangemen ts and to administer the collection of royalties (which, as will shortly be seen , is in reality done by specialized companies). The publisher also licenses 'sub publishers' domestically and in other countries to similarly promote the music a nd administer the collection of royalties. In a fair publishing agreement, every 100 units of currency that flows to the pu blisher gets divided as follows: 50 units go to the songwriter and 50 units to t he publisher minus operating and administrative fees and applicable taxes. Howev er, the music writer obtains a further 25 units from the publisher's share, if t he music writer retains a portion of the music publishing rights (as a co-publis her). In effect, the co-publishing agreement is a 50/50 share of royalties in fa vor of the songwriter if administrative costs of publishing are disregarded. Thi s is near international practice. When a company (recording label) records the composed music, say, on a CD master , it obtains a distinctly separate copyright to the sound recording, with all th e exclusivities that flow to such copyright. The main obligation of the recordin g label to the songwriter and her publisher is to pay the contracted royalties o n the license received. While the compulsory rates remain unaffected, recording companies in the U.S. ty pically will negotiate to pay not more than 75% of the compulsory rate where the songwriter is also the recording artist[27] and will further (in the U.S.) exte nd that to a maximum of 10 songs, even though the marketed recording may carry m ore than that number. This 'reduced rate' results from the incorporation of a "c ontrolled composition" clause in the licensing contract[28] since the composer a s recording artist is seen to control the content of the recording. Mechanical royalties for music produced outside of the United States are negotia there being no compulsory licensing and royalty payments to the composer and ted her publisher for recordings are based on the wholesale, retail, or "suggested retail value" of the marketed CDs. Recording artists earn royalties only from the sale of CDs and tapes and, as wil l be seen later, from sales arising from digital rights. Where the song-writer i s also the recording artist, royalties from CD sales add to those from the recor ding contract. In the U.S., recording artists earn royalties amounting to 10% 25% (of the suggest ed retail price of the recording[29] depending on their popularity but such is b efore deductions for "packaging", "breakage", "promotion sales" and holdback for "returns", which act to significantly reduce net royalty incomes. In the U.S., the Harry Fox Agency, HFA, is the predominant licensor, collector a nd distributor for mechanical royalties, although there are several small compet ing organizations. For its operations, it charges about 6% as commission. HFA, l ike its counterparts in other countries, is a state-approved quasi-monopoly and is expected to act in the interests of the composers/song-writers and thus obtai ns the right to audit record company sales. Additional third party administrator s such as RightsFlow provide services to license, account and pay mechanical roy alties and are growing. RightsFlow is paid by the licensees (artists, labels, di stributors, online music services) and in turn does not extract a commission fro m the mechanical royalties paid out.[30] In the UK the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society, MCPS (now in alliance wit h PRS), acts to collect (and distribute) royalties to composers, songwriters and publishers for CDs and for digital formats. It is a not-for-profit organization which funds its work through a commissions on aggregate revenues. The royalty r ate for licensing tracks is 6.5% of retail price (or 8.5% of the published whole sale price). In Europe, the major licensing and mechanical royalty collection societies are: SACEM in France[31] GEMA in Germany[32] SFA in Italy[33]

SACEM acts collectively for "francophone" countries in Africa. The UK society al so has strong links with English-speaking African countries. Mechanical societies for other countries can be found at the main national colle ction societies.[34] The mechanical royalty rate paid to the publisher in Europe is about 6.5% on the PPD (published price to dealers).[35] Record companies are responsible for paying royalties to those artists who have performed for a recording based on the sale of CDs by retailers. Performance royalties[edit] "Performance" in the music industry can include any of the following: a performance of a song or composition live, recorded or broadcast a live performance by any musician a performance by any musician through a recording on physical media performance through the playing of recorded music music performed through the web (digital transmissions) It is useful to treat these royalties under two classifications: (a) those associated with conventional forms of music distribution which have pr evailed for most part of the 20th Century, and (b) those from emerging 'digital rights' associated with newer forms of communic ation, entertainment and media technologies (from 'ring tones' to 'downloads' to 'live internet streaming'. In the United Kingdom, the Church of England is specifically exempted from perfo rmance royalties for music performed in services because it is a state-establish ed church. Traditionally, American music publishers have not sought performance royalties for music sung and played in church services the license to perform bein g implied by distributors of church sheet music. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC exempt ch urch worship services from performance royalties, but make no exemption for chur ch-hosted concerts. Conventional forms of royalty payment[edit] In the conventional context, royalties are paid to composers and publishers and record labels for public performances of their music on vehicles such as the juk ebox, stage, radio or TV. Users of music need to obtain a "performing rights lic ense" from music societies as will be explained shortly to use the music. Perfor ming rights extend both to live and recorded music played in such diverse areas as cafs, skating rinks, etc. Licensing is generally done by music societies called "Performing Rights Organiz ations" (PROs), some of which are government-approved or government-owned, to wh ich the composer, the publisher, performer (in some cases) or the record label h ave subscribed. Bemuso-A.jpg The diagram on the right titled "The Performance Rights Complex"[36] shows the g eneral sequences by which a song or a composition gets to be titled a "performan ce" and which brings royalties to song-writers/publishers, performing artists an d record labels. How, and to whom, royalties are paid is different in the United States from what it is, for example, in the UK. Most countries have "practices" more in common with the UK than the US. In the United Kingdom there are three principal organizations: (i) Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) (ii) PRS for Music (formerly the Performing Right Society) (iii) Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society (MCPS) who license music (to music-users) and act as royalty collection and distributio n agencies for their members. PPL issues performance licenses to all UK radio, TV and broadcast stations, as w ell as establishments who employ sound recordings (tapes, CDs), in entertaining the public.[37] The licensing company collects and distributes royalties to the "record label" for the sound recording and to "featured UK performers" in the re cording. Performers do not earn from sound recordings on video and film. PRS, which is now in alliance with MCPS,[38] collects royalties from music-users and distributes them directly to "song-writers" and "publishers" whose works ar e performed live, on radio or on TV on a 50:50 basis. MCPS licenses music for br

oadcast in the range 3 to 5.25% of net advertising revenues.[39] MCPS also collects and disburses mechanical royalties to writers and publishers in a manner similar to PRS. Although allied, they serve, for now, as separate or ganizations for membership. The next diagram shows the sequences in the licensing of performances and the ro yalty collection and distribution process in the UK.[36] Every song or recording has a unique identity by which they are licensed and tracked. Details of songs or recordings are notified to the PROs directly, or through Catco, an electronic tracking system. It needs to be clarified that while blanket licenses are commo nly issued to music-users, the latter are responsible for "usage returns" the ac tual frequency of performances under the license which then becomes the basis fo r the PRO to apportion royalties to writers, publishers and record labels. ("DIY indies" are "do-it-yourself" independent song-writers and, often, the performer s as well who record and publish under their own labels). In the UK, music is li censed (and royalties paid on it) at the track level. There is also a separate organization in the UK called VPL, which is the collect ing society set up by the record industry in 1984 to grant licenses to users of music videos, e.g. broadcasters, program-makers, video jukebox system suppliers. [40] The licensing income collected from users is paid out to the society's memb ers after administrative costs are deducted. There are different models for royalty collection in the European countries. In some of them, mechanical and performing rights are administered jointly. SACEM ( France), SABAM (Belgium), GEMA (Germany) and JASRAC (Japan) work that way. In the United States, in contrast, the ASCAP, BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc) and SES AC (Society of European Stage Authors & Composers) are the three principal Perfo rmance Rights Organizations (PROs), although smaller societies exist. The royalt y that is paid to the composer and publisher is determined by the method of asse ssment used by the PRO to gage the utilization of the music, there being no exte rnal metrics as in mechanical royalties or the reporting system used in the UK. Very basically, a PRO aggregates the royalties that are due to all of the compos ers/songwriters "who are its members" and each composer and publisher is paid ro yalties based on the assessed frequency of the music s performance, post deduction s of charges (which are many). The PROs are audited agencies. They "directly" pa y the songwriter and the publisher their respective shares. (If part of the publ isher's share is retained by the songwriter, the publisher pays the songwriter t hat part of the publisher's share). Typically, the PRO negotiates blanket licenses with radio stations, television n etworks and other "music users", each of whom receives the right to perform any of the music in the repertoire of the PRO for a set sum of money. PROs use different types of surveys to determine the frequency of usage of a com position/song. ASCAP uses random sampling, SESAC utilizes cue sheets for TV perf ormances and digital pattern recognition for radio performances while BMI employs more scientific methods. In the United States only the composer and the publisher are paid performance ro yalties and not performing artists (digital rights being a different matter). Li kewise, the record label, whose music is used in a performance, is not entitled to royalties in the US on the premise that performances lead sales of records. Where a performance has co-writers along with the composer/songwriter as in a mu sical play they will share the royalty. Royalties in digital distribution[edit] The term "digital music" typically applies to Internet and wireless (mobile) tec hnologies. Digital music files can be identified by serial numbers embedded in t he data ('watermarking') or natural patterns in the data ("fingerprinting"). Dig ital music have begun to give music a different direction by their capacities to internationally distribute the music for instant hearing or storage by private and public persons. Digital music is generally expected to become the predominan t form by which music is 'used' in the longer term. Nonetheless, compact discs will continue to be the major form of musical reach a nd storage for the present. For example, revenues from the sales of CDs in the U S in 2007 far outweighed that from digital downloads, representing some 85% of m

usic sales, or 81 million units per quarter.[41] Also, as the following data ill ustrates, the amount of music (tracks) available on CDs (stored music) is extrem ely large compared to what is available in digital format:[42] PPL s CatCo holds details of over 7 million recordings There are 15 million published works with ISWC codes (and many more without) The Gracenote database[43] (CDDB) holds details of 51 million tracks Around half a million new tracks are formally released every year. In contrast to: RealNetworks license 60,000 albums for home entertainment services. The USA digital jukebox suppliers license about 200,000 tracks. There are over 2 million on XM Satellite Radio (Sirius has over 500,000). UK Inspired Broadcast Network jukebox THE music offers 2 million tracks. RedDotNet s kiosk system has over 2.5 million tracks online. There are about 20 million retail tracks on iTunes Music Store.[44] Kazaa[45] has about 1 million tracks. Last.fm[46] has a music-discovery database of 60 million titles. Nonetheless, there has been a decline in CD sales since 2000 in the US (perhaps less so in the EU). At the same time, digital tracks legally downloaded from the internet continue to be a growing force, track downloads totalling 417.3 millio n units in the first half of 2007 a 48.5% increase over the corresponding period last year according to Nielsen SoundScan.[47] Apple Inc's sale of over 100 mill ion iPods and the strong presence of iTunes and eMusic (a subscription service) in the US, and now in EU and in other 18 countries, testify to the strong emerge nce of digital music. This is further emphasized by the large presence of intern et broadcasts of live and internet-only radio stations ("streamed music"). They represent the "buy" and "listen" choices. US regulatory provisions[edit] Regulatory provisions in the US, EU and elsewhere is in a state of flux, continu ously being challenged by developments in technology; thus almost any regulation stated here exists in a tentative format. The US Copyright Act of 1976 identified musical works and sound recordings eligible for copyright protection. The term musical work refers to the notes and lyrics of a song or a piece of music, while a sound recording results from its fixation on p hysical media. Copyright owners of musical works are granted exclusive rights to license over-the-air radio and TV broadcasts, entitling them royalties, which a re, as said earlier, collected and distributed by the PROs. Under the Act, recor d companies and recording artists are, presently, not entitled to royalties from radio and TV broadcasts of their music, except in the case of digital services and webcasts where copyright owners and performers obtain royalties (see later). This is in contrast to international standards where performers also obtain roy alties from over-the-air and digital broadcasting. In 1995, the Congress introduced the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordin gs Act (DPRA), which became effective 1 Feb 1996. This Act granted owners of sou nd recordings the exclusive license to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of digital audio transmissions but it exempted non-subscription services ( and some other services). Where the rights owner could not voluntarily reach agr eement with the broadcaster, it could avail of compulsory licensing provisions. Under the Act, the compulsory royalty (the royalty schedule follows) was to be s hared in the manner: 50% to the record companies, 45% to featured artists, 2% to non-featured musicians through American Federation of Musicians (AFM) in the Uni ted States and Canada[48] and 2% for non-featured vocalists through American Fede ration of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA).[49] United States Congress also created a new compulsory license for certain subscription digital audio services , which transmit sound recordings via cable television and Direct-broadcast sate llite (DBS) on a non-interactive basis in the absence of a voluntary negotiation and agreement. In 1998, the Congress amended DPRA to create the Digital Millennium Copyright Ac t (DMCA) by redefining the above-noted subscription services of DPRA as preexisti ng subscription services and expanded the statutory license to include new catego ries of digital audio services that may operate under the license. In effect, DM

CA created three categories of licensees: pre-existing satellite digital audio radio services new subscription services, and eligible non-subscription transmission services. In addition to the above, a fourth license was created permit webcasters to make ephemeral recordings of a sound recording (temporary copies) to facilitate stream ing but with a royalty to be paid. Non-subscription webcasting royalties have also to be shared between record comp anies and performers in the proportions set out under DPRA. The Table below titled SUMMARY OF STATUTORY ROYALTY RATES FOR DIGITAL WEBCASTING - UNITED STATES encapsulates the royalties set for non-interactive webcasting. To qualify for compulsory licensing under non-subscription services, the webcast ing needs to fit the following six criteria: it is non-interactive it does not exceed the sound recording performance complement it is accompanied by information on the song title and recording artist it does not publish a program schedule or specify the songs to be transmitted it does not automatically switch from one program channel to another, and it does not allow a user to request songs to be played particularly for that use r. An inter-active service is one which allows a listener to receive a specially cr eated internet stream in which she dictates the songs to be played by selecting songs from the website menu. Such a service would take the website out from unde r the compulsory license and require negotiations with the copyright owners. However, a service is non-interactive if it permits people to request songs whic h are then played to the public at large. Nonetheless, several rules apply such as, within any three-hour period, three cuts from a CD, but no more than two cut s consecutively can be played, or a site can play four songs from any singer fro m a boxed CD-set, but no more than three cuts consecutively. The SoundExchange, a non-profit organization, is defined under the legislation t o act on behalf of record companies (including the majors) to license performanc e and reproduction rights and negotiate royalties with the broadcasters. It is g overned by a board of artist and label representatives. Services include track l evel accounting of performances to all members and collection and distribution o f foreign royalties to all members.[50] In the absence of a voluntary agreement between the SoundExchange and the broadc asters, Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) was authorized to set the sta tutory rates as could prevail between a "willing buyer" and "willing sellers". S oundExchange handles only the collection of royalties from "compulsory licenses" for non-interactive streaming services that use satellite, cable or internet me thods of distribution. To recap, under the law three types of licenses are required for streaming of mu sical recordings: (a) a performance license applicable for underlying words( lyrics) and music (sc ore) (b) a performance license applicable to the streaming the sound recording (c) a storage license for the passage of a sound recording through a file server The royalties for the first of the above two licenses are obtained from SoundExc hange and the third from the PROs. Failure to make required payments constitutes copyright infringement and is subject to statutory damages. Both broadcasters involved in webcasting and pure-Internet non-broadcasters are required to pay these royalties under the rules framed under the Act. All webcas ters are also required to be registered with the United States Copyright Office. SUMMARY OF STATUTORY ROYALTY RATES FOR DIGITAL WEBCASTING - UNITED STATES[51] 1. Webcaster DMCA Compliant Service Performance Fee (per performance) Ephemeral Licenc e Fee (a)Simultaneous internet retransmission of over-the-air AM or FM radio broadcast s 0.07 9% of performance fees due (b)All other internet transmission 0.14 9% of performance fees due

2. Commercial Broadcaster DMCA Compliant Service Performance Fee (per performance) Ephemeral Licenc e Fee (a)Simultaneous internet retransmission of over-the-air AM or FM radio broadcast s 0.07 9% of performance fees due (b)All other internet transmission 0.14 9% of performance fees due 3. Non-CPB, non-commercial broadcasts: DMCA Compliant Service Performance Fee (per performance) Ephemeral Licenc e Fee (a)Simultaneous internet retransmission of over-the-air AM or FM radio broadcast s 0.02 9% of performance fees due (b)All other internet transmission 0.05 9% of performance fees due 4. Business Establishment Service: DMCA Compliant Service Performance Fee (per performance) Ephemeral Licenc e Fee (a)Simultaneous internet retransmission of over-the-air AM or FM radio broadcast s Statutorily Exempt 10% of gross proceeds Minimum Fee All Cases $500 per year for each licensee UK legislation[edit] The United Kingdom adopted the European Copyright Directive (EUCD) in 2003 and t he meaning of broadcast performance was broadened to cover "communicating to the public". This then included music distribution through the internet and the tra nsmission of ringtones to mobiles. Thus a music download was a "copy" of proprie tary music and hence required to be licensed. After a prolonged battle on royalties between online music companies such as AOL , Napster and the recording companies (but not all of them), represented by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), and organizations representing the interest s of songwriters (MCPS and PRS) a compromise was reached, leading to a subsequen t 3-year interim legislation (2007) adopted by the UK Copyright Tribunal under t he Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.[52] The legislation, referring to a new JOL (Joint Online License), applies only to music purchased within UK. The applicable royalties are given in the Table below which, interestingly, also includes music downloads and music services through mobile devices. This path-b reaking legislation is expected to become the model for EU (which is yet to deve lop comprehensive legislation), and perhaps even extend to the US. Note that the new legislation includes the distinction between downloads of musi cal tracks from iTunes and other stores, which were considered "sales" and the w ebcasts considered "performances". In brief, the compromise reached is that songwriters will receive 8% of gross re venues (definition follows), less VAT, as royalty for each track downloaded brid ging the demand of the artists demanding a 12% royalty rate (what was, otherwise , the norm for a CD) and music companies holding out for 6.5%, slightly higher t han the 5.7% paid for a 79p track sold by iTunes.[53] A minimum of four pence wi ll be paid, in the new legislation, if tracks are discounted. The terms used in the legislated Table are explained following it. Digital Royalties - Interim Settlement, United Kingdom - 2007 Service Royalty Rate Minimum Permanent Download 8% 0.04 per download - reducing by degrees for large r bundles of tracks, or certain older tracks, to 0.02 (in respect of a bundle 0f 30 tracks+) Limited Download or On Demand Service 8% Mobile subscription: 0.60/subscri ber/month PC subscription: 0.40/subscriber/month Limited Subscription: 0.20/subscriber/month All others: 0.0022 per musical work communicated to the public Special Webcasting (premium or interactive service where 50%+ of content is by single band/artist) 8% Subscription: 0.0022 per musical work (if not subscription); if the service is subscription, minimum to be negotiated Premium or interactive webcasting 6.5% Subscription: 0.22/subscriber/mon th;otherwise, 0.00085 per musical work communicated to the public

Pure webcasting 6.5% Subscription 0.22/subscriber/month; otherwise 0.0006/musi cal work communicated to the public Service Royalty Rate and Minimum Mobile or Permanent downloads and other mobile services Rates and minima as per services above, except that: For mobile Permanent Downloads, revenue is reduced by 15% For all other Mobile services revenue is reduced by 7.5% The above reductions to apply until prices converge with non-mobile services. Not all music providers in the UK were part of the compromise that led to the le gislation. For those not participating - principally, AOL, Yahoo! and RealNetwor ks - the Tribunal set the royalty rate for pure webcasting at 5.75%. UK legislation recognizes the term online as referring to downloading digital fi les from the internet and mobile network operators. Offline is the term used for the delivery of music through physical media such as a CD or a DVD. A stream is a file of continuous music listened to through a consumer s receiving device with no playable copy of the music remaining. Permanent Downloads are transfers (sale) of music from a website to a computer o r mobile telephone for permanent retention and use whenever the purchaser wishes , analogous to the purchase of a CD. A Limited Download is similar to a permanent download but differs from it in tha t the consumer s use of the copy is in some way restricted by associated technolog y; for instance, becomes unusable when the subscription ends (say, through an en coding, such as DRM, of the downloaded music). On-demand streaming is music streamed to the listener on the computer or mobile to enable her to listen to the music once, twice or a number of times during the period of subscription to the service. Pure Webcasting is where the user receives a stream of pre-programmed music chos en "by the music service provider". It is non-interactive to the extent that eve n pausing or skipping of tracks is not possible. Premium and Interactive Webcasting are personalized subscription services interm ediate between pure webcasting and downloading. Special webcasting is a service where the user can choose a stream of music, the majority of which comprises works from one source an artist, group or particula r concert. Simulcasting, although not in the Table above, is the simultaneous re-transmissi on by a licensed transmission of the program of a radio or TV station over the i nternet of an otherwise traditional broadcast. The person receiving the simulcas t normally makes no permanent copy of it. It is defined in the legislation as an offline service. Gross Revenue , which is comprehensively defined in the legislation, summarized her e, means, all revenue received (or receivable) by the licensee from Users, all r evenue received through advertisements associated with the music service, sponso rship fees, commissions from third parties and revenue arising from barter or co ntra deals. No deductions are permitted except for refunds of unused music due t o technical faults. The advertising revenue which is shared between the artist and music provider is defined as: when the advertising is in-stream; when the music offered forms the only content of a page featuring advertising (e xcluding the advertisement itself); and when the music offered forms more than 75% of a page featuring advertising (excl uding the advertisement itself). Synchronization royalties[edit] According to Joel Mabus, The term synchronization "comes from the early days of the talkies when music was first synchronized with film".[54] The terminology or iginated in US industry but has now spread worldwide. In the UK and elsewhere, with the exception of the US, there is apparently no le gal prohibition to the combination of audio and visual images and no explicit st atutory right for the collection of synch royalties. In the US, however, the Cop yright Act defines the audiovisual format as that of combining images with music

for use in machines but there is no explicit rate set such as the "compulsory r oyalty rate" for copying music but there are instances of courts implying the sy nchronization right,[55] fuller version at[56] but even so, it is an amorphous c olloquial commercial term of acceptance. Synchronization royalties("synch licenses") are paid for the use of copyrighted music in (largely) audiovisual productions, such as in DVDs, movies, and adverti sements. Music used in news tracks are also synch licenses. Synchronization can extend to live media performances, such as plays and live theatre. They become e xtremely important for new media - the usage of music in the form of mp3, wav, f lac files and for usage in webcasts, embedded media in microchips (e.g. karaoke) , etc. but the legal conventions are yet to be drawn. Synchronization royalties are due to the composer/song-writer or his/her publish er. They are strictly contractual in nature and vary greatly in amount depending on the subjective importance of the music, the mode of production and the media used. The royalty payable is that of mutual acceptance but is conditioned by in dustry practice. It is useful to note in this connection the concept of the "needle drop" (now la ser drop) in that the synch royalty becomes payable every time the needle drops 'on the record player' in a public performance. All openings and closings, every cut to advertisements, every cut back from ads, all re-runs shown by every TV c ompany, in every country in the world generates a "synchro", although a single p ayment may be renegotiable in advance.[57] There is a category of royalty free music in the field of synchronization. This refers to the use of music in a "library" for which a one-time royalty has been negotiated. It is an alternative to needle-drop negotiation. In terms of numbers, royalties can range from, say. $500 2000 for a "festival-use license" to $250,000 or more for a movie film score. For low-budget films, which are deemed less than $2 million, the royalties range from 3% 6%[58] or could be p er song per usage. Audio Home Recording Act of 1992[edit] In the US, the Audio Home Recording Act became effective law in October 1992.[59 ] Art royalties[edit] Resale royalty or droit de suite[edit] Art Resale Royalty is a right to a royalty payment upon resales of art works, th at applies in some jurisdictions. Whilst there are currently approximately 60 co untries that have some sort of Resale Royalty on their statute books, evidence o f resale schemes that can be said to be actually operating schemes is restricted to Europe, Australia and the American state of California. For example in May 2 011 the European commissions ec.europa webpage on Resale royalty stated that,und er the heading 'Indicative list of third countries (Article 7.2)' : 'A letter w as sent to Member States on 1 March 2006 requesting that they provide a list of third countries which meet these requirements and that they also provide evidenc e of application. To date the Commission has not been supplied with evidence for any third country which demonstrates that they qualify for inclusion on this li st.'[60] [The emphasis is from the European commission web page.] Apart from placing a levy on the resale of some art-like objects, there are few common facets to the various national schemes. Most schemes prescribe a minimum amount that the artwork must receive before the artist can invoke resale rights ( usually the hammer price or price). Some countries prescribe and others such a s Australia, do not prescribe, the maximum royalty that can be received. Most do prescribe the calculation basis of the royalty. Some country's make the usage o f the royalty compulsory. Some country's prescribe a sole monopoly collection se rvice agency, while others like the UK and France, allow multiple agencies. Some schemes involve varying degrees of retrospective application and other schemes such as Australia's are not retrospective at all. In some cases, for example Ger many, an openly tax-like use is made of the "royalties"; Half of the money colle cted is redistributed to fund public programs. The New Zealand and Canadian governments have not proceeded with any sort of art

ist resale scheme. The Australian scheme does not apply to the first resale of a rtworks purchased prior to the schemes enactment( June 2010) and individual usag e of the right (by Australian artists) is not compulsory. In Australia artists h ave a case by case right (under clause 22/23 of the Act) to refuse consent to th e usage of the right by the appointed collection society and/or make their own c ollection arrangements. Details of the Australian scheme can be gotten from[61] the website of the sole appointed Australian agency; The "Copyright Agency Limit ed". The UK scheme is in the context of common-law countries an oddity; No other comm on-law country has mandated an individual economic right where actual usage of t he right is compulsory for the individual right holder. Whether the common law c onception of an individual economic right as an "individual right of control of usage" is compatible with the Code Civil origins of droit de suite is open to qu estion. The UK is the largest art resale market where a form of ARR is operating, detail s of how the royalty is calculated as a portion of sale price in the UK can be a ccessed here DACS In the UK, the scheme was in,early 2012, extended to all artis ts still in copyright. In most European jurisdictions the right has the same dur ation as the term of copyright. In California law, heirs receive royalty for 20 years. The royalty applies to any work of graphic or plastic art such as a ceramic, col lage, drawing, engraving, glassware, lithograph, painting, photograph, picture, print, sculpture, tapestry. However, a copy of a work is not to be regarded as a work unless the copy is one of a limited number made by the artist or under the artist's authority. In the UK the resale of a work bought directly from the art ist and then resold within 3 years for a value of 10,000 or less is not affected by the royalty. The situation as to how ARR applies in situations where an art work is physicall y made by a person or persons who are not the 'name artist' who first exhibits a nd sells the work is not clear. In particular whilst ARR is inalienable it seems conceivable that in cases where the copyright on an artwork is transferred/sold , prior to the first sale of an artwork, the inalienable ARR right is also effec tively sold transferred. Whether resale royalties are of net economic benefit to artists is a highly cont ested area. Many economic studies have seriously questioned the assumptions unde rlying the argument that resale royalties have net benefits to artists. Many mod elings have suggested that resale royalties could be actually harmful to living artists economic positions.[62] Australia's chief advocate for the adoption of a rtist resale royalties the collection society, Viscopy, commissioned in 2004 a r eport from Access Economics to model the likely impact of their scheme. In the r esulting report, Access Economics warned that the claim of net benefit to artist s was: "based upon extremely unrealistic assumptions, in particular the assumpti on that seller and buyer behaviour would be completely unaffected by the introdu ction of RRR [ARR]" and that, "Access Economics considers that the results of th is analysis are both unhelpful and potentially misleading."[63] Artwork royalties[edit] An artwork is usually a copyrighted article which be mass-produced for sale, suc h as greeting cards. They are both seasonal and on occasion. In the UK it is est imated that one billion pounds are spent on greeting cards every year, with the average person sending 55 cards per year. The royalty range is 2 5% with an upfront royalty . Other artwork royalties are as under:[64] Greeting cards and gift wrap: 2% to 5% Household items such as cups, sheets, towels: 3% to 8% Fabrics, apparel (T-shirts, caps, decals): 2% to 10% Posters and prints: 10% or more Toys and dolls: 3% to 8% Software royalties[edit] There is simply too much computer software to consider the royalties applicable

to each. The following is a guide to royalty rates:[citation needed] *Computer Software: 10.5% (average), 6.8% (median) *Internet: 11.7% (average), 7.5% (median) For the development of customer-specific software one will have to consider: * Total software development cost * Break-even cost (if the software can be sold to many agencies) * Ownership of code (if the client's, he bears the development cost) * Life of the software (usually short or requiring maintenance) * Risk in development (high, commanding A high price) Other royalty arrangements[edit] The term "royalty" also covers areas outside of IP and technology licensing, suc h as oil, gas, and mineral royalties paid to the owner of a property by a resour ces development company in exchange for the right to exploit the resource. In a business project the promoter, financier, LHS enabled the transaction but are no longer actively interested may have a royalty right to a portion of the income, or profits, of the business. This sort of royalty is often expressed as a contr act right to receive money based on a royalty formula, rather than an actual own ership interest in the business. In some businesses this sort of royalty is some times called an override. Alliances and partnerships[edit] Royalties may exist in technological alliances and partnerships. The latter is m ore than mere access to secret technical or a trade right to accomplish an objec tive. It is, in the last decade of the past century, and the first of this one o f the major means of technology transfer. Its importance for the licensor and th e licensee lies in its access to markets and raw materials, and labor,when the i nternational trend is towards globalization. There are three main groups when it comes to technological alliances. They are J oint-ventures (sometimes abbreviated JV), the Franchises and Strategic Alliances (SA).[65][66] Joint-ventures are usually between companies long in contact with a purpose. JVs are very formal forms of association, and depending on the country where they a re situated, subject to a rigid code of rules, in which the public may or may no t have an opportunity to participate in capital; partly depending on the size of capital required, and partly on Governmental regulations. They usually revolve around products and normally involve an inventive step. Franchises revolve around services and they are closely connected with trademark s, an example of which is McDonald's. Although franchises have no convention lik e trademarks or copyrights they can be mistaken as a trademark-copyright in agre ements. The franchisor has close control over the franchisee, which, in legal te rms cannot be tie-ins such as frachisee located in an areas owned by the franchi sor. Strategic Alliances can involve a project (such as bridge building). a product o r a service. As the name implies, is more a matter of 'marriage of convenience' when two parties want to associate to take up a particular (but modest) short-te rm task but generally are uncomfortable with the other. But the strategic allian ce could be a test of compatibility for the forming of a joint venture company a nd a precedent step. Note that all of these ventures s could be in a third county. JVs and franchises are rarely found formed within a county. They largely involve third countries. On occasion, a JV or SA may be wholly oriented to research and development, typi cally involving multiple organizations working on an agreed form of engagement. The Airbus is an example of such. Technical Assistance and Technical Service in technology transfer[edit] Firms in developing countries often are asked by the supplier of know-how or pat ent licensing to consider Technical Service (TS)and Technical Assistance (TA) as elements of the technology transfer process and to pay "royalty" on them. TS an d TA are associated with the IP (Intellectual Property) transferred and, sometim es, dependent on its acquisition but they are, by no means, IP.[67] TA and TS ma y also be the sole part of the transfer or the tranferor of the IP, their concur

rent supplier. They are seldom met with in the developed countries, which someti mes view even know-how as similar to TS. TS comprises services which are the specialized knowledge of firms or acquired b y them for operating a special process. It is often a "bundle" of services which can by itself meet an objective or help in meeting it. It is delivered over tim e, at end of which the acquirer becomes proficient to be independent of the serv ice. In this process, no consideration is given on whether the transfer of the p roprietary element has been concluded or not. On the other hand, Technical Assistance is a package of assistance given on a sh ort timetable. It can range variously from procurement of equipment for a projec t, inspection services on behalf of the buyer, the training of buyer's personnel and the supply technical or managerial staff. Again, TA is independent of IP se rvices. The payment for these services is a fee, not a royalty. The TS fee is dependent on how many of the specialized staff of its supplier are required and over what period of time. Sometimes, the "learning" capacity to whom the TS is supplied is involved. In any case, the cost per Service-Hour should be calculated and evalu ated. Note that in selecting a TS supplier (often the IP Supplier), experience a nd dependency are critical. In the case of TA there is usually a plurality of firms and choice is feasible. Approaches to royalty rate[edit] Intellectual property[edit] Question book-new.svg This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this s ection by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challe nged and removed. (September 2008) The rate of royalty applied in a given case is determined by various factors, th e most notable of which are: Market drivers and demand structure Territorial extent of rights Exclusivity of rights Level of innovation and stage of development (see The Technology Life Cycle) Sustainability of the technology Degree and competitive availability of other technologies Inherent risk Strategic need The portfolio of rights negotiated Fundability Deal-reward structure (negotiation strength) To correctly gauge royalty rates, the following criteria must be taken into cons ideration: The transaction is at "arms-length" There is a willing buyer and a willing seller The transaction is not under compulsion Rate determination and illustrative royalties[edit] Question book-new.svg This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this s ection by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challe nged and removed. (September 2008) There are three general approaches to assess the applicable royalty rate in the licensing of intellectual property. They are The Cost Approach The Comparable Market Approach The Income Approach For a fair evaluation of the royalty rate, the relationship of the parties to th e contract should: be at "arms-length" (related parties such as the subsidiary and the parent compa ny need to transact as though they were independent parties) be viewed as acting free and without compulsion

Cost approach[edit] The Cost Approach considers the several elements of cost that may have been ente red to create the intellectual property and to seek a royalty rate that will rec apture the expense of its development and obtain a return that is commensurate w ith its expected life. Costs considered could include R&D expenditures, pilot-pl ant and test-marketing costs, technology upgrading expenses, patent application expenditure and the like. The method has limited utility since the technology is not priced competitively on "what the market can bear" principles or in the context of the price of simil ar technologies. More importantly, by lacking optimization (through additional e xpense), it may earn benefits below its potential. However, the method may be appropriate when a technology is licensed out during its R&D phase as happens with venture capital investments or it is licensed out during one of the stages of clinical trials of a pharmaceutical. In the former case, the venture capitalist obtains an equity position in the com pany (developing the technology) in exchange for financing a part of the develop ment cost (recovering it, and obtaining an appropriate margin, when the company gets acquired or it goes public through the IPO route). Recovery of costs, with opportunity of gain, is also feasible when development c an be followed stage-wise as shown below for a pharmaceutical undergoing clinica l trials (the licensee pays higher royalties for the product as it moves through the normal stages of its development): Success State of development Royalty rates,% Nature -------------------------------------------------------------Pre-clinical success 0-5 in-vitro Phase I (safety) 5-10 100 healthy people Phase II (efficacy) 8-15 300 subjects Phase III (effectiveness) 10-20 several thousand patients Launched product 20+ regulatory body approval A similar approach is used when custom software is licensed (an in-license, i.e. an incoming license). The product is accepted on a royalty schedule depending o n the software meeting set stage-wise specifications with acceptable error level s in performance tests. Comparable market approach[edit] Here the cost and the risk of development are disregarded. The royalty rate is d etermined from comparing competing or similar technologies in an industry, modif ied by considerations of useful "remaining life" of the technology in that indus try and contracting elements such as exclusivity provisions, front-end royalties , field of use restrictions, geographic limitations and the "technology bundle" (the mix of patents, know-how, trade-mark rights, etc.) accompanying it. Although widely used, the prime difficulty with this method is obtaining access to data on comparable technologies and the terms of the agreements that incorpor ate them. Fortunately, there are several recognized organizations, among them, R oyaltySource, Royaltystat, Knowledge Express, ktMINE Royalty Rate Finder etc. (s ee "Royalty Rate Websites" listed at the end of this article) who have comprehen sive information on both royalty rates and the principal terms of the agreements of which they are a part. There are also IP-related organizations, such as the Licensing Executives Society, which enable its members to access and share priva tely assembled data. The two tables shown below are drawn, selectively, from information that is avai lable with an IP-related organization and on-line.[68][69] The first depicts the range and distribution of royalty rates in agreements. The second shows the roy alty rate ranges in select technology sectors (latter data sourced from: Dan McG avock of IPC Group, Chicago, USA). Royalty Distribution Analysis in Industry Industry Licenses (nos.) Min. Royalty,% Max. Royalty,% Average,% Median,% Automotive 35 1.0 15.0 4.7 4.0 Computers 68 0.2 15.0 5.2 4.0

Consumer Gds 90 0.0 17.0 5.5 5.0 Electronics 132 0.5 15.0 4.3 4.0 Healthcare 280 0.1 77.0 5.8 4.8 Internet 47 0.3 40.0 11.7 7.5 Mach.Tools. 84 0.5 26 5.2 4.6 Pharma/Bio 328 0.1 40.0 7.0 5.1 Software 119 0.0 70.0 10.5 6.8 Royalty Rate Segmentation in Some Technology Sectors Industry 0-2% 2-5% 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-25% Aerospace 50% 50% Chemical 16.5% 58.1% 24.3% 0.8% 0.4% Computer 62.5% 31.3% 6.3% Electronics 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% Healthcare 3.3% 51.7% 45.0% Pharmaceuticals 23.6% 32.1% 29.3% 12.5% 1.1% 0.7% Telecom 40.0% 37.3% 23.6% Commercial sources also provide information that is invaluable for making compar isons. The following table provides typical information that is obtainable, for instance, from Royaltystat:[70] Sample License Parameters Reference: 7787 Effective Date: 1 October 1998 SIC Code: 2870 SEC Filed Date: 26 July 2005 SEC Filer: Eden Bioscience Corp Royalty Rate: 2.000 (%) SEC Filing: 10-Q Royalty Base: Net Sales Agreement Type: Patent Exclusive: Yes Licensor: Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. Licensee: Eden Bioscience Corp. Lump-Sum Pay: Research support is $150,000 for 1 year. Duration: 17 year(s) Territory: Worldwide Coverage : Exclusive patent license to make, have made, use and sell products in corporating biological materials, including genes, proteins and peptide fragment s, expression systems, cells, and antibodies, for the field of plant disease The comparability between transactions requires a comparison of the significant economic conditions that may affect the contracting parties: Similarity of geographies Relevant date Same industry Market size and its economic development; Contracting or expanding markets Market activity: whether wholesale, retail, other Relative market shares of contracting entities Location-specific costs of production and distribution Competitive environment in each geography Fair alternatives to contracting parties Income approach[edit] The Income approach focuses on the licensor estimating the profits generated by the licensee and obtaining an appropriate share of the generated profit. It is u nrelated to costs of technology development or the costs of competing technologi es. The approach requires the licensee (or licensor): (a) to generate a cash-flow pr ojection of incomes and expenses over the life-span of the license under an agre ed scenario of incomes and costs (b) determining the Net Present Value, NPV of t he profit stream, based on a selected discount factor, and c) negotiating the di vision of such profit between the licensor and the licensee. The NPV of a future income is always lower than its current value because an inc ome in the future is attended by risk. In other words, an income in the future n eeds to be discounted, in some manner, to obtain its present equivalent. The fac tor by which a future income is reduced is known as the 'discount rate'. Thus, $ 1.00 received a year from now is worth $0.9091 at a 10% discount rate, and its d

iscounted value will be still lower two years down the line. The actual discount factor used depends on the risk assumed by the principal gai ner in the transaction. For instance, a mature technology worked in different ge ographies, will carry a lower risk of non-performance (thus, a lower discount ra te) than a technology being applied for the first time. A similar situation aris es when there is the option of working the technology in one of two different re gions; the risk elements in each region would be different. The method is treated in greater detail, using illustrative data, in Royalty Ass essment. The licensor's share of the income is usually set by the "25% rule of thumb", wh ich is said to be even used by tax authorities in the US and Europe for arms-len gth transactions. The share is on the operating profit of the licensee firm. Eve n where such division is held contentious, the rule can still be the starting po int of negotiations. Following are three aspects that are important for the profit: (a) the profit that accrues to the licensee may not arise solely through the eng ine of the technology. There are returns from the mix of assets it employs such as fixed and working capital and the returns from intangible assets such as dist ribution systems, trained workforce, etc. Allowances need to be made for them. (b) profits are also generated by thrusts in the general economy, gains from inf rastructure, and the basket of licensed rights patents, trademark, know-how. A l ower royalty rate may apply in an advanced country where large market volumes ca n be commanded, or where protection to the technology is more secure than in an emerging economy (or perhaps, for other reasons, the inverse). (c) the royalty rate is only one aspect of the negotiation. Contractual provisio ns such as an exclusive license, rights to sub-license, warranties on the perfor mance of technology etc may enhance the advantages to the licensee, which is not compensated by the 25% metric. The basic advantage of this approach, which is perhaps the most widely applied, is that the royalty rate can be negotiated without comparative data on how other agreements have been transacted. In fact, it is almost ideal for a case where p recedent does not exist. It is, perhaps, relevant to note that the IRS also uses these three methods, in modified form, to assess the attributable income, or division of income, from a royalty-based transaction between a US company and its foreign subsidiary (since US law requires that a foreign subsidiary pay an appropriate royalty to the par ent company).[71] Other compensation modes[edit] Royalties are only one among many ways of compensating owners for use of an asse t. Others include: buying the asset outright, possibly with a leaseback arrangement offering the licensor an equity position in the licensee company staged milestone payments (as in drug development and commissioned software arra ngements) lump sum payment made to the licensor in one or more installments cross-licensing agreements with or without cash payments, and entering into a strategic alliance or Joint Venture. In discussing the licensing of Intellectual Property, the terms valuation and ev aluation need to be understood in their rigorous terms. Evaluation is the proces s of assessing a license in terms of the specific metrics of a particular negoti ation, which may include its circumstances, the geographical spread of licensed rights, product range, market width, licensee competitiveness, growth prospects, etc. On the other hand, valuation is the fair market value (FMV) of the asset tradema rk, patent or know-how at which it can be sold between a willing buyer and willi ng seller in the context of best awareness of circumstances. The FMV of the IP, where assessable, may itself be a metric for evaluation. If an emerging company is listed on the stock market, the market value of its in tellectual property can be estimated from the data of the balance sheet using th e equivalence:

Market Capitalization = Net Working Capital + Net Fixed Assets + Routine Intangi ble Assets + IP where the IP is the residual after deducting the other components from the marke t valuation of the stock. One of the most significant intangibles may be the wor k-force. The method may be quite useful for valuing trademarks of a listed company if it is mainly or the only IP in play (franchising companies). See also[edit] Intellectual property Royalty-free Payola Celebrity bond Residuals Copyright transfer agreement References[edit] ^ "Focus: Tax and Intellectual Property April 2004". Allens Arthur Robinson. Ret rieved 2007-09-13. ^ "Royalty (definition)". law.com. Retrieved 2007-09-13. ^ United Nations Industrial Development Organization (1996). Manual on Technolog y Transfer Negotiation. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organizati on. ISBN 92-1-106302-7. ^ a b Guidelines for Evaluation of Transfer of Technology Agreements, United Nat ions, New York, 1979 ^ a b Licensing Guide for Developing Countries: A Guide on the Legal Aspects of the Negotiation and Preparation of Industrial Property Licenses and Technology T ransfer Agreements Appropriate to the Needs of Developing Countries. Geneva: Wor ld Intellectual Property Organization. 1977. ISBN 92-805-0395-2. ^ UNIDO International Workshop on Technology Transfer Negotiation and Plant Leve l Technology Needs Assessment, 7 8 December 1999, New Delhi. ^ Dave Tyrrell. "Intellectual Property & Licensing". Vertex. Retrieved 2007-09-1 4. ^ "Royalty interest (definition)". Schlumberger. Retrieved 2007-09-13. ^ "oilgas1031.com". oilgas1031.com. Retrieved 2013-05-04. ^ "Ranges of royalty rates, and royalty guidelines, U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry ". Retrieved 2007-07-19. ^ The Royalty Rate Journal of Intellectual Property, December 2002, p. 8. ^ "Sample: License Parameters". Retrieved 2007-10-26.[dead link] ^ Mallat, Chibli. "Joint ventures in Lebanese and European law". mallat.com. Ret rieved 29 November 2010. ^ "DHL Corporation and Subsidiaries vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 19570-95, 26103-95, United States Tax Court." (PDF). Retrieved 2007-09-09. ^ Dicenstein_brands_2005-2.pdf ^ "Four little words". Retrieved 2007-03-15. ^ "Don Henley Speaks on Behalf of Recording Artists". Archived from the original on 2006-01-17. Retrieved 2007-03-15. ^ "Printing & Publishing of Music - A Short History & How it is Done". Retrieved 2008-08-13. ^ Carter Harman, A Popular History of Music, Dell Publishing Company, New York, 1956 ^ Song Sheets to Software: A Guide to Print Music, Software, and Web Sites for M usicians, Elizabeth C. Axford, Scarecrow Press, 2004,ISBN 0-8108-5027-3, ISBN 97 8-0-8108-5027-9 ^ The scores, and some digital versions, of Stephen Foster's songs can be sample d at sibeliusmusic.com ^ Elizabeth C. Axford, Song Sheets to Software: A Guide to Print Music, Software , and Web Sites for Musicians, Scarecrow Press, 2004,ISBN 0-8108-5027-3, ISBN 97 8-0-8108-5027-9 ^ "Printing & Publishing of Music. A Short History & How it is Done". parlorsong

s.com. Retrieved 29 November 2010. ^ Ingalls, Monique M. (30 May 2009). "The Evangelical British Invasion: Challeng ing Boundaries, Transforming Congregational Song". IASPM Conference (San Diego, California). Retrieved 12 December 2011. ^ Alan S. Bergman, The Language of the Music Business ^ "Compulsory Rates for Mechanical royalties". Retrieved 2007-10-15. ^ "'Reduced Rate' Royalties". Retrieved 2007-10-29. ^ "Royalties on Controlled Composition". Retrieved 2007-10-29. ^ [1][dead link] ^ Christman, Ed, Billboard, 11 March 2011, "RightsFlow Builds A Business Around Clearing Song Rights". Retrieved 2011-10-17. ^ Thorne, Michelle (21 November 2008). "Improbable Match: CC And Collecting Soci eties In Europe". Creative Commons. Retrieved 12 December 2011. ^ O'Brien, Kevin J. (2 April 2009). "Royalty Dispute Stops Music Videos in Germa ny". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 December 2011. ^ [2][dead link] ^ "The main national collection societies". bemuso.com. Retrieved 2010-12-03. ^ "Language of the Music Business". Retrieved 2007-10-29. ^ a b "Diagram courtesy". bemuso.com. ^ " CITCO hotels cannot play PPL music ". Indian Express. 31 December 2010. Retrieve d 12 December 2011. ^ "PRS for Music homepage". Retrieved 29 November 2010. ^ "Songwriters challenge UK online royalty rate". The Register. 7 November 2005. Retrieved 2007-12-18. ^ "VPL". Ppluk.com. Retrieved 12 December 2011. ^ Smith, Ethan (2007-03-21). "Sale of Music Long in Decline". The Wall Street Jo urnal. Retrieved 2007-12-20. ^ "What is Digital Distribution". Retrieved 2010-12-03. ^ "Gracenote homepage". ^ "Apple iTunes Everything you need to be entertained". Apple.com. Retrieved 201 3-05-04. ^ "Kazaa". Kazaa.com. Retrieved 12 December 2011. ^ "Listen to internet radio and the largest music catalogue online". Last.fm. 20 09-02-11. Retrieved 12 December 2011. ^ "U.S. H1 Album Sales Down 15.1%". Retrieved 2007-12-22. ^ "American Federation of Musicians". Retrieved 2008-02-24.[dead link] ^ "American Federation of Television and Radio Artists". Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^ "The Sound Exchange". Retrieved 2008-02-29. ^ "SECTION 114 (f)2 and 112(e)" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-12-19. ^ "Interim Settlement of Digital Royalty Rates (Music), United Kingdom" (PDF). R etrieved 2007-12-19. ^ "Artists bid for CD parity on digital royalties". Retrieved 2008-02-24.[dead l ink] ^ "Royalties". Joelmabus.com. Retrieved 2013-05-04. ^ "US Court Recognises Existence of a "Sync Right"". Clintons. 15 January 2008. Retrieved 12 December 2011. ^ [3][dead link] ^ "Current UK Limited Synchronisation Licence example". i.current.com. Retrieved 29 November 2010. ^ VanReece, Nancy (September 1998). "Songwriting Articles: Publishing". North Am erican Folk Alliance Newsletter. The Muse's Muse. Retrieved 12 December 2011. ^ "United States Code: Title 17,1001. Definitions". Legal Information Institute: Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 12 December 2011. ^ " Internal Market &raquo Copyright &raquo Resale Right". European Commission: T he EU Single Market. Retrieved 12 December 2011. ^ "About the artists resale royalty scheme". resaleroyalty.org.au. Retrieved 29 November 2010. ^ name="Kirstein, R./Schmidtchen, D. (2001); Do Artists Benefit from Resale Roya lties? An Economic Analysis of a New EU Directive. In: Deffains, B./Kirat, T. (e ds.): Law and Economics in Civil Law Countries; The Economics of Legal Relations

hips Vol. 6, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam et al., 231-248." ^ [4][dead link] ^ [5][dead link] ^ Manual on Technology Transfer Negotiation (A reference for policy-makers and p ractitioners on Technology Transfer),1996 United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna, 1990, ISBN 92-1-106302-7 ^ Patterns of Internationalization for Developing Country Enterprises, United Na tions Industrial Organization, Vienna, Austria 2008, ISBN 978-92-1-106302-7 ^ Manual on Technology Transfer Negotiation (A reference for policy-makers and p ractitioners on Technology Transfer),1996 United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna, 1990, ISBN 92-1-106302-7, pp 260-261 ^ Goldscheider, Robert; John Jarosz and Carla Mulhern (Dec 2002). "Use Of The 25 Per Cent Rule In Valuing IP". Retrieved 2007-09-20. ^ David G. Weiler. "Valuing Your Intellectual Property for Strategic Alliances a nd Financing". Retrieved 2007-09-20.[dead link] ^ "Sample: License Parameters". Retrieved 2007-09-26.[dead link] ^ "Treasury Evaluations". Retrieved 2007-09-27.[dead link] External links[edit] "Royalty Rate Websites" "CPT page on Royalties on patents for health care inventions" Categories: Intellectual property lawPatent law Navigation menu Create accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView history Search Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia Toolbox Print/export Languages ??????? Dansk Deutsch Espaol Esperanto ????? Franais ??? Italiano ????? ??????? Latina Bahasa Melayu Nederlands ??? Norsk bokml Norsk nynorsk Occitan Portugus ???????

Suomi Svenska ?????????? ?? Edit links This page was last modified on 12 July 2013 at 20:39. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; add itional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and P rivacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-prof it organization. Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaMobile viewWikimedia Fo undation Powered by MediaWiki