People are jumping the gun with this story. Prince's catalog is still available on Beats Music so he's definitely not pulling his catalog from all streaming services.

[Edited 7/5/15 18:53pm]

Polo1026 said:

People are jumping the gun with this story. Prince's catalog is still available on Beats Music so he's definitely not pulling his catalog from all streaming services.

[Edited 7/5/15 18:53pm]

Could you check and see if the HARDROCKLOVER single is on Beats, please? Also, isn't Beats shutting down soon to move everyone to Apple Music?

#NPGMUSICPUBLISHING

[Edited 7/6/15 4:22am]

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

I just joined Apple Muziq last week and was VERY disappointed not 2 c O(+'s 'MasterPieces" there. But now Eye understand that it's a BIG plan in the works! It's all in the scheme of things...

#NPGMUSICPUBLISHING

Why were you disappointed in the first place? Surely you must have realised it was Prince's wish to not be included and you should have instantly hailed the 'masterpiece' plan.

I'm very surprised that you had that moment of doubt. You must be slipping!

But it's not so bad, only made a few albums, what about the Prince catalogue, is that on there?

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Why noone doubts boring ass Taylor Smith when she does it?

.

Because she's still selling millions of records, whereas Prince hasn't been able to do that in decades (I mean actually selling them, not freebies with concert tickets and other such crap). One of her videos just got ONE BILLION VIEWS on YouTube.

.

Swift earned $64 million in 2014 -- Prince hasn't made that in the past 5 years combined, probably even the past 10 years.

.

Hell, Prince made less in 2014 than PewDiePie.

.

[Edited 7/8/15 4:25am]

Fury said:

Sells out concerts in minutes

.

Nope. Plenty of times where gigs and even entire tours weren't selling.

.

and releases music when and how he feels like it.

.

Nope. Spent the Summer of 2014 bitching about how WBR wouldn't hurry in releasing his latest brainfart. Still waiting for that NPG album, or that NPGQ album etc.

terrig said:

so the article on billboard states hes had everything taken down until the streaming companies can renegotiate the contracts with HIS publishing company.

and that my friends is a WIN, he owns his masters now, so there's no label in the middle - apparently he's not become exclusive to Tidal, he's going to renegotiate with the other services so he gets the deal he wants with each one.

this is big dog mega moves and its awesome! GO PRINCE GO!

.

Yes, they're quaking in their boots. "Oh no we've lost Prince's back catalogue, now we'll be doomed.DOOMED I tell ya!"

TheEnglishGent said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

I just joined Apple Muziq last week and was VERY disappointed not 2 c O(+'s 'MasterPieces" there. But now Eye understand that it's a BIG plan in the works! It's all in the scheme of things...

#NPGMUSICPUBLISHING

Why were you disappointed in the first place? Surely you must have realised it was Prince's wish to not be included and you should have instantly hailed the 'masterpiece' plan.

I'm very surprised that you had that moment of doubt. You must be slipping!

But it's not so bad, only made a few albums, what about the Prince catalogue, is that on there?

BartVanHemelen said:

terrig said:

so the article on billboard states hes had everything taken down until the streaming companies can renegotiate the contracts with HIS publishing company.

and that my friends is a WIN, he owns his masters now, so there's no label in the middle - apparently he's not become exclusive to Tidal, he's going to renegotiate with the other services so he gets the deal he wants with each one.

this is big dog mega moves and its awesome! GO PRINCE GO!

.

Yes, they're quaking in their boots. "Oh no we've lost Prince's back catalogue, now we'll be doomed.DOOMED I tell ya!"

Do they have to be quaking in their boos? All I said was because he has his own publishing company for his own music that the middle man is gone, so no matter what deal he makes, he stands to gain. ANYTHING he makes is a win.

terrig said:

BartVanHemelen said:

.

Yes, they're quaking in their boots. "Oh no we've lost Prince's back catalogue, now we'll be doomed.DOOMED I tell ya!"

Do they have to be quaking in their boos? All I said was because he has his own publishing company for his own music that the middle man is gone, so no matter what deal he makes, he stands to gain. ANYTHING he makes is a win.

.

By removing his music he earns LESS than before. Quite the win.

.

Here's what you also said:

.

he's going to renegotiate with the other services so he gets the deal he wants with each one.

.

If you believe he's got any leverage to "get the deal he wants", I've got a bridge for sale.

I understand your disdain for Prince clouds your thinking, but every single service will most definitely negotiate with Prince - and whoever pays him the most will either gain some short term exclusivity, or set the bar where the other services will have to meet his terms.

If he ends up saying no to everyone, I agree thats not in his best interest to do that, but he's not losing much during this time he's pulled his music, and he will gain much more when he releases it because of the lack of a middleman.

Then it just sits there and pays him. It is a longterm win, it most certainly is, providing he actually does it of course.

There are millions of posts here for someone who in your eyes is all kinds of stupid, so one has to wonder why you hang around here...your only function seems to say no to everything just for the hell of it.

BartVanHemelen said:

terrig said:

.

By removing his music he earns LESS than before. Quite the win.

.

Here's what you also said:

.

he's going to renegotiate with the other services so he gets the deal he wants with each one.

.

If you believe he's got any leverage to "get the deal he wants", I've got a bridge for sale.

terrig said:

I understand your disdain for Prince clouds your thinking

This should be posted as a warning to all members.

"Bart's disdain for Prince clouds his thinking - please take this into consideration when addressing him".

But why still come here? That's what I will NEVER understand.

Militant said:

terrig said:

I understand your disdain for Prince clouds your thinking

This should be posted as a warning to all members.

"Bart's disdain for Prince clouds his thinking - please take this into consideration when addressing him".

I know right? I should know better

BartVanHemelen said:

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

Why noone doubts boring ass Taylor Smith when she does it?

.

Because she's still selling millions of records, whereas Prince hasn't been able to do that in decades (I mean actually selling them, not freebies with concert tickets and other such crap). One of her videos just got ONE BILLION VIEWS on YouTube.

.

Swift earned $64 million in 2014 -- Prince hasn't made that in the past 5 years combined, probably even the past 10 years.

.

Hell, Prince made less in 2014 than PewDiePie.

.

[Edited 7/8/15 4:25am]

Last year, both Prince and Taylor released their first singles and albums at almost the exact same time. I am not in any way shape or form a Taylor fan, but when they first came out, it was incredibly easy to see which artist was on top of things. Both Prince and Taylor released light-weight cheesy first singles. At the time I mentioned at how on first listen how far far better Taylor's effort was. Likening Shake it Off as the type of tracks Prince used to whip out before yawning every morning in the 80's and then give away to artists like the Bangles, Sheila E or Apollonia.

Meanwhile Prince released the god awful, truly tired and pathetic Funkandroll. I said at the time of release that Prince could learn a thing or two from Taylor now. It was so easy to predict which track audiences and music buyers would prefer.

Yeah, the fams snickered and spit out their Kool-Aid at that comparison ...because god forbid anyone say a whitebread girl like Taylor/her producers(Max Martin) being better at their/her game than Prince at any given moment.

Some people here have lost all objectivity and bow down and praise in religious-like fervor at anything Prince does. Comparing an old man past his prime to anyone is sacrilegious and balking as if it was blasphemy. But like I said would happen, nobody gave a shit over a crappy Prince song while like myself, the world made Taylor's pop single the year's biggest hit. I didn't hear the people snickering after that. Or ever mentioning the comparison ever again



And going back to last year, I said from the start that such a badly produced and cheesy album such as AOA had no chance at ever recouping any monies, and whomever at Warner Bros thought it a good idea to release such crap really needed to be fired. No one who actually WORKS in the industry and is so out of touch with music and reality should be employed in it with such bad judgment and taste. Maybe they needed a write-off and it worked for them. But the industry today is in no need for write-offs. It was just throwing good money away for no good reason.

[Edited 7/8/15 12:02pm]

BartVanHemelen said:

terrig said:

.

By removing his music he earns LESS than before. Quite the win.

.

Here's what you also said:

.

he's going to renegotiate with the other services so he gets the deal he wants with each one.

.

If you believe he's got any leverage to "get the deal he wants", I've got a bridge for sale.

However the services Prince seemed to be removing his catalog from, are streaming services. They don't pay much to start with. Prince isn't getting millions of streams per week.

By pulling his catalog from these services he's lost literally hundreds of dollars. Not millions or thousands... hundreds (if that). Thats chump change to Prince - in real terms.

When people complain they'll complain to Spotify. Prince obviously has a number in his head. Perhaps since Tidal claim to offer 2.4 cents per stream. That's how much he wants from Spotify.

You're right that Prince doesn't have much leverage at present. That could easily change if he has indeed positioned himself with Jay-Z.

There really is no money made from streaming. And the services need the handful of top catalog artists far more than the artists need the service. The labels need the way to generate and squeeze any monies off of their catalogs in aggregate than the artists themselves. And that's who this serves, the labels lucky enough to have the back catalogs worth squeezing.

Taylor left off her newest album from spotify because she made her money on it off sales from it, not streaming. She left it off Spotify so as not to cannibalize her "sales". Her prior albums were fine on it because she was just squeezing money off those herself. The day old bread.

Prince is not really losing anything from not streaming his music on these services and while I love Spotify because it is FANTASTIC for me as a consumer, ok for the labels and maybe even Spotify one day too, but not so much for artists themselves.

Artists can justify streaming as a means to advertise themselves and their live shows and albums, but there really is not much money in it but for a handful of artists. I do think it marginalizes music to an extent.

We'll see how it all works out when the dust settles. Spotify is not making much money if anything today, neither are artists. Spotify was concocted by the labels because throwing spaghetti at the wall is their current business strategy. We'll see. It's better than not getting anything off of YouTube I suppose.

[Edited 7/8/15 12:37pm]

V10LETBLUES said:

Prince is not really losing anything from not streaming his music on these services

Prince is losing exposure... opportunities for new people to discover his music.

[Edited 7/19/15 22:50pm]

i think people may be missing an important thing about apple music.....

i'd bet most people using apple music (and its connection to your existing itunes account).... would be higher percentage of actuall music consumers (people who BUY music)

apple really does connect the consumer to the purchase of music much better/easier/faster than anyone else can, i've already found new stuff to add to my library from some of the beats radio and/or some of the suggestions based on my itunes library... one click, poof done, and its awesome.

[Edited 7/8/15 15:33pm]

Prince just posted this article on his twitter:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/19/8621581/sony-music-spotify-contract

The Verge has obtained a contract between Sony Music Entertainment and Spotify giving the streaming service a license to utilize Sony Music’s catalog. The 42-page contract was signed in January 2011, a few months before Spotify launched in the US. Written by Sony Music, the two-year deal — with an optional third year that Sony Music could pick up — reveals how much Spotify must pay in yearly advances to Sony, the subscriber goals that Spotify must hit, and how streaming rates are calculated.CONTRACTS LIKE THESE HAVE BEEN KEPT SECRET, UNTIL NOW

More interestingly, the contract details how Sony Music uses a Most Favored Nation clause to keep its yearly advances from falling behind those of other music labels, how Spotify can keep up to 15 percent of revenues "off the top" from ad sales made by third parties, and the complex formula that determines how much labels get paid per stream.

This contract — like every other contract involving a music label and a streaming service — has been secret until now. Given the myriad ways Sony Music came out as the winner, it’s worth asking who really should shoulder the blame for the lackluster streaming payments that artists like Swift have been complaining about — the labels or the streaming service?

At the request of the copyright owner, the contract has been removed.

Spotify paid Sony Music up to $42.5 million in advances

In section 4(a), Spotify agrees to pay a $25 million advance for the two years of the contract: $9 million the first year and $16 million the second, with a $17.5 million advance for the optional third year to Sony Music. The contract stipulates that the advance must be paid in installments every three months, but Spotify can recoup this money if it earns over that amount in the corresponding contract year.

But what the contract doesn’t stipulate is what Sony Music can and will do with the advance money. Does it go into a pot to be divided between Sony Music’s artists, or does the label keep it to itself? According to a music industry source, labels routinely keep advances for themselves.

ACCORDING TO A MUSIC INDUSTRY SOURCE, LABELS ROUTINELY KEEP ADVANCES FOR THEMSELVES

"I’ve worked at the major labels, and I’ve worked at the indies, so I’ve seen both sides of the business," says Rich Bengloff, president of the American Association of Independent Music. "A lot of the time, money that is paid outside of the direct usage doesn’t end up getting shared."

Sony’s Most Favored Nation clause keeps those advances rising

Sony Music’s Most Favored Nation clause is the most intriguing piece of its contract with Spotify. Section 13 essentially makes every major aspect of the contract amendable if any other label has a better deal or interpretation of that aspect than Sony Music. Section 13(2) lists the provisions which can be amended in Sony Music’s contract if a better deal is obtained by another music label, including what constitutes an "active user," the definition of gross revenue, and any improved security provisions. Sony Music can call on an independent auditor once a year to determine whether Spotify has struck a more agreeable deal with any other labels.

Having an MFN clause in a contract is standard for music licensing contracts, according to multiple sources. MFNs have garnered scrutiny in the past, and as part of its merger with EMI in 2012, Universal Music Group had to stop using the cla...r 10 years. But they remain legal in the US.

Where the MFN clause truly comes in handy for Sony Music is when it’s used in conjunction with section 5, the "annual true-up of advances" clause. This clause makes sure Sony Music’s yearly advances from Spotify are on par with the best deal negotiated by any other label based on the percentage of market share. That means if another music label is getting paid $1 million by Spotify for each percentage of market share it has, and Sony Music is getting $600,000 per market share percentage, Spotify must pay Sony Music the $400,000 difference — known as the adjusted contract period advance — at the end of each contract year.

Spotify can keep up to 15 percent "off the top" from select ad sales revenue

One of the murkiest clauses in the contract is hidden under the contractual definition of gross revenues in section 1(vi)(bb). The clause states that gross revenue includes "actual out-of-pocket costs paid to unaffiliated third parties for ad sales commissions (subject to a maximum overall deduction of 15 percent "off the top" of such advertising revenues)." In English, that means that Spotify can keep up to 15 percent of all advertising revenues generated by the ad sales that are handled by third parties hired by the streaming service.

How much money that amounts to depends on a number of factors, including what percentage of Spotify’s ads are sold by third parties, and if it chooses to keep the full 15 percent to itself. Spotify may also use these funds to recoup the commissions it has to pay to the third-party companies it uses to sell its ads.

SPOTIFY HAS TRIED TO COUNTER CRITICISMS ABOUT WHAT IT PAYS ARTISTS

But regardless of the amount, it’s money that is not accounted for in Spotify’s gross revenue total, which is split 70/30, with 70 percent going to the labels and publishers and 30 percent to Spotify. Spotify pulled in €98.8 million ($110M) in advertising revenue in 2014. The company has gone to great pains to map out for the public exactly what it pays, in part as a public relations move to try and counter criticisms about what it pays artists. But in that detailed explanation, it never mentions this 15 percent.

Sony Music was given up to $9 million in ad spots on Spotify which it could sell for profit

In addition to the advance Spotify must pay Sony Music, it is also required to give the music label free ad space on its service. The "credit for advertising inventory" clause mentioned in section 14(a) grants Sony Music a total of $9 million in ad space ($2.5 million in the first year, and $3 million and $3.5 million in the subsequent years). And the free ads don’t come at market rates either — they must be given to Sony Music at a heavily discounted rate.

SONY MUSIC COULD IN EFFECT SELL THE FREE ADS IT HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR MILLIONS

While it's possible Sony Music could use that ad space to promote its own artists, section 14(e) gives the label "the right to resell the credited inventory at prices determined by the label in [the] label’s sole discretion." Section 14(a) also requires Spotify to make an additional $15 million of ads at a discounted rate available for purchase by Sony Music. Sony Music could in effect sell the free ads it has been given for millions, and turn around to buy more ads at a reduced price. But that’s not all — in section 14(p), the contract states Spotify must offer a portion of its available unsold ad inventory to Sony Music for free to allow the label to promote its own artists.

How does Sony Music make money from Spotify?

Of course, the biggest question is how much Sony Music gets paid per stream, and well, it’s complicated. Section 10 shows how Sony Music separated its label fees into three distinct tiers — the ad-supported free tier, online day passes (which no longer exist), and Spotify’s premium service. In each of those segments, Sony Music can pull in a revenue share fee that is equal to 60 percent of Spotify’s monthly gross revenue multiplied by Sony Music’s percentage of overall streams. (So if Spotify earned $100 million in gross revenue, the labels would would get $60 million. If Sony Music made up 20 percent of the streams, it would take home $12 million.)

But there is another far more complex formula that can earn Sony Music even more money from Spotify. The contract has what’s known as the usage-based minimum and per subscriber minimum, covering the free and paid tiers, respectively. If the royalties from usage in any particular month are greater than what is paid out by the revenue share, Sony Music gets that amount instead.

Under the usage-based minimum for the free tier, section 10(a)(1)(ii) stipulates Spotify must pay $0.00225 per stream, thanks to a discount that lasts for the length of the contract. If Spotify somehow missed its growth targets in the preceding month, that number could jump to $0.0025 per stream. These rates only come into play if the usage-based minimum exceeds the revenue sharing model.

STREAMING PAYOUTS ARE SUBJECT TO A VERY COMPLEX FORMULA

The premium tier’s per subscriber minimum takes Sony Music’s label usage percentage and multiplies it by the number of premium subscribers on Spotify, multiplied by $6.00. Once again, this model is used only if the total payout exceeds the revenue share.

While the amount Spotify doles out is often discussed in terms of payment per stream, the contract shows just how complex and variable that payment can be. It’s likely that some months the usage or per subscriber minimum could generate a bigger payout for Sony Music than the revenue share does, especially with a popular new release.

Spotify has argued that while "it is possible to reverse engineer an effective ‘per stream’ average by dividing one’s royalties by the number of plays that generated them... this is not how we measure our payouts internally nor is it a reliable yardstick for Spotify’s value to artists." This contract shows why.

How much do artists get paid?

Even with this contract, it’s still difficult to tell how much artists are getting paid by Spotify.

Sony Music is likely getting considerable payouts from Spotify each year, but what it does when it gets that money — and how much of those payments actually make it down to the artists — is still unknown. Some artists have clauses in their contracts to get a larger share of the streaming revenue, and some artists are still operating under CD-era contracts that only give them 15–20 percent of their streaming revenues.

"YOU CAN’T SQUEEZE BLOOD FROM A STONE."

Spotify has been renegotiating its licensing contract with some music labels, according to sources, and how those deals will shake out is still undetermined. But given the economics of Spotify’s first deal with Sony Music, it’s likely that Sony Music and other labels will ask for an even larger advance from the streaming service.

In the wake of Swift’s departure from Spotify, many musicians rallied to her cause, vilifying streaming services that paid a fraction of a penny per play. But this contract makes it clear — the pay per stream rates aren’t the only issue. According to its financial disclosures, the majority of Spotify’s revenue, around 80 percent, has been flowing out the door to the rights holders. "You can’t squeeze blood from a stone," said David Pakman, the former CEO of eMusic and partner at Venrock. "Your beef can’t be with Spotify anymore." At least not with Spotify alone.

Sony Music and Spotify declined to comment.

Additional reporting by Ben Popper

Noodled24 said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Prince isn't getting millions of streams per week.

.

Exactly. Like I said: he's got no leverage.

.

You're right that Prince doesn't have much leverage at present. That could easily change if he has indeed positioned himself with Jay-Z.

.

As if Spotify is afraid of Tidal.

Even though they already have built a superior music service, I REALLY hope Google buys Spotify.

They've discussed it multiple times.

Apple dominating the music business for another 15 years is a disaster waiting to happen.

BartVanHemelen said:

Noodled24 said:

.

Exactly. Like I said: he's got no leverage.

.

You're right that Prince doesn't have much leverage at present. That could easily change if he has indeed positioned himself with Jay-Z.

.

As if Spotify is afraid of Tidal.

No? Time will tell. If spotify decide they need to up the quality of their streams then Tidal has made them blink. The underlying tech in Tidal is superior to that of spotify.

Tidal has stratigically picked the most well known and most respected musicians in pop music to come onboard as owners so they have that vested interest.

If I worked at Spotify and I heard Jay-Z and had just teamed up with Beyoncé, Rihanna, Kanye West, Nicki Minaj, Daft Punk, Jack White, Madonna, Arcade Fire, Alicia Keys, Usher, Chris Martin, Calvin Harris, deadmau5, Jason Aldean and J. Cole. To launch a product thats the same as Spotify except it was better quality and had a lot of concerts being live streamed. I'd be a bit worried.

Granted, artists don't generally do well in business, but Jay-Z is a notable exception. Tidal don't have as vast a catalog as Spotify (yet) but inevitably they will. Once Tidal gets their price point down match Spotify surely Tidal wins?

If all those artists yanked their catalogs, Spotify would die on it's arse. Fans would complain, but only briefly before signing up to tidal. Since like it or not, these are the artists of a generation.

Militant said:

terrig said:

I understand your disdain for Prince clouds your thinking

This should be posted as a warning to all members.

"Bart's disdain for Prince clouds his thinking - please take this into consideration when addressing him".

I think a more appropriate warning would be along the lines of:

"KCool will proclaim every song, every picture, every announcement, every tweet that emanates from Prince a MASTERPIECE, to the point that none of his words have any meaning at all. Constant and unwaveringly excessive praise becomes meaningless drivel, and it is likely that you will find it harder to enjoy Prince's music as a result. Please take into consideration that it's best to simply avoid reading anything that he posts, and have faith that by doing so you are in fact missing nothing, as you can be sure that he called the latest 10-second snippet of a song that may or may not ever be released a MASTERPIECE. What's worse, the mods allow him to get away with bullying other members into silence when they attempt to have an actual conversation rather than spew blind praise. Oh, and he insists on calling Prince even though that hasn't been his name for 15 years. Please disregard any and everything he posts."

Bart on the other hand, IMO, is an Org treasure. He's a tad irascible, but that's part of his charm, and he knows his shit; the Org would lose much of its (sadly, continually waning) appeal if he ever stopped posting. I respect and enjoy almost all of the Orgers who've been around since the days of amp (alt.music.prince for those who don't know). We've been through a lot of trials and tribulations related to being a Prince fan since then, and it's absurd to think that wouldn't affect one's opinion of at least the man behind the music a bit (if not the music itself), one way or the other. And some people have definitely gone the other way, and decided that "Prince will be Prince" and they see everything he does as proof of his unparalleled genius...even things that clearly shouldn't be ascribed to some kind of brilliant master mind, but rather to a capricious and fickle millionaire ... things like paying oodles of money to make sure that new generations of artists don't show their enthusiasm for his music by singing a cover on Youtube, or ensuring that the vast majority, if not all, of the albums he has released on his own record label are now out of print and therefore even if a younger music fan did somehow discover the joys of the less mainstream aspects of his catalog, there's no way for that fan to give any money to Prince in order to hear it (for example, if my 15-year-old nephew happened to hear me listening to The Gold Experience and then The Truth and decided he wanted to hear more, he would obviously look on Youtube or Spotify, which of course would be a dead end).

interestingly, even before Prince pulled his so-called "catalog" from Spotify and most of the other streaming services and placed it on Tidal, the only albums that were on Spotify in the first place were the WB albums...and not all of them, either. If I recall correctLy, there was no Chaos and Disorder, no Emancipation, no Diamonds and Pearls (I always thought that was a particularly bizarre omission), no Batman, no Newpowersoul, no Crystal Ball, no The Truth, no Rave (either version), no The Rainbow Children, no One Nite Alone (neither the piano album nor the live set), no Xpectations, no NEWS, no 20ten, no Planet Earth, no 3121, etc. etc. etc. But many people on here insist that his decision to drastically restrict where his songs can be heard is a brilliant business strategy and that he deserves to make money from his songs (and of course I completely agree that he should make money from his music), which makes me scratch my head and wonder how NOT being able to buy The Rainbow Children or Emancipation (the album he was born to make!) results in Prince making any money at all from thos albums. Of course, my nephew could buy a used copy of Emancipation from a German seller on Amazon for $0.33 (plus $3.99 shipping and handling), but none of that goes to Prince.

And it makes me wonder how making it difficult for future generations to even hear of him, let alone ever see/hear proof of the genius that we all know is there, could possibly benefit him at all. Yes, he is still doing fine financially and by reputation...the man is a legend based on the sheer power of the long-standing reputation and the ability to still put on a pretty great live show when he wants to. But there are so many people who literally have no idea that he's anything more than a weird guy who changed his name and then changed it back, and that's 100% on him.

No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

[img:$uid]http://i61.tinypic.com/ndk2n5.jpg[/img:$uid]