[mb-users] Can someone clarify on how labels/imprints works?

[artysmokes]

fridaythe14th wrote:
> 
> So with the lowest level of the hierarchy rule, that would mean that if
> Label Z (the re-issuer) had their logo on the sleeve next to Label X's
> logo one should enter Label Z?
It all depends. Many re-issues have bonus tracks. Something might have been
originally released by Atlantic Records, and then re-masted and re-issued by
Rhino (a sister company). In this case, an R2 #### cat number should be
present, so Rhino (the re-issue label) would be used. Other re-issues are
less obvious, but PolyGram/UMG (distrib/holding) re-issues Verve
(label/imprint) with new cat numbers but the historical logo.

fridaythe14th wrote:
> 
> I meant the distributor printed on the sleeve (if any), and only when it's
> a different release with different cat# or copyright notes etc. Mainly
> because it would be the lowest level. Come to think of it though, it would
> make more sense to keep track of the (re)release manufacturer.
By lowest level, I meant lowest in the hierarchy, i.e. the imprint. "Mute"
is an imprint of the EMI group. "4AD" is an imprint of Warner. A distributor
has many imprints. Just listing the distributor in release events is really
not very useful, as a distributor will have thousands of releases, as
opposed to an imprint's hundreds. If you ignore independent labels, there
are only 4 distributors/manufacturers, accounting for 75% of all record
sales. We don't want to use "Universal Music Group", "Sony BMG", "Warner" or
"EMI" in the release event when they own thousands of brands. Use the
imprint. (Note also that EMI is currently up for sale and is likely to merge
into one of the "Big Three").

fridaythe14th wrote:
> 
> I'm not familiar with the MB purposes with imprints but if I were to use
> the MB database for music trading and keeping track of releases I would
> rather know the "lowest level" label than imprints in this case. And the
> same goes with all other uses I can think of.
Imprints *are* the lowest level. Holding companies are top. They control
distributors, which distribute labels/imprints. The imprint is the one
associated with the artist, whereas holding companies and distributors are
associated with men in grey suits. :D 

fridaythe14th wrote:
> 
> A question: Does holding label mean the label with the (copy)rights to the
> album?
Copyright of music is a very complicated issue that doesn't need to be
considered in regard to filing releases on MBz. "Holding" means a company
controlling a distribution network. It's the top level; the one that has
shares for sale on the stock market. "Time Warner" is a holding company. It
owns all the smaller Warner labels (as well as AOL, Time magazine, 100s of
newspapers). It's not useful to file records under the holding company.
In most cases, the intellectual copyright is shared between artists,
publishers and labels. Labels (imprints) tend to own master tapes, which
they may *license* to other labels or distributors for manufacture. These
manufacturers own the copyright on their sleeve designs, but only have the
right to press copies of records for a certain length of time, after which
the pressing rights revert to the owner of the mastertapes (which is usually
the little label/imprint that paid for the studio time in the first place).
As said elsewhere, a strict guideline for all labels is difficult
(impossible?) to write, mainly because of the complicated relationships
between majors and independents and the licensing rights, but I'm certain
that filing by imprints/logos/brands is the most useful to music collectors.
--
Cheers, Arty
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Can-someone-clarify-on-how-labels-imprints-works--tf4463867s2885.html#a12762223
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.