Talk:Royalty payment

message: what are some typical royalty percentages when 1 individual piece sells for x amount of money, what percentage of the x is given to the author/artist?
and if it varies - 
for books?
for art?
A response: 
This has now been addressed, partly here and partly in 'Royalty rate assessment'
Ipsofacto 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 1

message: Is there some history behind royalties? Some guy invented it so we owe him royalties each time we use royalties? 124.187.75.232 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Is this still considered a stub?  It seems rather thorough...Mikelj 23:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a stub? 

message: The Moore reference states that 70% of cases are settled but only 6% go to trial.  What about the other 24%?--Nowa 02:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: The Editor wrote :The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
As a Consultant and Expert who has consulted with international organizations, such as organs of the United Nations, particularly UNIDO, and based on my own professional career and earlier membership of the Licensing Executies Society (LES), USA, I am trying to make a substantive contribution to the field of Licensing for the lay reader.
To meet with the Editor's comments I have listed a series of publications, to some of which I have been the main or  substantive contributor and sister publications which I have drawn on.
The terminology and explanatory material used do have an international common heritage and meaning. They do not contradict EU or  US concepts but in some instances they tend to assist the reader in the developing countries more than the developed. Some of the material relating to US Patent law pre-existed my entry. I intend to expand on that section and will try to present the world view.
I hope this clarifies. I am still learning how to write comprehensively    in Wikipedia. Thus the References for now are in the old format and not as required. I will reformat them as I complete my contribution of which there more material to be added.
Ipsofacto 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributor Response to Editor's  Comment 

message: Wikidemo, I accept your remarks are being made in good faith and that maintaining style is a Wiki birthright - no arguments there.  But on substance, I not only disagree but wish to source information from Wikipedia itself in support of what I have mentioned.
1. Your implication that Harley-Davidson's distinct purr IS a trademark (whereas I said it was non-commercial) is contra-indicated from the Wikipedia reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley-Davidson 
where the finalising statement is made:"These objections were followed by litigation. After six years, Harley-Davidson withdrew their trademark application" [on the engine sound]. 
Mozart's music often has a "trademark" passage (however, it has, and never had, any commercial trademark significance). I introduced Mozart and Shostakovich and H-D as illustrations of  'ownership sounds', to bring home a point and to go 'outside the narrow field of IP' as a diversion. I could have mentioned TV jingles as trademarks but thats obvious. So I hope there is no real reason to avoid their re-introduction. 
[Wikidemo, I had interrupted my discussion, to search for the context in which I had previously introduced the notions of 'advanced' and 'developing countries in submissions but find, alas, Wikipedia has overwritten all my previous submissions with your recent edit, leaving no space for the curious reader to compare opinions or to revert - a right Wikipedia appears to enshrine. Maybe I violated copyright, although  I cant see how since I have not quoted any passage. Maybe I scared the opinion-creators by saying even in the Talk section that there was no reason why the trademarks I had mentioned earlier - McDonald's Golden Arches, Nike's Shoosh and  Harley-Davidson should not be reintroduced!  Still further, the links to my previous submissions now lead to bogus or irrelevant topics outside of Wikipedia.
I further fear, having read Kathie Hafner's article in the New York Times, Aug 19,2007 titled: 'Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits':
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html  that no purpose will be served by wanting to see Wikipedia service the community with different perspectives or even a restatement of what is obviously correct. May be I should write my own blog to give that perspective since you will not allow it even to lie on the scrap heap?]
Nonetheless, I would like to finish what I had set out to do here. Let the reader judge, unless this is also edited to a singular opinion.
2. One of your statements is that: "Certainly the royalty amounts are lower in poorer countries because there is not as much money to go around. Everything is cheaper in poor countries. That is not worth saying". This is, certainly, the biggest and boldest assault I have seen on poor countries and from a public interest body like Wikipedia providing for a balance of views.
Royalties and prices are of concern to both developed and developing countries. 
First, let me back-peddle and take you to the Kefauver U..S. Senate Committee hearings in the early 60's that led to enactment of the famous legislative achievement, the Kefauver-Harris Drug Act of 1962, after Kefauver expressed shock about the excess profits that U.S. drug companies were taking in at the expense of U.S. consumers. In his book Kefauver: A Political Biography, Joseph Bruce Gorman described some of what Kefauver's hearings on the U.S. pharmaceutical industry revealed:
"Witnesses told of conflicts of interest for the AMA (whose Journal, for example, received millions of dollars in drug advertising and was, therefore, reluctant to challenge claims made by drug company ads)…The drug companies themselves were shown to be engaged in frenzied advertising campaigns designed to sell trade name versions of drugs that could otherwise be prescribed under generic names at a fraction of the cost; this competition, in turn, had led to the marketing of new drugs that were no improvements on drugs already on the market but, nevertheless, heralded as dramatic breakthroughs without proper concern for either effectiveness or safety."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estes_Kefauver
It was shown during the hearings that some trademarked drugs were being marketed in India (in the late 50's-early 60's) that were 2000 times more expensive than the same drugs that were being sold by the same company in Canada. In other words, a 0.05% rate of royalty on sales at those prices could be an extreme penalty on the licensee, except that the licesnsees were subsidiaries of companies in developed countries. Poor (or rich) countries dont get everything cheaper.
3. Let me also take you to another situation: The Cartagena Agreement in 1969 among five Andean group of countries (now labelled "Andean Pact as Friend of Foreign Enterprise"). Article 27 of the Cartagena Agreement called for the creation of a common Andean Pact policy vis-à-vis foreign investment, trademarks, patents, and licenses. In response, the relevant Andean Pact institutional body adopted Decision No.24 in 1976.....further, in an attempt to prevent foreign controlled monopolies and restrictions on technology transfer, Decision 24 prohibited member states from granting licensing contracts to foreign companies that contained restrictive noncompetition clauses.
http://www.mercosurconsulting.net/Articles/article2.html
This action by the Andean group spread to other countries of the developing world. Things began to ease of only in the 80's when government supervision became less strident and free market forces emerged in a more enlightened world.
I have copied this submission to my Gmail account so that an erroneous link to this material does not appear.
I will await third party contribution and comment. 
At the same time I would like your help  getting to Wikipedia administration to referee  erasures of previous material when rewrites of the article have not been challenged by me.
:Wikipedia is not a proper source for information in articles.  See WP:RS.  At any rate the Harley-Davidson article does not relate to my comment.  If Harley Davidson withdrew its trademark application it has an unregistered trademark or perhaps something not a trademark, not a "non-commercial" trademark.  As far as I know there is no such thing as a non-commercial trademark.  Trademarks are defined by use in commerce to signify the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of a good or service.  Goods and services are commercial.  Harley Davidson makes commercial goods, to wit, motorcycles. 
:Mozart and Shostakovitch do not own trademarks in the sense of identifiable expressions used to denote the source of goods or services.  They are deceased individuals who are making no goods or services.  To say they have a "trademark" sound invokes the common English version of the word, roughly equivalent to one usage of the word "signature."  That does not help to explain what a trademark is.  A jingle, however, may but does not necessarily contain trademarks in this sense.  A closer description would be the sound some operating systems make when started.  However, I don't see how the difference in sensory modalities of a trademark relates to the subject at hand, that people pay royalties for licensing them from each other.Wikidemo 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pace,Pace, Wikidemo! - but some refutations, some clarifications 

message: Your statement that "Wikipedia is not a proper source for information in articles" amazes me because by that you cast doubt on the authenticity of what you yourself  have written!
Ipsofacto 11:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the idea beyond Wikipedia:original research and Wikipedia:verifiability. If no source is provided for a statement, it may generally be considered worthless. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --Edcolins 19:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article was a mess before the clean-up.  I came upon it looking for an internal link for oil and gas royalties and for royalties earned by deal-makers so I wouldn't have to explain these concepts in my articles.  Instead of helpful encyclopedic info, all I saw was a long, inaccurate, and impertinent essay about how Mozart has a trademark and developing nations lack infrastructure.  Now it's less of a mess and might actually be useful, but it could still go farther to perhaps half of its current length.  I left a lot of marginal stuff in out of deference and because some of it does have some sourcing.  But most is still not sourced.  That has nothing to do with whether quoting the Wikipedia article on Harley Davidsons gives you a sound argument for the proposition that the company owns a "non-commercial trademark" on the sound.  That article doesn't even support the proposition...it can't because there's no such thing.  But if it did make that claim, the strength of the argument would be in the external sources it cites, not the mere fact that somebody wrote the statement in another Wikipedia article.Wikidemo 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia as a source of information

message: I am querying someone's adding the 'right to advertise' to the well-understood rights of 'make, use and sell' under patent laws. I believe this is in error for the general case.
Ipsofacto 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Advertising' - a right under 'patent rights'? 

message: See Talk:Royalty Financing. --Edcolins (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of [[Royalty Financing]]

message: This section appears to me to be sufficiently large and complte enough to merit transfer to a separate section labelled such ( a Main Article page) with only a  skeleton in this page. Would appreciate editorial comment. I also dont know how to move the section unless it is a paste and copy job. The whole article on royalties is far from over. Ipsofacto (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music Royalties, need editorial comment 

message: I've just read through this document , and it goes into very thorough detail about the royalty distribution for subscription music services. This information was not easily accessible, and it would be worthwhile to have it incorporated into this page. Notably, it gives a detailed formula for the breakdown of royalty rates and their relation to pay-per-play royalties, which are not even mentioned in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrcoder (talk • contribs) 06:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subscription music royalty rates.  

message: Searching for the actual document ' BO69v01.pdf '  only gives mirror versions of the same WIKy page. There is  a whiff of 'hall of mirrors about this reference.
 The implicit claim that there is some sort of 'global' quality to the various world wide artist resale schemes is at the moment a rather political claim. 
 Whether the UK should harmonize with Europe or whether Europe should harmonize with the UK is a  hot topic at the moment.
 The differences between the various schemes around the world make any claim of a common definable 'clade' and 'type species' very questionable.
Pedestrian1957 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   footnote 47 -This reference appears to be to a document that may be a 'phantom document' 

message: The "American Contribution" section strikes me as an unnecessary digression. Interesting though it may be, it reads more like an excerpt of US music history tangentally related to royalties than part of an article on royalties to me. I therefore motion that it be moved to a more appropriate article or deleted if this isn't possible. ~jon503a  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.146.203.1 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Contribution 

message: Currently the section on Royalties#Mechanical royalties stresses the availability of compulsory licensing in the U.S., and the non-availability of default clearances elsewhere (which the article even implies are negotiated on an item by item basis).
As I understand it, while this may technically be true, it's not really how things operate, either in the U.S. or the UK.  (Though I'd welcome clarification & proper sourcing, if possible, from someone closer to the industry).
According to our article on compulsory licensing, although the right exists in the United States, with a fixed table of tariffs, it is hardly used.
In the UK I believe the position is as follows:
* The MCPS (now part of PRS for Music) has the authority (I believe backed up by statute) to license a song, without prior agreement from the song's rights owner. (cf Extended collective licensing).  This it normally grants for a royalty of 8.5% of the "Published Dealer Price", defined as "the highest price payable by any dealer (retailer) without applying any discounts and price reductions etc".
* If a publisher (or writer, for an unpublished song) does not wish this, they have to (a) be a member of the MCPS, and (b) specifically instruct the MCPS that they are opting out of the blanket scheme.  The track would then be listed as "licensed witheld" or "non-society".
* If a song is not registered with the MCPS, because the publisher (or writer, for a song without a UK publisher) is not a member of the MCPS, then (apparently) the song can be re-recorded and released, without any royalty being paid for the mechanical rights, so long as the MCPS is notified.  The owner can claw back the royalties if they join the MCPS within the next six years, otherwise they permanently lose these royalties.  Apparently it is not uncommon for this to happen to even very well known American songwriters, because neither they nor an assigned UK publisher were registered with the MCPS -- examples are said to include songs by Chris Isaak and Iris Dement and many many more. Instead of a publisher/rightsholder, sleeve-notes will usually indicate "Copyright Control" for the track -- an attribution found again and again on low-rent compilations, such as newspaper covermount discs, confident that the writer will never know what they've lost out on until it's too late; the phrase supposedly indicating that rights are controlled through the original copyright, rather than through a licensing arrangement with a publisher; but in reality more truly indicating that the music has been used without any control by the copyright owner.
* Similar arrangements, I believe, apply across Europe, and the various national collecting societies work closely together; but I don't know whether they exchange registrations, or whether a writer has to be registered with each different territory's society if they want to receive royalties there.
That's what I've pulled together from various pages on the internet, but the official sites (and legislation) seem rather opaque on this; so I'd be grateful if anyone could confirm that this is indeed how things work in Europe (and in the English-speaking world outside the USA?), before I go adding it to the article.  But if "Copyright Control", in particular, does have the implications above, I think that is something we should document. Jheald (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanical rights, Compulsory licensing, European collection societies, "Copyright Control" 

message: What is the point of this? It demonstrates nothing, it's not clear what is being illustrated, and there's no reason to believe it's for royalties.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.2.52 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed the image. --Chealer (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheque image 

message: Parts of this article, including the Software royalties section, are closely paraphrased. This section was added in . I did not investigate all the other edits of the contributor behind that edit, but since he contributed almost half of the article's edits, this problem is probably not isolated to that section. --Chealer (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I got everything i could find. I did a spotcheck through every major diff of his contribution here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close paraphrasing 

message: On consulting this article for another purpose, I was surprised to see the claim that 'In the United Kingdom, the Church of England is specifically exempted from performance royalties for music performed in services because it is a state-established church'.  It would be astonishing if the Church of England were given an exclusive exemption for this reason, and as far as I can tell from a quick check it is quite untrue.  There is indeed an exemption for music performed as part of a church service, but this applies to all denominations, and not just the Church of England.  I suspect that it also applies to non-Christian religions.  I have not tried to amend the article, but I suggest that someone more qualified than I am should check the position and make an accurate revision to the text, preferably with a reference to the relevant legislation.109.158.132.75 (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church services in the UK 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Royalties. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080106132315/http://www.ascap.com:80/musicbiz/money-recording.html to http://www.ascap.com/musicbiz/money-recording.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013054358/http://www.scfitalia.it:80/webnew/ to http://www.scfitalia.it/webnew/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090923144319/http://www.nolo.com:80/legal-encyclopedia/article-30093.html to http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30093.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090912203311/http://www.lesanz.org.au/realmcommunications/royaltyrates.html to http://lesanz.org.au/realmcommunications/royaltyrates.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061113113030/http://njsbdc.com/scitech/scitech120804weiler.ppt to http://www.njsbdc.com/SciTech/scitech120804weiler.ppt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Royalty payment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080413013807/http://www.intellectualpropertyanalysis.com:80/article4.html to http://www.intellectualpropertyanalysis.com/article4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061208104908/http://www.royaltystat.com:80/royaltystat.cfm to http://www.royaltystat.com/royaltystat.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Royalty payment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081018084025/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6128717C16DB42D8882573C400597DC7/$file/0655102.pdf?openelement to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6128717C16DB42D8882573C400597DC7/$file/0655102.pdf?openelement
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070920001149/http://www.intltaxlaw.com/SHARED/TRANSFER/REGS.HTM to http://www.intltaxlaw.com/shared/transfer/regs.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Royalty payment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090122230424/http://www.pcpro.co.uk:80/news/78202/artists-bid-for-cd-parity-on-digital-royalties.html. to http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/78202/artists-bid-for-cd-parity-on-digital-royalties.html.
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110706122013/http://www.arts.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/.../Viscopy_Access_Economics.pdf to http://www.arts.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/.../Viscopy_Access_Economics.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Royalty payment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614111248/http://www.mallat.com/articles/joint_ventures.htm to http://www.mallat.com/articles/joint_ventures.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Royalty payment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406234155/http://www.oilgas1031.com/ to http://www.oilgas1031.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afm.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720195027/http://www.aftra.org/ to http://www.aftra.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6128717C16DB42D8882573C400597DC7/%24file/0655102.pdf?openelement
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Royalty payment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127124500/http://prsformusic.com/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.prsformusic.com/Pages/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The music section is way too big and way too specific for a general article on royalty payments. It should be summarized and broken into a separate article. If anybody else wants to give it a go, go for it; otherwise I'll try to get to it soon .... Lquilter (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  music section too big