neviens nav vairs jāintervē, es jau to izdarīju.
From a business perspective, granting rights to a Licensee to use Licensors assets typically initiates Income Processes.
Often Third Party Deals are accompanied by payment of initial advance to Licensor.
For instance, it is required in situations where a record company - Licensor issues a license to a Third Party to use masters (i.e. WMG issues a license for Sony/BMG to use one or more of their assets on a compilation they are creating) from its repertoire on the Third Party’s products, such as compilation CDs, etc.
Other examples are television and movies that have licensed the right to use the recording with some visual work (synchronization fees).
After the Master License Agreement is negotiated, Third Party (Licensee, the company requesting to use the tenants asset) is responsible for rendering payments to the Licensor on a fixed regular agreed upon schedule.
Tad nu mūsu gadījums within Third party deals saucas Synchronization Fee, kuru regularitāti.
Pēc tam, kad Special Markets dept noslēdz līgumu, kurā vienojās cik ko kuram un cik bieži un cik ilgi maksās, Licensee piķo Licensoram tik, cik nolīgts. Visbiežāk Sync Fee maksā ježekvartaļno. Līgumā tiek atrunāts, cik atskaņošanas reižu ir atļautas. Dabā praktiski to nevar izkontrolēt, pamatā tamdēļ ka lielajos leibļos ir tik drausmīgs bardaks uzskaites jomā, ka vārdos to ielikt praktiski nav iespējams.
un jā, vēl ir atsevišķs gadījums, kas nemaz nav līdzīgs šim visam saucas TV Adds, kur reklāmās tiek izmantoti songi, neobligāti akompanēti ar visual works, par tiem norēķiniem es neko nezinu. Tam domainam bija cits anālists.
Zinu tik, ka to atsekot vēl nežēlīgāk un specifiskāk.
![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}