Label Proposal

Yagan Kiely

Creative Commons Proposal to
Slow Release

Yagan Kiely 37 Ellen St. Fremantle, WA 6160 T 0400 508 102 yagankiely@gmail.com www.yagankiely.wordpress.com

Company

Table of Contents

Creative Commons
1

Original Licenses
1

Combinations
1

Introduction
1

The Artist
2

Objectives
2

Common Licenses
3

Creative Commons Repositories
3

Policy Options
4

Blanket License
4

License Set
4

Licensing Freedom
4

Minimal Variability
4

Monetary payments to the Artist
4

Exclusivity
4

Default Site Licenses
5

Online Distribution (general)
5

Website
5

Sales
5

Free
6

Non-Commercial
6

Streaming
6

Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release

Company

Contract Licenses
7

Students
7

Staff
7

Visiting Artists
7

Royalties
8

Artists’ Royalties
8

Donation of artists’ royalties
8

Optional
8

Requirement
8

Marketing and Commercial Use
9

Commercial Use
9

Commerciallity of Slow Release
9

Outcomes
10

Sold items
10

Free Items
10

Contract Licenses
10

Staff
10

Students
10

Visiting Artists
10

Recording Agreement
11

Agreement
11

Licence between contributor and Slow Release
11

Licence between contributor and the world
11

Royalties [insert applicable clause]
12

Warranty
12

Non-exclusive licence
12

Royalty Options:
14

Royalties[opt1]
14


Company

Royalties [opt2]
14

Appendix: charts
i

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Jamendo - by number
i

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Flickr - by number
i

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Magnatune - by number
ii

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Jamendo - by percentage
ii

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Flickr - by percentage
iii

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on overall - by number
iii

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on overall - by percentage
iii

Appendix: Creative Commons Music Labels
iv

Magnatune
iv

Jamendo
iv

Pocketclock Records
iv

Postmoderncore
iv

OnClassical
iv

Loca Records
iv

60sox
iv


Slow Release Music - WAAPA

Creative Commons

Original Licenses
• Attribution (by): Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it
only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.
• Non-Commercial (nc): Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based
on it only for noncommercial purposes.
• No Derivative Works (nd): Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not
derivative works based on it.
• Share-Alike (sa): Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the
original work.

Combinations
• Attribution alone (by)
• Attribution + Non-Commercial (by-nc)
• Attribution + No-Derivatives (by-nd)
• Attribution + Share-Alike (by-sa)
• Attribution + Non-Commercial + No-Derivatives (by-nc-nd)
• Attribution + Non-Commercial + Share-Alike (by-nc-sa)

Introduction

Creative Commons provides options for artists to license their works in ways that gives them control over how they
want their works to be used. Creative Commons has been proven to be a legal alternative (or addition) to traditional
copyright, and is a major contributor to the culture of sharing. It provides a legal framework that permits – at the very least –
[artist attributed] sharing at the consumer level which drives new supporters and holds an established fan base.

Creative Commons provides various clauses to copyright including the allowing of: Non-Commercial or Commercial
use; Share-Alike (allowing modification, restricted to the same license) or No Derivatives and other limited to Sampling or
attribution. Combinations of these licenses are available or manipulations can be specifically tailored to a particular use.

Traditional copyright does not allow sharing of works, works must be purchased by each new person seeking the work, this
is certainly detrimental to aspiring artists. The marketing alone required to sell enough copies of works to acquire a fan base
would exceed any budget of said artists.

Creative Commons promotes a creativity that is not driven by the desire for commercial success, but by the social success
of supporters. Creative Commons does not damage the commercial worth of the piece which can still reach it’s full potential
because CC can assist with the notoriety of the artist and hence assist with commerciality. Copyright is singularly a conduit
for commercialising the rights to an artist’s work and ignores many of the more poignant artist’s objectives.

1


The Artist
A brief description of each license, the roll of the label and any options available (as well as the advantages and
disadvantages of a Creative Commons License) should be easily available on the Slow Release website. Artists hoping to
sign with the label would then easily be able to understand the terms of the label and what they will be (irreversibly) doing to
their works.

Objectives
Effective implementation of appropriate Creative Commons licenses which are adopted to respective persons or situations
will guarantee that the artists, the consumers and the label will be satisfied with the end product. If an nd clause is applied to
a work that is decidedly suitable for sampling and modification, the consumer may not be pleased (which will effect both the
artist and the label); if a too liberal a license is chosen, the artist may acquire his or her achievement of some notoriety and
the consumer may use a work commercially for a small or no cost, the label will be compromised; and it will be detrimental
to the artist if the label insists on a contract that the artist is not in total agreement with.

label

1
3
4
artist

consumer 2

Clearly, the 4th option is the optimum objective.

The artist should be well informed that they will be required to license their work with a Creative Commons license and
indeed the definitions of each Creative Commons license. The artist should be explained the recommended licenses and
what options are also suggested. If an artist is fully informed of the options available and has been given sufficient
information upon which to make an informed decision, there is less chance of legal challenge and of artists dissatisfaction
with the contract forged. If the appropriate label is chosen by the artist and the label, the result would fit within the 4th option
of the Venn diagram above.

With regard to items that are for sale and as with traditional Music Labels, upon signing the contract, the label holds at least
some control over the product. However, these contracts often rob musicians of control over their own art, pertinent to Slow
Release, it would likely prove a more effective practice, considering the implementation of a Creative Commons license to
provide a more ‘hands-off’ service. The Creative Commons licenses should cite both the artist and the label in the works
attribution. This would drive more consumers to Slow Release, and ensure more purchases when the work can easily be
shared for free otherwise. If the Editorial Board chooses to force artists to sign contracts for freely distributed works (not
items that are sold by Slow Release), then – as above – the label should be cited in the attribution.

2


Elliott Bledsoe, the project manager of ccAustralia has made it known that ccAustralia will endeavor to help Slow Release as
much as it can.

Common Licenses

Creative Commons Repositories
Jamendo, an online music platform; Flickr, an image and video hosting website and Magnatune, an independent record label
and music store have all effectively used Creative Commons licenses in various ways. Magnatune allows low-quality by-nc-
sa samples, all ﬁles on Jamendo employ a variety of licenses as is the same with Flickr. A more complete list of Creative
Commons labels is included in the appendix.

Overall License Demographics The pie graph 1
by-nc-sa by-nc-nd by-sa demonstrates
by by-nd by-nc the percentage
1% of licenses

9% 8% employed by the artists. As shown, 70% of artists do not wish their work to be
used commercially, and either opt for Share-Alike or No-Derivatives clauses. 2
13% 42% Because the majority of artists (77% of Musicians using Jamendo) avoid
commercial use, contracts should certainly provide the artists the option of denying
commercial use.
28%
The table below lists the licenses of each of the three mentioned websites. 3

Flickr (photos) - As of 27 Jamendo (albums) - Magnatune (albums) - As
July 2009 (in millions) As of 27 July 2009 of 27 July 2009
1 by-nc-nd - 36+ by-nc-sa - 11,235 by-nc-sa - 672
2 by-nc-sa - 33+ by-nc-nd - 4,547 -
3 by-nc - ≈16 by-sa - 3,506 -
4 by - 16+ by - 732 -
5 by-sa - 9+ by-nd 529 -

1 It should be noted that this graph does not include data from Magnatune. As Magnatune only employs the by-nc-sa li-
censes, including it would be bias towards the other licenses. by-nd and by-nc are unique to Jamendo and Flickr respec-
tively.

2 Music based Jamendo users prefer to allow there works to be modiﬁed (with the same licenses), while photo based Flickr
users prefer to not allow this. A complete list of graphs are at the end of the paper.

3 The inclusion of Flickr is given to provide a comparison and to provide statistics of the licenses which artists consider ap-
propriate to apply to their own creative works.

3


Policy Options

Blanket License
This option would apply a single license to the entire site and all media or products on it. Artist wishing (or asked) to be on
the label would be required to agree to the terms of the license. It is much easier to administer such an option, but this
option is very limited and it may not be very agreeable with all artists.

License Set
Unlike a Blanket License, having a set of strict unmodifiable licenses for different circumstances (free or sold items etc.)
would still be relatively simple to administrate, but still limits the artist, be it less-so.

Licensing Freedom
This would possibly cause some chaos for administration, as allowing users to choose and modify every part of there license
would require a newly constructed contract for every artist.

Minimal Variability
This option is the option I recommend and extend upon below. A set of default licenses with set options for varying the
license (rather than allowing the licenses in any form the artists chooses). This would reconcile with the artist to some
degree, still giving him or her flexibility, but it isn’t a strain on the administration of the label.

Monetary payments to the Artist
If it is deemed appropriate for proceeds of sold items to – in part – be delivered to the Artist (in one way or another), a similar
arrangement to that of Magnatune and Jamendo who both distribute 50% of the profits to the artist and withhold the
remainder. A similar arrangement would likely be the optimal solution.

Exclusivity
I believe it to contradictory to the philosophy behind Creative Commons to force artists to sign exclusivity agreements. Any
such agreements would put at a disadvantage the artist and the labels aspirations of signing Visiting Artists.

4


Default Site License
Recommendations

These ‘default’ site licenses are the most likely predicted licenses to be used in whichever given category. Ultimately the type
of license would be defined in the contract and by the the artist’s association with the label (staff, student or visiting artist).

The following recommendations have been concluded through research into similar situations with other labels and sites,
consideration of the objectives of the label and thought paid towards both commerciallity, artist rights and consumer
satisfaction.

Online Distribution (general)
by-sa

As a basic model for distribution, the No Derivatives clause should be avoided as well as the Non-Commercial clause. These
clauses can be incorporated later to other more specific licenses. Given that not having the sa clause allows others to place
full copyright on the modified work, I do not believe it is in the goals of the label to allow this.

Website
The label’s website (http://slowrelease.waapamusic.com) should also adopt this license as it’s default (unless otherwise
mentioned) license governing the whole site. Wikipedia, as of June this year is using the by-sa license. Permissions should
be sort from all copyright holders of media on the site to license their works accordingly.

Sales
by-nc-nd or by-nc-sa

As some sort of income is expected from sale of the music (be it commercial or otherwise), allowing commercial use is
almost certainly not ideal. If we denounce commerciallity, those wishing to use it for commercial reasons would need to apply
for it, possibly with higher fees as a result. Mixing and modifying a work is a key contributor to modern culture, Creative
Commons and sharing in general; No-Derivatives is almost more restrictive than nc for this reason. by-nc-sa is the most
popular single licenses overall (42%) and it contributed to 55% of works at Jamendo, it is clear that artists choose this to
protect any possible monetary gain, while still contributing to the sharing culture and exposure of the artist. Given that most
Visiting Artists’ works are likely to be sold (as opposed to free or streamed), either by-nc-nd or by-nc-sa would likely be the
most applicable licenses for this category.

5


Free
by-sa or by-nc-sa

For free downloads, using the aforementioned general distribution license would be the ideal option. Income isn’t an
objective, so commerciality isn’t a problem. As mentioned, nd – if only for cultural reasons – is not an ideal clause. There is
no relevant reasoning to omit the sa clause, or replace it with an nd clause. Students and staff will most likely be the main
beneficiaries of freely distributed works, either the default by-sa or by-nc-sa would be apposite to the category.

Non-Commercial
Artists that do not want there work used commercially should be given the option to have the nc clause on their work.

Streaming
by-nd

Arguably one of the reasons to stream as opposed to download (apart from it’s increasing popularity and ease of use –
musically.com/blog/2009/07/13/filesharing-down-by-a-third-among-uk-teens), would be to avoid derivatives (as it is more
difficult to acquire a copy to modify). As these will be streamed and likely not as high a quality as downloadable equivalents,
a commercial license will likely not be an issue. Online music label magnatune.com release free versions of its paid music on
a low bit-rate (or other limitations) as a deterrent to commercial use.

6


Contract License
Recommendations

These should be considered the default licenses for the respective client categories. Changes should be available on a case
by case basis, for example a Visiting Artist may wish to allow derivatives.

The following recommendations have been concluded through research into similar situations with other labels and sites,
consideration of the objectives of the label and thought paid towards both commerciallity, artist rights and consumer
satisfaction.

Students
by-sa

As students are striving to become better artists and more well known amongst the community, getting their name and their
work into ‘the wild’ has to be one of their foremost priorities. Restricting modiﬁcation would be detrimental possible to this
primary objective. nc shouldn’t be necessary as having a work commercially used would be of great beneﬁt for the aspiring
artist. nc should, however, be explained to the artist as an option as he or she may wish to use it.

Staff
by-nc-sa

Staff are likely to be already somewhat established in their profession, so absolute freedom in terms of commerciallity may
not be in the best interest of the staff member.

Visiting Artists
by-nc-nd

Visiting artists, by default are well established artists. For this reason, having the most restrictive license will probably garner
more support from the artist. Sharing will be permitted, but certainly no commercial use. Having an sa clause (instead of the
nd clause) should be suggested. The by-nc-nd licenses contributes to 28% of applied licenses, it’s ideally used by those that
are cautious with regard to their creative rights.

Previous Exclusivity Agreements
Previously signed artists may have problems with signing for a Creative Commons Label (moreover, they may not be
permitted to sign to any new label), as their previous label may have a exclusivity agreement with the artist. One possible
work around would be to not sign the artist to the label, but merely have them (the artist) license their own work themselves
and then Slow Release could host the work while abiding to the license explicitly.

7


Royalties

Artists’ Royalties
Many online – Creative Commons – music labels employ a royalty model that is fairer on the artist than traditional Record
Labels. Magnatune offers its signed artists 50% revenue,4 and similar arrangements are made at other labels. A similar
situation would be beneficial to Slow Release as, regardless of whether the Artist receives the royalties him or herself, or if a
donation of the artists’ royalties (Described below) is administered,the artist would be comfortable with where the revenue is
going and how it is being used.

Allowing the percentage of royalties between the artists and Slow Release to be negotiated may prove to be time-wasting
and administratively difficult. Having a fixed, non-negotiable percentage (50/50 or otherwise) would be the easier course.

‘Donation’ of artists’ royalties
This proposition involved the artists donating5 their share of the royalties to Slow Release. All donated royalties should only
be able to be spent on activities or materials related to the artist donating the royalties, or Slow Release in general. How it
should be spent will still be up the Slow Release itself, but the artists’ royalties should be permitted to be spent on unrelated
(to the artist or the label) activities or material. This should put at ease any non-commercial worries that the artists may have
regarding the use of the money they provided. Publishing the financial statements of the label my prove to further vanquish
any doubts the artists may have. Wikipedia – which survives off donations – publishes its financial statements for this reason.

Both optional and required donations clauses are included in the draft recording contract included in this paper.

Optional
If donations are optional, the artist will need to agree or disagree to donating the royalties in the recording contract.

Requirement
If donations are required, the donations clause will be added to the recording contract to which the artist will agree to.

4 Note: not 50% of profits.

5 For tax reasons, the word donation should be herein regarded as a metaphorical use, not legal use. The the percentage or
royalties with which the artist would normally receive would be kept by Slow Release, but would only be used on the condi-
tion that it’s use would be related to, or in regard to Slow Release itself.

8


Marketing and Commercial Use

Commercial Use
It is likely that Slow Release will want to use produced recordings to promote itself, its represented artists, its representative
board, WAAPA and ECU. If this is sought from contracted artists’ works that do not have a Non-Commercial clause to it,
there is no concern. If, however, a work that the label wishes to use for promotional ‘activities’, a Commercial Use
Agreement must be acquired before any marketing arrangements are made. This clause is included in the draft recording
contract included in this paper.

Commerciallity of Slow Release
A non-proﬁt organisation status may be a viable option for the label to look more closely at further in the future. This could
help taxation related to the label.

9


Outcomes

Sold items
Magnatune’s signed artists make an average of between $US1500 and $US4000 p.a. 12 January 2006 and a highest
average payment of $US10.43 for each album as at 11 March 2007. Effective use of the appropriate Creative Commons
license should provide relative results for Slow Release. Jamendo, which offers an ability to donate rather than purchase the
products has had 1,454 donations over the ﬁrst 22 months with an average of $US14.55 each donation. Magnatunes, which
more closely resembles the proposed Slow Release label has, thus far, been the most effective system of Creative Commons
implementation.

Sales should not decline after a notable amount of sales so long as the label is cited in the attribution (in addition to the
original Artist/s). People, including ‘pirates’ are generally ethical people, thus providing a purchasable source for ‘indie’,
unsigned, lesser known or aspiring artists would keep a steady ﬂow of consumers to Slow Release.

Free Items
If Slow Release is cited in the attribution, free products will likely drive consumers to Slow Release also. The number of sales
relative to this will not be as large as for Sold Items, because with sold items, consumers would in, all probability, go to the
label with the intent of purchasing a product.

Contract Licenses

Staff
Staff would be able to use the label to both promote themselves, WAAPA (and thus ECU) as well as the label. The inclusion
of such high quality artists would improve the reputation of the label, and further its growth. If a semi-liberal Creative
Commons Licenses is applied, consumers will likely return to Slow Release at future occasions.

Students
Chosen students would represent the quality of music coming out of WAAPA, increasing the standing of both. A more liberal
Creative Commons license would provide free and easy promotional opportunities for the student.

Visiting Artists
The reputation of the label, which will likely be improved upon by the quality of Staff and Student works, will encourage more
Visiting Artists to sign up to the label. Semi-strict licenses will reduce any possible concern that Visiting Artist may have, but
would still follow the labels ideals.

10


Recording Agreement
Agreement
I _______________________________________________ agree to the publica-
tion of my submitted contribution to Slow Release under the following
terms:

1. Licence between contributor and Slow Release
I grant to Slow Release a non-exclusive, perpetual, [royalty free,]
worldwide, transferable licence to use the content for purposes associ-
ated with Slow Release. This includes, but is not limited to:

a) its publication, in part or in full, on the Slow Release website;
b) its use, in part or in full, as part of promotional, research and
community outreach activities associated with the West Australian
Academy of Performing Arts or with Slow Release;

c) its inclusion, in part or in full, in any future publication or an-
thology of work. I understand that this may be a physical publica-
tion (e.g. CD etc.), which may be produced and sold by Slow Re-
lease;

d) the attribution of the recording to be jointly attributed to both
myself and Slow Release.

I grant this permission on the condition that in all uses Slow Release
includes appropriate attribution of me as the original author of the con-
tribution.

2. Licence between contributor and the world
In addition to the above licence, I also permit Slow Release to make my
contribution available for reuse by the world under a Creative Commons
________________________________ licence. I understand that this permits
others to share (copy, distribute and transmit) my contribution on the
condition that ________________________________ [depending on licence]. I
understand that the following demonstrable image representing the above
Creative Commons license will be applied to where ever my work is avail-
able on any Slow Release site (circle the selected license and initial):

The full terms of the selected Creative Commons licence are avail-
able at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/]

11


3. Commercial Use Clearance [insert applicable clause]

Royalties [insert applicable clause]

4. Warranty
I undertake that, to the best of my knowledge, I have the right to grant
the above permissions in relation to the content I am submitting.

5. Non-exclusive licence
The licences granted above are non-exclusive. Subject to these licences,
all legal rights, including copyright remain with the creator/s of the
content. The creator is in no way restricted in how they may use this
content in the future.

Artist Signature:__________________________________Date:_________________

Witness Signature:_________________________________Date:_________________

Witness Adress:_________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

Slow Release Signature:____________________________Date:_________________

12


4. Selected Works

Work 1:________________________________________________________________

Work 2:________________________________________________________________

Work 3:________________________________________________________________

Work 4:________________________________________________________________

Work 5:________________________________________________________________

Work 6:________________________________________________________________

Work 7:________________________________________________________________

Work 8:________________________________________________________________

Work 9:________________________________________________________________

Work 10:_______________________________________________________________

Work 11:_______________________________________________________________

Work 12:_______________________________________________________________

Artist Signature:__________________________________Date:_________________

13


Royalty Options:

Royalties[opt1]
Royalties shall be allocated and distributed between Slow Release and me
in the following proportions:

Fifty Percent (50%) to Slow Release.

Fifty Percent (50%) to the Artist.

I_______________________________[agree/do not agree] to donate royalties
owed to me by the Slow Release for any sales of my creative works to Slow
Release. I accept that the royalties I donate to Slow Release will be
used in any way deemed [by Slow Release] to further the growth of Slow
Release. This may include, but is not limited to:

a) Promotional material;

b) Promotional activities;

c) Other recording agreements.

Royalties [opt2]


Fifty Percent (50%) to the Artist.

I agree to donate royalties owed to me by Slow Release for any sales of
my creative works to the Slow Release. I accept that the royalties I
donate to Slow Release will be used in any way deemed by Slow Release to
further the growth of Slow Release. This may include, but is not limited
to:




14


Royalties [opt3]


Fifty Percent (50%) to the Artist, but to be kept, in perpetuity, by Slow
Release.

I agree that the Fifty Percent Royalties owed to me by Slow Release for
any sales of my creative works to the Slow Release may be kept, in
perpetuity, by Slow Release. I accept that my own royalties, kept by Slow
Release, will be used in any way deemed by Slow Release to further the
growth of Slow Release. This may include, but is not limited to:




Non-Commercial clause options:

Commercial Use Clearance [opt1]
I grant Slow Release permission to sell my contributed work to the public
under the conditions of the below mentioned royalty agreement. This does
not effect any conditions by which Slow Release may not license third
parties commercial use of my contributed work/s. All other conditions of
the applied Creative Commons license must be upheld by Slow Release.

I also permit Slow Release to use my work for commercial purposes under
the condition that the commercial purpose/s deemed by Slow Release will
be related to, or in regard to Slow Release or my contributed work. All
other conditions of the applied Creative Commons license must be upheld
by Slow Release.

Commercial Use Clearance [opt2]
I also permit Slow Release to use my work for commercial purposes under
the condition that the commercial purpose/s deemed by Slow Release will
be related to, or in regard to Slow Release or my contributed work. All
other conditions of the applied license must be upheld by Slow Release.

15

Company

Appendix: charts

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Jamendo - by number

Jamendo

15000

11250

7500
11235
3750
4527
3506 0
by-nc-sa 732
by-sa 529
by-nd

Jamendo (albums) - As of 27 July 2009

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Flickr - by number

Flickr

40
30
36 20
33
10
16
15 0
9
by-nc
by-sa
by-nc-sa

Flickr (photos) - As of 27 July 2009 (in millions)

Name of report
i

Company

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Magnatune - by number

Magnatune

672

504
336
672 168
0

by-nc-sa

Magnatune (albums) - As of 27 July 2009

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Jamendo - by percentage

Jamendo

4%
3%
17%

55%
22%

by-nc-sa by-nc-nd by-sa by by-nd

Name of report
ii

Company

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Flickr - by percentage

Flickr

15%
30%
14%

8%

33%

by-nc-sa by-nc-nd by-sa by by-nc

Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on overall - by number

Flickr (photos) - As of 27 Jamendo (albums) - Magnatune (albums) - As
July 2009 (in millions) As of 27 July 2009 of 27 July 2009
1 by-nc-nd - 36+ by-nc-sa - 11235 by-nc-sa - 672
2 by-nc-sa - 33+ by-nc-nd - 4547 -
3 by-nc - ≈16 by-sa - 3506 -
4 by - 14+ by - 732 -
5 by-sa - 9+ by-nd 529 -
Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on overall - by percentage

Overall

1%
8%
9%
13% 42%

28%

by-nc-sa by-nc-nd by-sa by by-nd
by-nc

Name of report
iii

Company

Appendix: Creative Commons
Music Labels

Magnatune
http://magnatune.com

Jamendo
http://jamendo.com

Pocketclock Records
Pocketclock Records are an independent music label based in Melbourne, Australia, focusing on experimental pop.

http://pocketclock.org

Postmoderncore
Postmoderncore is a netlabel concerned with releasing underground New Zealand music and other music of interest under
local Creative Commons licences.
http://postmoderncore.com

OnClassical
OnClassical is a small Italian independent record label. It features classical music mostly for piano or chamber ensemble.
http://onclassical.com

Loca Records
http://locarecords.com

60sox
http://60sox.org.au

Name of report
iv

Label Proposal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Label Proposal

Similar to Label Proposal (20)

More from yagankiely

More from yagankiely (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Label Proposal