title: Royalty payment

text: The royalty rate for printing a book (a novel, lyrics or music) for sale globally, or for its download, varies from 20 to 30% of the suggested retail sales value, which is collected by the publisher/distributor. The payment is made by the publisher/distributor and corresponds to the agreement (license) between the writer and the publisher/distributor as with other music royalties. The agreement is typically non-exclusive to the publisher and the term may vary from 3–5 years. Established writers favor certain publishers/distributors and usually receive higher royalties.


title: Royalty payment

text: All of the royalty does not go directly to the writer. Rather, it is shared with the publisher on a 50:50 basis.


title: Royalty payment

text: If a book involved is a play, it might be dramatized. The right to dramatize is a separate right – known as grand rights. This income is shared by the many personalities 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 negotiated between the publisher and the mentioned participants.


title: Royalty payment

text: If the writer's work is only part of a publication, then the royalty paid is "pro-rata", a facet which is more often met in a book of lyrics or in a book of hymns and sometimes in an anthology.


title: Royalty payment

text: Church music – that is, music that is based on written work – is important particularly in the Americas and in some other countries of Europe. Examples are hymns, anthems, and songbooks. Unlike novels and plays, hymns are sung with regularity. Very often, the hymns and songs are sung from lyrics in a book, or more common nowadays, from the work projected on a computer screen. In the US, the Christian Copyright Licensing International, Inc. is the collection agency for royalties but a song or hymn writers have to be registered with them and the songs identified.


title: Royalty payment

text: Viewed from a US perspective, foreign publishing involves two basic types of publishing – 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-publishers 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 records (with local artists performing the work).


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 copyright license. Those sub-publishers who merely license out the work earn between 15 and 25%.


title: Royalty payment

text: Although the terms "mechanical" and mechanical license have their origins in the piano rolls on which music was recorded in the early part of the 20th century, the scope of their modern usage is much wider and covers any copyrighted audio composition that is rendered mechanically (i.e., without human performers). As such, it includes:


title: Royalty payment

text: Record companies are responsible for paying royalties to those artists who have performed for a recording based on the sale of CDs by retailers.


title: Royalty payment

text: The United States treatment of mechanical royalties differs markedly from international practice. In the United States, while the right to use copyrighted music for making records for public distribution (for private use) is an exclusive right of the composer, the Copyright Act provides that "once" the music is so recorded, anyone else can 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".


title: Royalty payment

text: The following is a partial segment of the compulsory rates as they have applied from 1998 to 2007 in the United States. 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 composition exceeds it, whichever is greater.


title: Royalty payment

text: In the predominant case, the composer assigns the song copyright to a publishing company under a "publishing agreement" which makes the publisher exclusive owner of the composition. The publisher's role is to promote the music by extending the written music to "recordings" of vocal, instrumental and orchestral arrangements and to administer the collection of royalties (which, as will shortly be seen, is in reality done by specialized companies). The publisher also licenses "subpublishers" domestically and in other countries to similarly promote the music and administer the collection of royalties.


title: Royalty payment

text: In a fair publishing agreement, every 100 units of currency that flows to the publisher gets divided as follows: 50 units go to the songwriter and 50 units to the publisher minus operating and administrative fees and applicable taxes. However, the music writer obtains a further 25 units from the publisher's share, if the music writer retains a portion of the music publishing rights (as a co-publisher). In effect, the co-publishing agreement is a 50/50 share of royalties in favor of the songwriter if administrative costs of publishing are disregarded. This is near international practice.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 the exclusivities that flow to such copyright. The main obligation of the recording label to the songwriter and her publisher is to pay the contracted royalties on the license received.


title: Royalty payment

text: While the compulsory rates remain unaffected, recording companies in the U.S. typically will negotiate to pay not more than 75% of the compulsory rate where the songwriter is also the recording artist and will further (in the U.S.) extend that to a maximum of 10 songs, even though the marketed recording may carry more than that number. This 'reduced rate' results from the incorporation of a "controlled composition" clause in the licensing contract since the composer as recording artist is seen to control the content of the recording.


title: Royalty payment

text: Mechanical royalties for music produced outside of the United States are negotiated – there being no compulsory licensing – and royalty payments to the composer and her publisher for recordings are based on the wholesale, retail, or "suggested retail value" of the marketed CDs.


title: Royalty payment

text: Recording artists earn royalties only from the "sale" of CDs and tapes and, as will be seen later, from sales arising from digital rights. Where the songwriter is also the recording artist, royalties from CD sales add to those from the recording contract.


title: Royalty payment

text: In the U.S., recording artists earn royalties amounting to 10%–25% (of the suggested retail price of the recording depending on their popularity but such is before deductions for "packaging", "breakage", "promotion sales" and holdback for "returns", which act to significantly reduce net royalty incomes.


title: Royalty payment

text: In the U.S., the Harry Fox Agency, HFA, is the predominant licensor, collector and distributor for mechanical royalties, although there are several small competing organizations. For its operations, it charges about 6% as commission. HFA, like its counterparts in other countries, is a state-approved quasi-monopoly and is expected to act in the interests of the composers/songwriters – and thus obtains the right to audit record company sales. Additional third party administrators such as RightsFlow provide services to license, account and pay mechanical royalties and are growing. RightsFlow is paid by the licensees (artists, labels, distributors, online music services) and in turn does not extract a commission from the mechanical royalties paid out.


title: Royalty payment

text: In the UK the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society, MCPS (now in alliance with 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 rate for licensing tracks is 6.5% of retail price (or 8.5% of the published wholesale price).


title: Royalty payment

text: The mechanical royalty rate paid to the publisher in Europe is about 6.5% on the Published Price to Dealer (PPD).


title: Royalty payment

text: SACEM acts collectively for "francophone" countries in Africa. For South Africa mechanical royaltues are distributed by CAPASSO. The UK society also has strong links with English-speaking African countries.


title: Royalty payment

text: In Australia and New Zealand, the Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society (AMCOS) collects royalties for its members.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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. Traditionally, American music publishers have not sought performance royalties for music sung and played in church services–the license to perform being implied by distributors of church sheet music. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC exempt church worship services from performance royalties, but make no exemption for church-hosted concerts.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 jukebox, stage, radio or TV. Users of music need to obtain a "performing rights license" from music societies – as will be explained shortly – to use the music. Performing rights extend both to live and recorded music played in such diverse areas as cafés, skating rinks, etc.


title: Royalty payment

text: Licensing is generally done by music societies called "Performing Rights Organizations" (PROs), "some" of which are government-approved or government-owned, to which the composer, the publisher, performer (in some cases) or the record label have subscribed.


title: Royalty payment

text: The diagram on the right titled "The Performance Rights Complex" shows the general sequences by which a song or a composition gets to be titled a "performance" and which brings royalties to songwriters/publishers, performing artists and 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.


title: Royalty payment

text: Who license music (to music-users) and act as royalty collection and distribution agencies for their members. These funds are distributed quarterly though there can be delays depending on what PRO is being used to collect on music royalties. If copyrights holder(s) want payment sooner they have an option to take out an advance against their royalties with their PRO though these are based around 100% recoupment.


title: Royalty payment

text: PPL issues performance licenses to all UK radio, TV and broadcast stations, as well as establishments who employ sound recordings (tapes, CDs), in entertaining the public. The licensing company collects and distributes royalties to the "record label" for the sound recording and to "featured UK performers" in the recording. Performers do not earn from sound recordings on video and film.


title: Royalty payment

text: PRS, which is now in alliance with MCPS, collects royalties from music-users and distributes them directly to "song-writers" and "publishers" whose works are performed live, on radio or on TV on a 50:50 basis. MCPS licenses music for broadcast in the range 3 to 5.25% of net advertising revenues.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 organizations for membership.


title: Royalty payment

text: The next diagram shows the sequences in the licensing of performances and the royalty collection and distribution process in the UK. 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 commonly issued to music-users, the latter are responsible for "usage returns" – the actual frequency of performances under the license – which then becomes the basis for the PRO to apportion royalties to writers, publishers, and record labels. ("DIY indies" are "do-it-yourself" independent songwriters – and, often, the performers as well – who record and publish under their own labels). In the UK, music is licensed (and royalties paid on it) "at the track level".


title: Royalty payment

text: There is also a separate organization in the UK called VPL, which is the collecting 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. The licensing income collected from users is paid out to the society's members after administrative costs are deducted.


title: Royalty payment

text: There are different models for royalty collection in 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.


title: Royalty payment

text: In the United States, in contrast, SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc) and SESAC (Society of European Stage Authors & Composers) are the four principal Performance Rights Organizations (PROs), although smaller societies exist. The royalty that is paid to the composer and publisher is determined by the method of assessment used by the PRO to gauge the use of the music, there being no external 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 composers/songwriters "who are its members" and each composer and publisher is paid royalties based on the assessed frequency of the music's performance, post deductions of charges (which are many). The PROs are audited agencies. They "directly" pay the songwriter and the publisher their respective shares. (If part of the publisher's share is retained by the songwriter, the publisher pays the songwriter that part of the publisher's share).


title: Royalty payment

text: Typically, the PRO negotiates blanket licenses with radio stations, television networks 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.


title: Royalty payment

text: PROs use different types of surveys to determine the frequency of usage of a composition/song. ASCAP uses random sampling, SESAC uses cue sheets for TV performances and 'digital pattern recognition' for radio performances while BMI employs more scientific methods.


title: Royalty payment

text: In the United States, only the composer and the publisher are paid performance royalties and not performing artists (digital rights being a different matter). Likewise, 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. The issue of performance royalties for radio use has been a complicated matter for decades, as broadcasters have typically worked against Congress to pass laws that would require such payments. In 2021, Congress introduced the American Music Fairness Act which would require radio broadcasters to pay both performers and labels for use of their songs over the radio, with a rate schedule adjusted based on the size of the radio station.


title: Royalty payment

text: Where a performance has co-writers along with the composer/songwriter – as in a musical play – they will share the royalty.


title: Royalty payment

text: Regulatory provisions in the US, EU and elsewhere is in a state of flux, continuously being challenged by developments in technology; thus almost any regulation stated here exists in a tentative format.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 physical media. Copyright owners of musical works are granted exclusive rights to license over-the-air radio and TV broadcasts, entitling them royalties, which are, as said earlier, collected and distributed by the PROs. Under the Act, record 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 royalties from over-the-air and digital broadcasting.


title: Royalty payment

text: In 1995, the Congress introduced the "Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPRA)", which became effective 1 February 1996. This Act granted owners of "sound 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 agreement with the broadcaster, it could avail of compulsory licensing provisions. Under the Act, the compulsory royalty (the royalty schedule follows) was to be shared in the manner: 50% to the record companies, 45% to featured artists, 2½% to non-featured musicians through American Federation of Musicians (AFM) in the United States and Canada and 2½% for non-featured vocalists through American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). 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 satellite (DBS) on a non-interactive basis in the absence of a voluntary negotiation and agreement.


title: Royalty payment

text: In 1998, the Congress amended DPRA to create the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by redefining the above-noted subscription services of DPRA as "preexisting subscription services" and expanded the statutory license to include new categories of digital audio services that may operate under the license. In effect, DMCA created three categories of licensees:


title: Royalty payment

text: In addition to the above, a fourth license was created permit webcasters to make "ephemeral recordings" of a sound recording (temporary copies) to facilitate streaming but with a royalty to be paid.


title: Royalty payment

text: Non-subscription webcasting royalties have also to be shared between record companies and performers in the proportions set out under DPRA.


title: Royalty payment

text: The Table below titled SUMMARY OF STATUTORY ROYALTY RATES FOR DIGITAL WEBCASTING – UNITED STATES encapsulates the royalties set for non-interactive webcasting.


title: Royalty payment

text: To qualify for compulsory licensing under non-subscription services, the webcasting needs to fit the following six criteria:


title: Royalty payment

text: An "inter-active service" is one which allows a listener to receive a specially created 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 under the compulsory license and require negotiations with the copyright owners.


title: Royalty payment

text: However, a service is non-interactive if it permits people to request songs which 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 cuts consecutively can be played, or a site can play four songs from any singer from a boxed CD-set, but no more than three cuts consecutively.


title: Royalty payment

text: Both interactive and non-interactive streaming services are required and regulated by the Copyright Royalty Judges to pay out a minimum fee per stream. Interactive services must pay out $0.0022 per stream while non-interactive streaming services must pay $0.0017 per stream. These rates are set to be what these services are required to distribute per stream and has been the rate since 1 January 2016 and will be reevaluated after 31 December 2020.


title: Royalty payment

text: The SoundExchange, a non-profit organization, is defined under the legislation to act on behalf of record companies (including the majors) to license performance and reproduction rights and negotiate royalties with the broadcasters. It is governed by a board of artist and label representatives. Services include track level accounting of performances to all "members" and collection and distribution of foreign royalties to all members.


title: Royalty payment

text: In the absence of a voluntary agreement between the SoundExchange and the broadcasters, Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) was authorized to set the statutory rates as could prevail between a "willing buyer" and "willing sellers". SoundExchange handles only the collection of royalties from "compulsory licenses" for non-interactive streaming services that use satellite, cable or internet methods of distribution.


title: Royalty payment

text: The royalties for the first of the above two licenses are obtained from SoundExchange and the third from the PROs. Failure to make required payments constitutes copyright infringement and is subject to statutory damages.


title: Royalty payment

text: Both broadcasters involved in webcasting and pure-Internet non-broadcasters are required to pay these royalties under the rules framed under the Act. All webcasters are also required to be registered with the United States Copyright Office.


title: Royalty payment

text: In 2017, 82% of revenues for the entire music industry was attributed to digital music services. Streaming accounted for 67% of revenues in the US music industry.


title: Royalty payment

text: The United Kingdom adopted the 2001 Information Society Directive in 2003 and the meaning of broadcast performance was broadened to cover "communicating to the public". This then included music distribution through the internet and the transmission of ringtones to mobiles. Thus a music download was a "copy" of proprietary music and hence required to be licensed.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 interests of songwriters (MCPS and PRS) a compromise was reached, leading to a subsequent 3-year interim legislation (2007) adopted by the UK Copyright Tribunal under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The legislation, referring to a new JOL (Joint Online License), applies only to music purchased within UK.


title: Royalty payment

text: The applicable royalties are given in the table below which, also includes music downloads and music services through mobile devices. This path-breaking legislation is expected to become the model for EU (which is yet to develop comprehensive legislation), and perhaps even extend to the US.


title: Royalty payment

text: Note that the legislation includes the distinction between downloads of musical tracks from iTunes and other stores, which were considered "sales" and the webcasts considered "performances".


title: Royalty payment

text: In brief, the compromise reached is that songwriters will receive 8% of gross revenues (definition follows), less VAT, as royalty for each track downloaded bridging 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 than the 5.7% paid for a 79p track sold by iTunes. A minimum of four pence will be paid, in the new legislation, if tracks are discounted.


title: Royalty payment

text: Not all music providers in the UK were part of the compromise that led to the legislation. For those not participating – principally, AOL, Yahoo! and RealNetworks – the Tribunal set the royalty rate for pure webcasting at 5.75%.


title: Royalty payment

text: UK legislation recognizes the term online as referring to downloading digital files 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.


title: Royalty payment

text: A stream is a file of continuous music listened to through a consumer's receiving device with no playable copy of the music remaining.


title: Royalty payment

text: Permanent Downloads are transfers (sale) of music from a website to a computer or mobile telephone for permanent retention and use whenever the purchaser wishes, analogous to the purchase of a CD.


title: Royalty payment

text: A Limited Download is similar to a permanent download but differs from it in that the consumer's use of the copy is in some way restricted by associated technology; for instance, becomes unusable when the subscription ends (say, through an encoding, such as DRM, of the downloaded music).


title: Royalty payment

text: 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.


title: Royalty payment

text: Pure Webcasting is where the user receives a stream of pre-programmed music chosen "by the music service provider". It is non-interactive to the extent that even pausing or skipping of tracks is not possible.


title: Royalty payment

text: Premium and Interactive Webcasting are personalized subscription services intermediate between pure webcasting and downloading.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 particular concert.


title: Royalty payment

text: Simulcasting, although not in the Table above, is the simultaneous re-transmission by a licensed transmission of the program of a radio or TV station over the internet of an otherwise traditional broadcast. The person receiving the simulcast normally makes no permanent copy of it. It is defined in the legislation as an offline service.


title: Royalty payment

text: 'Gross Revenue', which is comprehensively defined in the legislation, summarized here, means, all revenue received (or receivable) by the licensee from Users, all revenue received through advertisements associated with the music service, sponsorship fees, commissions from third parties and revenue arising from barter or contra deals. No deductions are permitted except for refunds of unused music due to technical faults.


title: Royalty payment

text: According to Joel Mabus, the term synchronization "comes from the early days of the talkies when music was first synchronized with film". The terminology originated in US industry but has now spread worldwide.


title: Royalty payment

text: In the UK and elsewhere, with the exception of the US, there is apparently no legal prohibition to the combination of audio and visual images and no explicit statutory right for the collection of synch royalties. In the US, however, the Copyright Act defines the audiovisual format as that of combining images with music for use in machines and there is no explicit rate set such as the "compulsory royalty rate" for copying music. However, there are instances of courts implying the synchronization right, but even so, it is an amorphous colloquial commercial term of acceptance.


title: Royalty payment

text: Synchronization royalties ("sync licenses") are paid for the use of copyrighted music in (largely) audiovisual productions, such as in DVDs, movies, and advertisements. Music used in news tracks are also synch licenses. Synchronization can extend to live media performances, such as plays and live theatre. They become extremely important for new media – the usage of music in the form of mp3, wav, flac files and for usage in webcasts, embedded media in microchips (e.g. karaoke), etc. but the legal conventions are yet to be drawn.


title: Royalty payment

text: Synchronization royalties are due to the composer/songwriter or his/her publisher. 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 industry practice.


title: Royalty payment

text: It is useful to note in this connection the concept of the "needle drop" (now laser 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 company, in every country in the world generates a "synchro", although a single payment may be renegotiable in advance.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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% or could be per song per usage.


title: Royalty payment

text: In the US, the Audio Home Recording Act became effective law in October 1992. The law enabled the release of recordable digital formats such as Sony and Philips' Digital Audio Tape without fear of contributory infringement lawsuits.


title: Royalty payment

text: Art Resale Royalty is a right to a royalty payment upon resales of art works, that applies in some jurisdictions. Whilst there are currently approximately 60 countries that have some sort of Resale Royalty on their statute books, evidence of 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 2011 the European commissions ec.europa webpage on Resale royalty stated that, under the heading 'Indicative list of third countries (Article 7.2)' :


title: Royalty payment

text: 'A letter was 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 evidence 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 list.' [The emphasis is from the European commission web page.]


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 as 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 of the royalty compulsory. Some country's prescribe a sole monopoly collection service 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.


title: Royalty payment

text: In some cases, for example Germany, an openly tax-like use is made of the "royalties"; Half of the money collected is redistributed to fund public programs.


title: Royalty payment

text: The New Zealand and Canadian governments have not proceeded with any sort of artist resale scheme. The Australian scheme does not apply to the "first" resale of artworks purchased "prior to the schemes enactment"( June 2010) and individual usage of the right (by Australian artists) is not compulsory. In Australia artists have a case by case right (under clause 22/23 of the Act) to refuse consent to the usage of the right by the appointed collection society and/or make their own collection arrangements. Details of the Australian scheme can be gotten from the website of the sole appointed Australian agency; The "Copyright Agency Limited".


title: Royalty payment

text: The UK scheme is in the context of common-law countries an oddity; No other common-law country has mandated an individual economic right where actual usage of the right is compulsory for the individual right holder. Whether the common law conception 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 question.


title: Royalty payment

text: The UK is the largest art resale market where a form of ARR is operating, details of how the royalty is calculated as a portion of sale price in the UK can be accessed here DACS


title: Royalty payment

text: In the UK, the scheme was, in early 2012, extended to all artists still in copyright. In most European jurisdictions the right has the same duration as the term of copyright. In California law, heirs receive royalty for 20 years.


title: Royalty payment

text: The royalty applies to any work of graphic or plastic art such as a ceramic, collage, 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 artist and then resold within 3 years for a value of €10,000 or less is not affected by the royalty.


title: Royalty payment

text: The situation as to how ARR applies in situations where an art work is physically made by a person or persons who are not the 'name artist' who first exhibits and 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 effectively sold transferred.


title: Royalty payment

text: Whether resale royalties are of net economic benefit to artists is a highly contested area. Many economic studies have seriously questioned the assumptions underlying the argument that resale royalties have net benefits to artists. Many modelings have suggested that resale royalties could be actually harmful to living artists' economic positions.


title: Royalty payment

text: Australia's chief advocate for the adoption of artist resale royalties the collection society, Viscopy, commissioned in 2004 a report from Access Economics to model the likely impact of their scheme. In the resulting report, Access Economics warned that the claim of net benefit to artists was: "based upon extremely unrealistic assumptions, in particular the assumption that seller and buyer behaviour would be completely unaffected by the introduction of RRR [ARR]" and that, "Access Economics considers that the results of this analysis are both unhelpful and potentially misleading."


title: Royalty payment

text: There is simply too much computer software to consider the royalties applicable to each. The following is a guide to royalty rates:


title: Royalty payment

text: The term "royalty" also covers areas outside of IP and technology licensing, such as oil, gas, and mineral royalties paid to the owner of a property by a resources 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 contract right to receive money based on a royalty formula, rather than an actual ownership interest in the business. In some businesses this sort of royalty is sometimes called an "override".


title: Royalty payment

text: Royalties may exist in technological alliances and partnerships. The latter is more than mere access to secret technical or a trade right to accomplish an objective. It is, in the last decade of the past century, and the first of this one of the major means of technology transfer. Its importance for the licensor and the licensee lies in its access to markets and raw materials, and labor, when the international trend is towards globalization.


title: Royalty payment

text: There are three main groups when it comes to technological alliances. They are Joint-ventures (sometimes abbreviated JV), the Franchises and Strategic Alliances (SA).


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 are situated, subject to a rigid code of rules, in which the public may or may not 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.


title: Royalty payment

text: Franchises revolve around "services" and they are closely connected with trademarks, an example of which is McDonald's. Although franchises have no convention like trademarks or copyrights they can be mistaken as a trademark-copyright in agreements. The franchisor has close control over the franchisee, which, in legal terms cannot be tie-ins such as frachisee located in an areas owned by the franchisor.


title: Royalty payment

text: Strategic Alliances can involve a project (such as bridge building). a product or 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-term task but generally are uncomfortable with the other. But the strategic alliance could be a test of compatibility for the forming of a joint venture company and a precedent step.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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.


title: Royalty payment

text: On occasion, a JV or SA may be wholly oriented to research and development, typically involving multiple organizations working on an agreed form of engagement. The Airbus is an example of such.


title: Royalty payment

text: Firms in developing countries often are asked by the supplier of know-how or patent licensing to consider technical service (TS) and technical assistance (TA) as elements of the technology transfer process and to pay "royalty" on them. TS and TA are associated with the IP (intellectual property) transferred – and, sometimes, dependent on its acquisition – but they are, by no means, IP. TA and TS may also be the sole part of the transfer or the transferor of the IP, their concurrent supplier. They are seldom met with in the developed countries, which sometimes view even know-how as similar to TS.


title: Royalty payment

text: TS comprises services which are the specialized knowledge of firms or acquired by 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 time, at end of which the acquirer becomes proficient to be independent of the service. In this process, no consideration is given on whether the transfer of the proprietary element has been concluded or not.


title: Royalty payment

text: On the other hand, technical assistance is a package of assistance given on a short timetable. It can range variously from procurement of equipment for a project, 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 services.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 evaluated. Note that in selecting a TS supplier (often the IP supplier), experience and dependency are critical.


title: Royalty payment

text: The rate of royalty applied in a given case is determined by various factors, the most notable of which are:


title: Royalty payment

text: There are three general approaches to assess the applicable royalty rate in the licensing of intellectual property. They are


title: Royalty payment

text: The Cost Approach considers the several elements of cost that may have been entered to create the intellectual property and to seek a royalty rate that will recapture the expense of its development and obtain a return that is commensurate with its expected life. Costs considered could include R&D expenditures, pilot-plant and test-marketing costs, technology upgrading expenses, patent application expenditure and the like.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 similar technologies. More importantly, by lacking optimization (through additional expense), it may earn benefits below its potential.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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.


title: Royalty payment

text: In the former case, the venture capitalist obtains an equity position in the company (developing the technology) in exchange for financing a part of the development cost (recovering it, and obtaining an appropriate margin, when the company gets acquired or it goes public through the IPO route).


title: Royalty payment

text: Recovery of costs, with opportunity of gain, is also feasible when development can be followed stage-wise as shown below for a pharmaceutical undergoing clinical trials (the licensee pays higher royalties for the product as it moves through the normal stages of its development):


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 on the software meeting set stage-wise specifications with acceptable error levels in performance tests.


title: Royalty payment

text: Here the cost and the risk of development are disregarded. The royalty rate is determined from comparing competing or similar technologies in an industry, modified by considerations of useful "remaining life" of the technology in that industry 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. Economist J. Gregory Sidak explains that comparable licenses, when selected correctly, "reveal what the licensor and the licensee consider to be fair compensation for the use of the patented technology" and thus "will most accurately depict the price that a licensee would willingly pay for that technology." The Federal Circuit has on numerous occasions confirmed that the comparable market approach is a reliable methodology to calculate a reasonable royalty.


title: Royalty payment

text: Although widely used, the prime difficulty with this method is obtaining access to data on comparable technologies and the terms of the agreements that incorporate them. Fortunately, there are several recognized organizations (see "Royalty Rate Websites" listed at the end of this article) who have comprehensive 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 privately assembled data.


title: Royalty payment

text: The two tables shown below are drawn, selectively, from information that is available with an IP-related organization and on-line. The first depicts the range and distribution of royalty rates in agreements. The second shows the royalty rate ranges in select technology sectors (latter data sourced from: Dan McGavock of IPC Group, Chicago, USA).


title: Royalty payment

text: Commercial sources also provide information that is invaluable for making comparisons. The following table provides typical information that is obtainable, for instance, from Royaltystat:


title: Royalty payment

text: The comparability between transactions requires a comparison of the significant economic conditions that may affect the contracting parties:


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 unrelated to costs of technology development or the costs of competing technologies.


title: Royalty payment

text: The approach requires the licensee (or licensor): (a) to generate a cash-flow projection of incomes and expenses over the life-span of the license under an agreed scenario of incomes and costs (b) determining the Net Present Value, NPV of the profit stream, based on a "selected" discount factor, and c) negotiating the division of such profit between the licensor and the licensee.


title: Royalty payment

text: The NPV of a future income is always lower than its current value because an income in the future is attended by risk. In other words, an income in the future needs to be discounted, in some manner, to obtain its present equivalent. The factor 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 discounted value will be still lower two years down the line.


title: Royalty payment

text: The actual discount factor used depends on the risk assumed by the principal gainer in the transaction. For instance, a mature technology worked in different geographies, will carry a lower risk of non-performance (thus, a lower discount rate) than a technology being applied for the first time. A similar situation arises when there is the option of working the technology in one of two different regions; the risk elements in each region would be different.


title: Royalty payment

text: The licensor's share of the income is usually set by the "25% rule of thumb", which is said to be even used by tax authorities in the US and Europe for arms-length transactions. The share is on the operating profit of the licensee firm. Even where such division is held contentious, the rule can still be the starting point of negotiations.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 precedent does not exist.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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 parent company).


title: Royalty payment

text: In discussing the licensing of Intellectual Property, the terms "valuation" and "evaluation" need to be understood in their rigorous terms.


title: Royalty payment

text: Evaluation is the process of assessing a license in terms of the specific metrics of a particular negotiation, which may include its circumstances, the geographical spread of licensed rights, product range, market width, licensee competitiveness, growth prospects, etc.


title: Royalty payment

text: On the other hand, valuation is the fair market value (FMV) of the "asset" – trademark, patent or know-how – at which it can be sold between a willing buyer and willing seller in the context of best awareness of circumstances. The FMV of the IP, where assessable, may itself be a metric for evaluation.


title: Royalty payment

text: If an emerging company is listed on the stock market, the market value of its intellectual property can be estimated from the data of the balance sheet using the equivalence:


title: Royalty payment

text: where the IP is the residual after deducting the other components from the market valuation of the stock. One of the most significant intangibles may be the work-force.


title: Royalty payment

text: 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).


title: Cheran (director)

text: Cheran (born 12 December 1970) is an Indian film director, producer, actor and lyricist known for his works in Tamil cinema. He is a four time National Film Award winner for "Vetri Kodi Kattu" (2000), "Autograph" (2004) and "Thavamai Thavamirundhu" (2005). He has also won five Tamil Nadu State Film Awards and six South Filmfare Awards.


title: Cheran (director)

text: Cheran initially made breakthrough as a director by making village-based drama films focusing on human relationships, and achieved critical acclaim for his work in "Bharathi Kannamma" (1997) and "Porkkaalam" (1997). He later moved on to work on themes exploring how globalisation affects the Indian middle class, and told the story of scam job offers in "Vetri Kodi Kattu" (2000) and village-to-city emigration in "Pandavar Bhoomi" (2001). His most renowned film till date, "Autograph" (2004), is a semi-autobiographical tale of a man at four stage of his life. He later also experienced success with the family drama film "Thavamai Thavamirundhu" (2005) and as an actor in films such as "Pirivom Santhippom" (2008) and "Yuddham Sei" (2011).


title: Cheran (director)

text: Cheran was born in Pazhaiyurpatty village near Madurai. His father Pandian was a film projector operator in Vellalur's touring theatre. His mother Kamala was a primary school teacher, and he has two sisters.


title: Cheran (director)

text: He came to Chennai to pursue a career in films, and was keen to become an actor. Initially, he started career as a production manager in some films. In the film "Puriyaadha Pudhir" (1990), he worked as an assistant director K. S. Ravikumar, and was later promoted to an associate director from "Cheran Pandiyan" (1992) to "Nattamai" (1994).


title: Cheran (director)

text: Cheran made his directorial debut through "Bharathi Kannamma" (1997), a village drama narrating the relationship between the daughter of a rich family and their retainer, starring Parthiban and Meena. During its release, the film ran into trouble with Thevar community who almost imposed a ban of the film due to its content. However the film won good reviews and performed well at the box office. In spite of controversies, the film became successful at box-office. His second film, "Porkkaalam" (1997) was in the same genre, and also performed well commercially as well as winning favourable reviews from critics. The film, which explored the life of a hard-working potter and his poor family, earned Cheran an award for best director from the Tamil Nadu State.


title: Cheran (director)

text: Unlike his first two films, his third film did not fare well at the box office despite winning positive reviews. "Desiya Geetham" (1998) told the story of a Chief Minister being kidnapped and taken to a remote village, and it subsequently met with a controversial response from politicians. Despite Cheran's intervention and explanation of the script to senior political figures, the film was quickly removed from cinema halls, much to the director's dismay. However, the film won good reviews and a critic noted it was "a rare, good movie with a message" and added that Cheran "deserves credit for making a movie that tries to tell something and keeping away from the usual, commercial add-ons". Following the film's failure, Cheran announced several projects before opting not to continue with them. He initially considered other films with Murali, one co-starring Shammi Kapoor titled "Paraseega Roja", and another co-starring Meena titled "Maaya Maan" but the films did not progress. Cheran then moved on an urban love story starring Prashanth, Shamitha and himself. The film was initially titled "Inniya Kaadalargale" and then renamed as "Vinnodum Mugilodum", but the film was also later dropped. Another light-hearted film titled "Aagaya Kottai" was planned with Arunkumar, Suriya and Raju Sundaram, but it did not start production.


title: Cheran (director)

text: He later worked again with Parthiban and Murali for the social comedy drama, "Vetri Kodi Kattu" (2000), which focused on scams committed by agents who promised lavish jobs and salaries abroad, and in the process swindling the money of innocent people. The film won critical acclaim upon release, and Cheran won a National Film Award for his work in the film. Cheran then made "Pandavar Bhoomi" (2001) with actors Arunkumar, Shamitha and Rajkiran, which explored themes of wholesale emigration of villagers to the city and the loss of good, solid agricultural lands, culture and solidarity. The film performed well at the box office and garnered mixed reviews from critics. A reviewer from Sify.com stated the film was "typical overdose of Cheran melodrama masala". Cheran then turned actor in director Thangar Bachan's romantic drama film "Solla Marandha Kadhai" (2002). The film garnered mixed review but performed well at the box office.


title: Cheran (director)

text: Cheran first began work on "Autograph" in October 2000 with Prabhu Deva and then Vikram cast, though the actors later opted out as a result of schedule clashes. In early 2002, Cheran announced that he was going to instead make a film titled "Pokkisham" and Kanika would star alongside him. However he failed to find a financier and moved back to making "Autograph". As producers were unwilling to finance the film, Cheran opted to produce and star in the film himself and the film consequently took over a year to make. "Autograph" told the story of a man named Senthil, presented in four stages of his life – at school, college, work and during his marriage, and Cheran called the film "semi-autobiographical". The film starred him alongside Sneha, Gopika, Mallika and Kaniha, and had a popular soundtrack composed by Bharathwaj. Four different cinematographers worked on the film; Ravi Varman had shot the school episode in Senthil's early life with a 35 mm lens, Vijay Milton shot the Kerala scenes, Dwaraknath shot the Chennai episode with a steady cam and Shanky Mahendran shot the "'live' part" of the film when the camera uses the point of view of Senthil's character.


title: Cheran (director)

text: Made at a budget of ₹2 crore rupees, the film garnered over ₹10 crores at the box office and became one of the most profitable Tamil films of the year. The film benefited from positive word-of-mouth and Cheran subsequently increased the number of prints from sixty five to eighty five for the second week, a rarity in Tamil cinema. The film won positive reviews from film critics, with Sify.com writing that "Cheran has used all his artists to perfection to make this love story with polish and panache". Dennis Harvey of "Variety" wrote it was a "well-mounted production has too much familiar melodrama, and few real highlights (notably one delightful homage to ’70s Tamil musicals), but remains an easy watch". For the film, Cheran won a National Award for Best Popular Film, along with two Filmfare Awards and two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards, for Best Film and Best Director. The film became renowned as a "cult classic" and spawned several other inspirations and remakes in the Indian film industry.


title: Cheran (director)

text: Cheran then restarted work on "Pokkisham" in 2004 but postponed the film after falling out with the new lead actress Meera Jasmine. He then the drama film "Thavamai Thavamirundhu" (2005) focused on family relationships and Tamil culture, and cast himself in the lead role, alongside Rajkiran, Saranya and Padmapriya. During production, the film went over budget and took nearly 145 days of shoot in Karaikudi, Madurai and Chennai. The film was made at a budget of ₹2 crore rupees, and went on to make profits for the producers. The film also won positive reviews, with a critic from Sify.com noting that "Cheran has kept the flag of uncompromised cinema flying and is one of the handful of directors, whose calling card remain his artistry over the medium", adding that the film is "brilliant and appeals as much to the mind as the heart". Upon release, the film won several awards including the another National Award for best film on family welfare.


title: Cheran (director)

text: He restarted work on "Pokkisham" for the third time in December 2005, after completing "Thavamai Thavamirundhu" (2005), and approached Sandhya to play the lead role. The film did not take off so he moved on to make "Maya Kannadi" (2007) starring himself and Navya Nair. "Mayakannadi" was based on the concept of middle class dreams turning sour due to lack of commitment and created attention prior to release owing to Cheran's recent success. However, the film fared poorly at the box office and lost money for distributors. It received mixed reviews and a critic noted "after seeing the film, we hope that the director applies this message in his life by sticking to his core strength of direction rather than dabble in roles that just do not suit him". Another reviewer from Rediff.com stated it was a "brave, real film" and that "Cheran has done a superb job directing as well as acting". After the film's release, Cheran suggested that he regretted not thinking about letting someone else play the lead role instead of himself.


title: Cheran (director)

text: Cheran subsequently chose to prioritise acting commitments in order to raise finances for his subsequent film. He starred in T. V. Chandran's award-winning "Aadum Koothu" (2008), Karu Pazhaniappan's "Pirivom Santhippom" (2008) and "Raman Thediya Seethai" (2009). In his films, he often portrayed meek and mellow roles as a family-orientated man. The films all performed well commercially, and won good reviews for Cheran as an actor. For the fourth time, Cheran finally moved on to make "Pokkisham" (2009) and cast Padmapriya alongside himself in the lead role during 2008. Set in the 1970s, the story revolved around two lovers – a Muslim Tamil literature student and a Hindu marine engineer working in Calcutta. "Pokkisham" opened to mixed reviews from critics, with many reviewers calling the screenplay too slow. The film subsequently fared poorly at the box office.


title: Cheran (director)

text: Following the commercial failure of "Pokkisham", Cheran actively chose to prioritise acting commitments. He appeared in Mysskin's thriller "Yuddham Sei" as a detective agent, and in Rajan Madhav's mystery drama "Muran" during 2011. In 2013, he featured in Vasanth's "Moondru Per Moondru Kaadhal" and in the anthology film "Chennaiyil Oru Naal". In general, all four films won positive reviews from critics and performed well commercially.


title: Cheran (director)

text: Following successive failures as a director, Cheran had trouble attracting producers for his next directorial projects. He also revealed his intentions of making bigger budget films to cater to modern audiences and expressed that village-based films would be difficult, as the setting had changed considerably since the start of his career. He subsequently launched a film titled "JK Enum Nanbanin Vaazhkai" in 2013 starring Sharwanand and Nithya Menen. However, the film languished in development hell and later had a straight-to-DVD release via Cheran's C2H platform. The period marked a difficult stage for the director, with the lack of directing and acting offers, complemented by family trouble, financial problems owing to C2H, and negative press for controversial statements.


title: Cheran (director)

text: After an extended break, Cheran made a return to direction with the family drama "Thirumanam" (2019) starring himself alongside Sukanya, Umapathi Ramaiah and Kavya Shetty. The film focused on marriage between young people, and Cheran suggested that the film would urge the youth to consider some of the societal factors before entering into wedlock. The film opened to negative reviews, and fared poorly at the box office. A critic noted "the basic problem with "Thirumanam" is the preachy tone of the film" and that "Cheran uses lengthy dialogues and songs to convey his thoughts, which often tests our patience", concluding that the film "is certainly not for audiences who like modern dramas".


title: Cheran (director)

text: In 2014, Cheran founded a new cinema distribution platform known as "C2H" (Cinema2Home) in an attempt to curb out copyright infringement in the Tamil film industry. He also launched his own music company 'Dream Sounds' in 2013, which released the soundtrack album of "JK Enum Nanbanin Vaazhkai" (2015) and "Thirumanam" (2019). C2H was expected to deliver official original DVDs on the day of a film's theatrical release to homes, for which C2H signed an agreement with DVD maker Moser Baer. Around 150 distributors and 3000 dealers were said to be involved in the process of bringing the DVDs to households across Tamil Nadu. He had chosen to launch the platform after his film "JK Enum Nanbanin Vaazhkai" failed to attract distributors for a theatrical release and intended on it becoming the first film of the platform. He later convinced producers who were struggling to find distributors to also put their films forward for a C2H release. Other films which joined included Thangasamy's "Ettuthikkum Madhayaanai", Rohini's "Appavin Meesai", Parthi Bhaskar's "Arjunan Kadhali", Sashidharan's "Vaaraayo Vennilaave", Mahesh Periyasamy's "Hockey" and Balan's "Koditta Idangalai Nirappuga". Films such as Kandeepan's "Aavi Kumar" were briefly attached to C2H before opting out.


title: Cheran (director)

text: In March 2015, Cheran released his own film "JK Enum Nanbanin Vaazhkai" through the platform and opted against giving the film a theatrical release. The C2H initiative was later dropped as the platform did not garner support, and the remainder of the films except "Ettuthikkum Madhayaanai" remain unreleased. An arrest warrant was issued by a court against Cheran and his daughter Nivedha, after he did not respond to a bounced cheque following the failure of the venture in March 2016.


title: Cheran (director)

text: Cheran shared his life experiences and was published as a serial article in the Tamil Weekly Magazine Ananda Vikatan. Later, it was published as a book titled "Touring Talkies", . He later turned publisher with the Tamil novel "Porum Valiyum" (War & Pain), a novel on an emotional account of a war-torn Sri Lanka by author Savitri Advithanandhan. As a first step, he launched the publishing house "Cheran Noolagam".


title: Cheran (director)

text: In 2019, Cheran entered the "third season" of the popular reality show "Bigg Boss Tamil". He got evicted after 90 days. He also received the "Most Disciplined" housemate award from Kamal Hasan.


title: Cheran (director)

text: Cheran has often had a difficult relationship with producers and has made controversial statements, which have elicited discussion. In 1998, he called out Kamal Haasan for ill-treating him during his assistant director days on the sets of "Mahanadhi" (1994). In 2008, during the audio release of "Raman Thediya Seethai", he made a derogatory statement against press for writing rumours about him. In 2013, he held a press conference asking parents to strictly oppose love marriages, despite having written many love stories in films. The conversation arose when he appealed to the media for assistance after his daughter had briefly run away from home with her boyfriend.


title: Cheran (director)

text: In late 2015, prior to the Nadigar Sangam elections, Cheran publicly criticised the leadership potential and acting ability of actors Vishal and Karthi. Cheran criticised actor Sharwanand in July 2016 for not cooperating with the promotion of "Rajathi Raja", the Telugu version of "JK Enum Nanbanin Vaazhkai" (2016). In return, Sharwanand stated that Cheran was in the wrong, was sour because of the failure of the Tamil film and had failed to pay him his salary.


title: Cheran (director)

text: In 2016, Cheran blamed Sri Lankan Tamils for being the cause of video piracy in the Tamil film industry and expressed his regret for his support of their political independence movement. His remarks were met with outrage from the Tamil diaspora.


title: Cheran (director)

text: In March 2017, Cheran launched another scathing attack against Vishal and produced a seven-page letter accusing the actor of being "selfish, power hungry and insensitive". In his letter, Cheran also criticised Vishal for not lending him support during the failed C2H venture. Vishal later suggested that he respected but felt pity for Cheran for his false allegations.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Paul John Weitz (born November 19, 1965) is an American filmmaker, playwright, and actor. He is the older brother of filmmaker Chris Weitz. Together they worked on the comedy films "American Pie" and "About a Boy"; for the latter, they were both nominated for the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. Weitz is also a writer, executive producer, and director of the Amazon Prime Video web series "Mozart in the Jungle".


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Weitz was born in New York City, the son of actress Susan Kohner and Berlin-born novelist/menswear designer John Weitz. His brother is filmmaker Chris Weitz. Weitz is the grandson of Czech-born agent and producer Paul Kohner and actress Lupita Tovar on his maternal side. Tovar, who was from Oaxaca, Mexico, starred in "Santa", Mexico's first talkie, in 1932, as well as a Mexican version of "Drácula". Weitz' paternal grandparents escaped Nazi Germany, where his grandfather had been a successful textile manufacturer, and family intimates of Christopher Isherwood and Marlene Dietrich.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Weitz's father and maternal grandfather were Jewish, whereas his maternal grandmother was Catholic. He was raised in a nonreligious household.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Weitz attended the Allen-Stevenson School with his brother and Collegiate. In 1988, he graduated from Wesleyan University. While at Wesleyan, Weitz studied under film instructor Jeanine Basinger.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Weitz' early career involved many collaborations with his brother. Some of the work they have done as screenwriters has been both credited and uncredited.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Weitz began his film career as a co-writer on the 1998 animated film "Antz". He followed this with work on various sitcoms such as "Off Centre" and the 1998 revival of the 1977 series "Fantasy Island". In 1999, he and Chris directed and produced "American Pie", which was written by Adam Herz, and became a major box office success. Weitz returned as executive producer on the film's two theatrical sequels.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: In 2002, the Weitz brothers co-wrote and co-directed "About a Boy", the Hugh Grant film based on the book by Nick Hornby. The film was originally set up at New Line Cinema with Robert De Niro producing, and the main character as an American. The brothers felt that it was important that the character is British. Inspiration came from the film "The Apartment" (1960). They were nominated for an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Weitz has written and directed the well-received romantic comedy "In Good Company" and the political satire "American Dreamz", which faced mixed reviews. Additional writing credits include the television show "Cracking Up".


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: He has also directed an adaptation of Darren Shan's young adult novel "Cirque du Freak" called "The Vampire's Assistant". He directed the film "Little Fockers" (2010), the sequel to "Meet the Parents" and "Meet the Fockers".


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Subsequently he wrote and directed "Being Flynn", an adaptation of Nick Flynn's memoir "Another Bullshit Night in Suck City", starring Robert De Niro. Weitz said he worked collaboratively with Flynn to translate the dense original source material into its film adaptation.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: In 2015, Weitz directed the film, "Grandma", which starred Lily Tomlin. The film premiered at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival on January 30, as the closing night film. The film was Tomlin's first leading role in 27 years, after co-starring with Bette Midler in the comedy film "Big Business" (1988). It is the second collaboration between Tomlin and Weitz, who previously directed her in his film "Admission" (2013). The film was released on August 21, 2015, by Sony Pictures Classics.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Weitz had the story idea for many years, but it never fully formed until he met and worked with Tomlin on "Admission", saying that "After meeting Lily, the voice and the character really clicked, I had thought about it for years, so I had a lot of it worked out in my head, and then I just went to a coffee shop and wrote it longhand."


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Weitz has a production company with his brother Chris Weitz and producer Andrew Miano called Depth of Field. In March 2016, Weitz and his brother signed a two-year first look deal with Amazon Studios.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: Weitz has written a number of plays, including "Roulette", "Privilege", "Show People" and "Trust", all of which have been produced Off-Broadway in New York City. "Trust" starred Zach Braff, Bobby Cannavale, Sutton Foster, and Ari Graynor, and was directed by Peter DuBois at Second Stage Theatre. It will be produced in Brazil, Germany and Greece in 2013. Second Stage previously produced "Privilege" and "Show People" and produced "Lonely, I'm Not", starring Topher Grace and Olivia Thirlby a new comedy by Weitz in 2012. "Lonely, I'm Not" was a "New York Times" critics pick.


title: Paul Weitz (filmmaker)

text: As a writer, Weitz has discussed semi-jokingly the fact that he avoids the discomfort in his life by turning to the act of writing. He sees a good play structure as being very different from a good film structure, and thinks that it is rare for plays as source material to be easily adapted into film.


title: 2017 Formula 2 Championship

text: The 2017 FIA Formula 2 Championship was the fifty-first season of the second-tier of Formula One feeder championship and also the first season under the moniker of FIA Formula 2 Championship, a motor racing championship run in support of the 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship. The championship is sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) and is open to teams and drivers competing in cars complying with Formula 2 regulations.


title: 2017 Formula 2 Championship

text: 2017 was the final season that the Dallara GP2/11 chassis package—which débuted in the 2011 GP2 Series—was used in competition. It was also the final season that the Mecachrome 4.0 litre V8 naturally-aspirated engine package that débuted in the 2005 GP2 Series was used, as a brand new chassis and engine package was introduced for the 2018 season.


title: 2017 Formula 2 Championship

text: The season was dominated by Charles Leclerc, who secured the drivers' championship with three races to go. Second place went to Artem Markelov with Oliver Rowland finishing third. The teams' championship was decided in the final race, with Russian Time winning by fifteen points over Prema Racing and DAMS in third, a further eleven points behind.


title: 2017 Formula 2 Championship

text: Champion Charles Leclerc took 7 wins, while runner-up Artem Markelov took 5 victories, Oliver Rowland took 2 wins, Luca Ghiotto, who finished fourth in the championship, took 1 win, Nobuharu Matsushita took 2 victories, Norman Nato, Nicholas Latifi, Antonio Fuoco, Nyck de Vries and Sérgio Sette Câmara each took one race win.


title: 2017 Formula 2 Championship

text: All FIA Formula 2 drivers competed in a Dallara GP2/11 chassis, using a Mecachrome GP2 V8 engine and Pirelli tyres.


title: 2017 Formula 2 Championship

text: After six seasons in the series, Carlin withdrew to concentrate on their Indy Lights programme. German entry Hilmer Motorsport were due to return to the series while it was still known as GP2, however, this never came to fruition.


title: 2017 Formula 2 Championship

text: The series returned to the Bahrain International Circuit in support of the Bahrain Grand Prix, while the rounds at the Hockenheimring and the Sepang International Circuit were discontinued. The series made its début at the Circuito de Jerez, with a stand-alone event that was run as the penultimate round of the championship.


title: 2017 Formula 2 Championship

text: The series was originally intended to be run as the GP2 Series before it was rebranded as the FIA Formula 2 Championship in March 2017. The decision to rebrand the series brings it in line with the FIA Global Pathway, which aims to create a linear path of feeder series from domestic Formula 4 to the top tier of open-wheel racing, Formula One. Despite the name change, it will retain the GP2 regulations as originally scheduled, making the 2017 season the thirteenth to use GP2 regulations. It will be the first time that a series has been run under the name of Formula 2 since Jonathan Palmer's unrelated series collapsed in 2012.


title: 2017 Formula 2 Championship

text: Points were awarded to the top 10 classified finishers in the Feature race, and to the top 8 classified finishers in the Sprint race. The pole-sitter in the feature race also received four points, and two points were given to the driver who set the fastest lap inside the top ten in both the feature and sprint races. No extra points were awarded to the pole-sitter in the sprint race.


title: Tim Leissner

text: Tim Leissner (born October 31, 1971) is a German-born investment banker and a former managing director at Goldman Sachs and chairman of the bank's Southeast Asia division. Leissner helped orchestrate the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, one of the biggest financial scandals in history, in which billions of dollars were stolen. He was arrested in June 2018 in Washington, D.C.


title: Tim Leissner

text: In 2018 Leissner pled guilty to charges he personally stole $200 million from a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and that he broke the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by paying bribes to corrupt Malaysian and Emirati offices to get Goldman Sachs business.


title: Tim Leissner

text: Leissner was banned for life by the Securities and Exchange Commission and forced to pay a $43 million fine. Leissner faces up to 25 years in prison. He testified against his former deputy Roger Ng in a 2022 trial.


title: Tim Leissner

text: Leissner is portrayed in the book "Billion Dollar Whale: The Man Who Fooled Wall Street, Hollywood, and the World" by Tom Wright and Bradley Hope of The Wall Street Journal, which focuses on Jho Low, the purported mastermind behind the 1MDB scheme. The book was published in September 2018.


title: Tim Leissner

text: Leissner was employed by Goldman Sachs from 1998 to 2016. He retired in January 2016 after an internal review found he sent a fake letter to Banque Havilland on behalf of Jho Low.


title: Tim Leissner

text: At the time Leissner married Simmons, he was still married to his ex-wife, Judy Chan. Leissner gave Simmons photoshopped documents showing that he was divorced from Chan, and created an email address in Chan's name to convince Simmons that the couple was divorced. He continued the correspondence for over a year and continued using the email account for several years.


title: The Godfather (book series)

text: "The Godfather" book series is a series of crime novels about Italian-American Mafia families, most notably the fictional Corleone family, led by Don Vito Corleone and later his son Michael Corleone. The first novel, "The Godfather", written by Mario Puzo, was released in 1969. It was adapted into a series of three feature films, which became one of the most acclaimed franchises in film history.


title: The Godfather (book series)

text: Puzo also wrote the second novel, "The Sicilian", which was released in 1984, and was made into a film (with "Godfather" references removed) in 1987. Mark Winegardner wrote the next two novels, "The Godfather Returns" and "The Godfather's Revenge", released in 2004 and 2006 respectively. Edward Falco wrote the fifth novel, based on a draft script by Mario Puzo, titled "The Family Corleone", which also served as a prequel to Puzo's first novel. It was released in 2012.


title: The Godfather (book series)

text: By the time of its release, the first novel remained on "The New York Times" Best Seller list for 67 weeks and sold over nine million copies in two years since the release.


title: The Godfather (book series)

text: "The Godfather" trilogy is one of the most acclaimed franchises in film history. "The Godfather", released in 1972, is an adaptation of the Puzo novel of the same name. "The Godfather Part II", released in 1974, also adapts elements from the first novel - mostly the early life of Vito Corleone. The story of "The Godfather Part III", released in 1990, is not taken from any novel. The Winegardner novels, released after "Part III", incorporate and explain elements from "Part II" and "Part III". Falco's novel, "The Family Corleone", was based on an unproduced screenplay written by Puzo (intended for a fourth "Godfather" film, which was abandoned after Puzo's death).


title: The Godfather (book series)

text: The 1987 film, "The Sicilian", based on Puzo's second book (of the same name), features Christopher Lambert as the main character, Salvatore Giuliano. Due to copyright issues, all "Godfather" references were removed and the characters of Michael Corleone and Peter Clemenza were not included in the film.


title: The Godfather (book series)

text: By the time of the release of the fourth novel, "The Godfather's Revenge", Paramount Pictures sued the Puzo estate for the publication of the novel, and also sought to block publication of "The Family Corleone", claiming that it had only authorized publication of one sequel, "The Godfather Returns". The lawsuit claimed that the novel tarnished the legacy of the films and misled readers into believing that the novels were authorized by Paramount.


title: The Godfather (book series)

text: With the release of the fifth novel, "The Family Corleone", the estate of Puzo had sought to keep Paramount Pictures from producing a feature film based on the novel. This has been resolved, with Paramount gaining the rights to make more "Godfather" films (as of early 2020, no plans had been announced).


title: Jeff Jones (musician)

text: Jeffrey Robin Jones (born September 20, 1953) is an American-Canadian bassist who was a member of Ocean and is a member of Red Rider.


title: Jeff Jones (musician)

text: Jones performed with Alex Lifeson and John Rutsey in the first incarnation of Rush, serving as the primary singer and bassist in the summer of 1968. He was replaced by Geddy Lee in September 1968 before their second performance, after wanting to go to a party. He first gained fame as a member of the gospel rock band Ocean, which had a million-selling 1971 single "Put Your Hand in the Hand". The group disbanded in 1975. Jones later joined Red Rider (he performed bass on the song "Lunatic Fringe") and still performs with leader Tom Cochrane. He also works on videos showing Eastwood basses.


title: Jeff Jones (musician)

text: In the late 1970s, Jones played bass and sang in Stingaree, a Toronto-based band featuring Brian MacLeod and Bernie LaBarge on guitars and vocals, Doug (Skip) Layton on drums, and Larry Hamel (replaced by Don Harriss) on vocals and piano. The band had a large following in Ontario. Brian MacLeod was spotted by promoter Martin Onrot while Stingaree was playing in Toronto and left the band to join Chilliwack. The remaining members of Stingaree played for another six months before disbanding in 1978. Jones also played bass on the 1981 hit "Dream Away" by LaBarge.


title: Jeff Jones (musician)

text: Jones is a regular member of Toronto band The Carpet Frogs, who also serve as The Burton Cummings band. He also continues to tour with Tom Cochrane.


title: Jeff Jones (musician)

text: In June 2018, Jeff Jones, along with the group Roar, released the single "Naked in the Church" on Roar Records. Chris Crerar completed the mastering on this project while it was produced by Kevin Dietz at the Metalworks Studios in Toronto.


title: Repatriation of Cossacks after World War II

text: The Repatriation of Cossacks occurred when Cossacks, ethnic Russians and Ukrainians who were opposed to the Soviet Union (such as by fighting for Germany) were handed over by British and US forces to the Soviet Union after the Second World War. Near the end of the war, many Cossacks fled to western Europe, fearing the Red Army, in hopes of surrendering instead to the military forces of the United States or the UK. Once they were arrested by the Allies, they were packed into small trains and were promised to be sent to the west. Unbeknownst to them, they were instead being sent to the Soviet Union. Many men, women, and children were sent to the Gulag camps, and many were worked to death. The repatriations were agreed to in the Yalta Conference; Joseph Stalin claimed the prisoners were Soviet citizens as of 1939, although many of them had left Russia before or soon after the end of the Russian Civil War or had been born abroad.


text: Most of those Cossacks and Russians fought the Allies, specifically the Soviets, in service to the Axis powers, specifically Nazi Germany, yet the repatriations included non-combatant civilians as well. General Poliakov and Colonel Chereshneff referred to it as the "massacre of Cossacks at Lienz".


text: During the Russian Civil War (1917–1923), Cossack leaders and their governments generally sided with the White movement. As a result, the majority of Cossack soldiers were mobilized against the Red Army. As the Soviets emerged victorious in the civil war, many Cossack veterans, fearing reprisals and the Bolsheviks’ de-Cossackization policies, fled abroad to countries in Central and Western Europe. In exile, they formed their own anti-communist organisations or joined other Russian émigré groups such as the Russian All-Military Union (ROVS).


text: The Cossacks who remained in Russia endured more than a decade of continual repression, "e.g.," the portioning of the lands of the Terek, Ural and Semirechye hosts, forced cultural assimilation and repression of the Russian Orthodox Church, deportation and, ultimately, the Soviet famine of 1932–33. The repressions ceased and some privileges were restored after publication of "And Quiet Flows the Don" (1934) by Mikhail Sholokhov.


text: After Adolf Hitler launched the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, several anticommunist Cossack leaders, including Kuban ataman Naumenko, Terek ataman Vdovenko, former Don ataman Pyotr Krasnov and the Cossack National Center chairman Vasily Glazkov, all publicly praised the German campaign. Despite this outpouring of support, Hitler and other top officials initially denied Cossack émigrés from having any military or political role in the war against the Soviets. It was not until 1942 when Ostministerium openly began employing Cossack émigrés for propaganda and administrative purposes.


text: While top Nazi officials were slow to embrace anticommunist Cossacks, some Wehrmacht field commanders had utilized Cossack defectors from the Red Army since the summer of 1941. In early 1943, most of the Cossack units fighting with the German Army were consolidated into the First Cossack Cavalry Division under the command of General Helmuth von Pannwitz. Later that year, the Cossack cavalry division was deployed to Axis-occupied Yugoslavia to fight Tito's Partisans. In late 1944, the division was incorporated into the Waffen-SS and expanded into the XV SS Cossack Cavalry Corps.


text: Another Cossack group whose fate became tied with the Germans consisted of approximately 25,000 Cossack refugees and irregulars who evacuated the North Caucasus alongside the Wehrmacht in 1943. This group, known as “Cossachi Stan” migrated between southern Ukraine, Novogrudek (Byelorussia), Tolmezzo (Italy) and was forced to withdraw to Lienz in Allied-occupied Austria, at the close of the war.


text: The agreements of the Yalta and Tehran Conferences, signed by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, determined the fates of the Cossacks who did not fight for the Soviets, because many were POWs of the Nazis. Stalin obtained Allied agreement to the repatriation of every so-called "Soviet" citizen held prisoner because the Allied leaders feared that the Soviets either might delay or refuse repatriation of the Allied POWs whom the Red Army had liberated from Nazi POW camps.


text: It was in the context of the wish to remain on good terms with Stalin that, according to Edward Peterson, the US chose to hand over several hundred thousand German prisoners to the Soviet Union in May 1945 as a "gesture of friendship".


text: Although the agreement for the deportation of all "Soviet" citizens did not include White Russian emigres who had fled during the Bolshevik Revolution before the establishment of the USSR, all Cossack prisoners of war were later demanded. After Yalta, Churchill questioned Stalin, asking, "Did the Cossacks and other minorities fight against us?" Stalin replied, "They fought with ferocity, not to say savagery, for the Germans".


text: In 1944 Gen. Krasnov and other Cossack leaders had persuaded Hitler to allow Cossack troops, as well as civilians and non-combatant Cossacks, to permanently settle in the sparsely settled Carnia, in the Alps. The Cossacks moved there and established garrisons and settlements, requisitioning houses by evicting the inhabitants, with several stanitsas and posts, their administration, churches, schools and military units. There, they fought the partisans and persecuted the local population, committing numerous atrocities. The measures consisting of clearing the Italian inhabitants of the area from their homes and taking stern measures to not allow partisans from the hills to “pass through alive” in the area led the Italians to use the epithet “Barbarian Cossacks.”


text: When the Allies progressed from central Italy to the Italian Alps, Italian partisans under Gen. Contini ordered the Cossacks to leave Carnia and go north to Austria. There, near Lienz, the British Army kept the Cossacks in a hastily established camp. For a few days the British supplied them with food; meanwhile, the Red Army's advance units approached to within a few miles east, rapidly advancing to meet the Allies. On 28 May 1945 the British transported 2,046 disarmed Cossack officers and generals—including the cavalry Generals Pyotr Krasnov and Andrei Shkuro—to a nearby Red Army-held town and handed them over to the Red Army commanding general, who ordered them tried for treason. Many Cossack leaders had never been citizens of the Soviet Union, having fled revolutionary Russia in 1920; hence they believed they could not be guilty of treason. Some were executed immediately. High-ranking officers were tried in Moscow, and then executed. On 17 January 1947 Krasnov and Shkuro were hanged in a public square. Gen. Helmuth von Pannwitz of the Wehrmacht, who was instrumental in the formation and leadership of the Cossacks taken from German POW camps to fight the Soviets, decided to share the Cossacks' Soviet repatriation and was executed for war crimes, along with five Cossack generals and atamans in Moscow in 1947.


text: On 1 June 1945 the UK placed 32,000 Cossacks (with their women and children) into trains and trucks and delivered them to the Red Army for repatriation to the Soviets; similar repatriations occurred that year in the US occupation zones in Austria and Germany. Most Cossacks were sent to the gulags in far northern Russia and Siberia, and many died; some, however, escaped, and others lived until Nikita Khrushchev's amnesty in the course of his de-Stalinization policies (see below). In total, some two million people were repatriated to the Soviets at the end of the Second World War.


text: On 28 May 1945 the British Army arrived at Camp Peggetz, in Lienz, where there were 2,479 Cossacks, including 2,201 officers and soldiers. They went to invite the Cossacks to an important conference with British officials, informing them that they would return to Lienz by 18:00 that evening; some Cossacks were worried, but the British reassured them that everything was in order. One British officer told the Cossacks, "I assure you, on my word of honour as a British officer, that you are just going to a conference". By then British–Cossack relationships were friendly to the extent that many on both sides had developed feelings for one another. The Lienz Cossack repatriation was exceptional, because the Cossacks forcefully resisted their repatriation to the USSR; one Cossack noted, "The NKVD or the Gestapo would have slain us with truncheons, the British did it with their word of honour." Julius Epstein described the scene that occurred:


text: The British transported the Cossacks to a prison where they were handed over to the waiting Soviets. In the town of Tristach, Austria, there was a memorial commemorating General von Pannwitz and the soldiers of the XV SS Cossack Cavalry Corps who were killed in action or died as POWs. This memorial was removed in September 2021 because of the connection between General von Pannwitz and both the SA and the SS, as well as his loyalty to the Nazi regime.


text: On 1–2 June 18,000 Cossacks were handed over to the Soviets near the town of Judenburg, Austria; of those in custody, some ten officers and 50–60 Cossacks escaped the guards' cordon with hand grenades, and hid in the nearby woods.


text: The Russian Cossacks of XV Cossack Cavalry Corps, stationed in Yugoslavia since 1943, were part of the column headed for Austria that would take part in the Bleiburg repatriations, and they are estimated to have numbered in the thousands. Nikolai Tolstoy quotes a telegram by General Harold Alexander, sent to the Combined Chiefs of Staff, noting "50,000 Cossacks including 11,000 women, children and old men". At a location near Graz, British forces repatriated around 40,000 Cossacks to SMERSH.


text: Although repatriations mainly occurred in Europe, 154 Cossacks were repatriated to the Soviets from Fort Dix, New Jersey, in the United States; three committed suicide in the US and seven were injured. Epstein states that the prisoners put up considerable resistance:


text: Cossacks were included in the hundreds who were repatriated to the Soviet Union from Marseilles in 1946.


text: Several hundred Cossacks were repatriated to the Soviet Union from camps close to Venice in 1947. Some 100 Cossacks perished in resistance to forcible repatriations at Rimini and Bologna.


text: Thousands of Russians, many of them Cossacks, were transported at the height of armed hostilities in 1944 to Murmansk in an operation that also led to the sinking of the German battleship "Tirpitz".


text: The Cossack officers, more politically aware than the enlisted men, expected that repatriation to the USSR would be their ultimate fate. They believed that the British would have sympathised with their anti-Communism, but were unaware that their fates had been decided at the Yalta Conference. Upon discovering that they would be repatriated, many escaped, some probably aided by their Allied captors; some passively resisted, and others killed themselves.


text: Of those Cossacks who escaped repatriation, many hid in forests and mountainsides, some were hidden by the local German populace, but most hid in different identities as Latvians, Poles, Yugoslavians, Turks, Armenians and even Ethiopians. Eventually they were admitted to displaced persons camps under assumed names and nationalities; many emigrated to the US per the Displaced Persons Act. Others went to any country that would admit them (e.g., Germany, Austria, France and Italy). Most Cossacks hid their true national identity until the dissolution of the USSR in late 1991.


text: After the in 1953, partial amnesty was granted for some labor camp inmates on 27 March 1953 with the end of the Gulag system. It was then extended on 17 September 1955. Some specific political crimes were omitted from amnesty: people convicted under Section 58.1(c) of the Criminal Code, stipulating that in the event of a military man escaping Russia, every adult member of his family who abetted the escape or who knew of it would be subject to five to ten years' imprisonment; every dependent who did not know of the escape would be subject to five years' Siberian exile.


text: The event was documented in publications such as Nicholas Bethell's "The Last Secret: The Delivery to Stalin of Over Two Million Russians by Britain and the United States" (1974). The first book written about the subject appears to have been "Kontra" by the Polish writer Józef Mackiewicz, which was published in Polish in London in 1957. Subsequently, in two volumes entitled "Velikoe Predatelstvo" ("The Great Betrayal") published in 1962 and 1970 by a Russian language publisher in New York, Vyacheslav Naumenko, the former "ataman" of the Kuban Host documented the event. Neither the books of Mackiewicz or Naumenko were translated into English for decades after their publication and hence were almost completely ignored in the English-speaking world. The two volumes of "Velikoe Predatelstvo" were first translated into English in 2015 and 2018. "Kontra" has been republished several times in Polish, but has apparently never been translated into English. The first book written in English on the subject was "The East Came West" (1964) by the British author Peter Huxley-Blythe, but attracted little attention because of Huxley-Blythe's involvement with the European Liberation Front. The cover of "The East Came West" featured an image taken from a Nazi propaganda poster showing a demonical ape dressed in a Red Army uniform surrounded by fire and brimstone reaching out towards Europe. The first book about the subject published on official documentation was "Operation Keelhaul" in 1973 by the Austrian-born American author Julius Epstein, which was based on U.S. sources and primarily dealt with the American role in the repatriation.


text: The subject of the repatriation was largely unknown in the English-speaking world until 1974 when Lord Bethell published his book "The Last Secret", which was also turned into a BBC documentary that aired the same year. Bethell was critical of the repatriation, accusing the British government of "intentionally over-fulfilling" the Yalta agreement by handing over people who were not Soviet citizens, but was careful in his treatment of the evidence. The year 1974 also saw the publication in English of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn's book "The Gulag Archipelago", where he mentions that many of the prisoners he met in Gulag in the late 1940s were veterans of the Vlasov Army repatriated by the British and Americans in 1945, a policy which he portrayed as craven and self-defeating. Though Solzhenitsyn in "The Gulag Archipelago" did not deal specifically with the repatriation of the Cossacks, instead dealing with the repatriation of people to the Soviet Union in general, the book increased popular interest in the subject, as did his claim that Anglo-American policy towards the Soviet Union was driven in a fundamentally sinister and conspiratorial way, punishing the alleged friends of the West such as the Vlasov Army and the Cossacks while rewarding its enemies such as the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn describes the forced repatriation of the Cossacks by Winston Churchill as follows: "He turned over to the Soviet command the Cossack corps of 90,000 men. Along with them, he also handed over many wagonloads of old people, women and children who did not want to return to their native Cossack rivers. This great hero, monuments to whom will in time cover all England, ordered that they, too, be surrendered to their deaths." The man who led and supervised the entire operation was Major Davies.


text: Subsequently, Count Nikolai Tolstoy published "The Victims of Yalta" in 1977, which was described by a critical historian, D.R. Thrope, as "a work of considerable scholarship". Nikolai Tolstoy describes this and other events resulting from the Yalta Conference as the "Secret Betrayal" (cf. Western betrayal), for going unpublished in the West. The 1970s were a period when détente had become fashionable in some quarters and many on the right believed the West was losing the Cold War. The subject of the repatriations in 1945 were used by a variety of right-wing authors in the 1970s-1980s as a symbol of both of the malevolence of the Soviet Union and of a "craven" policy towards the Soviet Union alleged to have been pursued by the successive American and British governments since the Second World War.