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

[fridaythe14th]

artysmokes wrote:
> 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.
I was thinking of the labels involved in the release. For example "Label
with the rights to the artist/album/songs (mastertape owner) > Label which
manufactured the release > Distributor" where the distributor would be the
lowest level.
If we take the Dead Can Dance sampler as an example 4AD is not connected to
Warner Brothers except through a distribution deal. Warner Brothers doesn't
own 4AD so it's not technically their imprint (as I see it).


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").
Nasty :( Are those international figures though? I didn't know that since I
listen mostly to music the "big four" wouldn't invest in. I see your point.
I think however that the record label associated to a release event should
be the producer or distributor, not the "copyright owners". If Label A has
the right to an album (or "release" on MB-language) and Label B releases it
with Label A's logo on it I would prefer to connect Label A to the album
with an AR and Label B to the release event. This because "copyright owners"
isn't really release event related.


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
I don't fancy men in grey suits either, but I was thinking of the release
event, not the artist - label connection.


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.
Thanks for the explanation :) I was mainly wondering what it meant. I'm not
that familiar with the terms.


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.
It's true that this is complicated and since work is in progress or at least
planned I think I'm going to stop nagging you about it. But not quite yet ;)

If we again take Dead Can Dance as an example: I've purchased their 8
official CDs on ebay. All of them have 4AD logos. Two of them were
"published by" Beggars Banquet which is the holding label of 4AD. I have
another 4AD/Beggars Banquet one, but with a Rough Trade logo and cat#. Then
I have a french release on Virgin Music (also has a Virgin-logo). The rest
of them were manufactured and distributed by Warner Bros in America.
For collecting purposes I don't think imprints is the best rule. At least
not in this case. Dead Can Dance collectors would certainly know that 4AD
owns the master tapes for all their releases.

Thanks a lot for explaining, and sorry for the late reponse
Albin
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Can-someone-clarify-on-how-labels-imprints-works--tf4463867s2885.html#a12859290
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.