In my opinion P.D. = Public Domain but when I look to e.g. Various - War Situation but is there a label named PD
What is the right and best way to add it to the data base. When we go on with not to add it the right way the database becomes more and more a mess
I believe that when PD is shown as a "Publisher", it is just acknowledging that a publisher is not required. I don't bother entering any info associated with PD at all. I think the examples you gave where it is entered as a publisher are just incorrect.
Then all abovementioned company credits as Published By: Public Domain. If it's in other language, then note in the release notes (until we have ANV for companies).
If those are artists, there should be also placeholder for those (similar to Traditional), which can be then ANV'd.
In the artists profiles I posted above they are credited for songwriting, meaning the song belongs to the public domain, in a way similar to Public Domain as the publisher.
In this case, Public Domain (15) for the artist and Public Domain for the publisher.
So...
• explicitly credited "Anonymous" = Anonymous w/ANV if needed, per RSG §2.3.1
• explicitly credited "Traditional" (as composer/writer) = Traditional w/ANV if needed, per RSG §2.3.1
• explicitly credited "Folk" = Folk w/ANV if needed, per RSG §2.3.1
• explicitly credited "Public Domain" in any variation = use release notes, per discussion topic cited above
But I don't see why we don't just have a special Public Domain artist to represent those explicit credits, if we're going to have the others.
I initially thought of removing all public domain credits based on the profile of artist Public Domain: "WARNING: Please do not use this artist to credit the publishing information "Public Domain" or any of its variations. This information must go to the notes."
It certainly is a mess and the decision as of 4/5 years ago was to use the release notes to inform the existence of Public Domain credits. Should we rediscuss it or stick to that decision? Should the publisher Public Domain be removed as well?
mjb
But I don't see why we don't just have a special Public Domain artist to represent those explicit credits
Because "Public Domain" is neither an artist, nor another entity.
When something becomes "public domain" then it means that the copyright of the work has expired. It doesn't mean that the author is unknown.
loukash
"Public Domain" is neither an artist, nor another entity.
Yeah but the same can be said for Traditional & Folk... and besides, "as on release" die-hards will surely agree :)
excel21
It certainly is a mess and the decision as of 4/5 years ago was to use the release notes to inform the existence of Public Domain credits. Should we rediscuss it or stick to that decision? Should the publisher Public Domain be removed as well?
It would be easier for everyone to just allow it as a Special Artist as well as a publisher/whatever entity, and not be moving/deleting/discussing ad infinitum. People are going to keep entering them anyway. Diognes_The_Fox, what say ye?
mjb
but the same can be said for Traditional & Folk
Those are effectively just aliases of Unknown Artist, only that they have a full artist "discography" page for some reason. Given the sheer amount of releases on those pages, I'm not sure how this can be particularly useful. It has never occurred to me yet to browse or search those "discographies", but perhaps it's just the lone me.
Artist
a) move all P.D. and D.R. credits to release notes
b) use the unlinked "written by" credit
c) keep them in actual artist pages
d) keep as an ANVs of Traditional or Unknown Artist
Company
a) keep the publishers page D.R.
b) remove them as publishers, instead add that information to release notes
mjb
It would be easier for everyone to just allow it as a Special Artist as well as a publisher/whatever entity, and not be moving/deleting/discussing ad infinitum. People are going to keep entering them anyway. nik, Diognes_The_Fox, what say ye?
PD annoys me to no end.
I've seen it used in a few different ways.
A) As an artist (I assume it's being used as a synonym for Traditional/Anonymous/Unknown in this case)
B) As a rights society (I wanna add these to BaOI when used this way)
C) As a publisher (I don't know here. Best if notes, IMO.
I us going back and forth a few times here over the years. If we're doing anything, we should pick one and stick to it.
Personally, I feel the more interconnectivity the DB has the better.
I don't regard P.D., D.A.R., D.R., Derechos en depósito and such credits anything but copyright disclaimers. And as far as I understand we are not encouraged to credit or mention any generic copyright disclaimers (such as All Rights Reserved) in submissions.
But if they are presented in a release where we'd usually expect see a rights society, publisher or a composer, it would be useful to mention the use of such credits, but in the release notes _only_.
But as a linked credit such as D.R., that's a no from me.
Copyright itself is not an artist or an entity. That's my point.
It's not an artist indeed, the recommendation was using the release notes when it appears on releases. I don't see any harm in using "Written By" (the unlinked credit) for composition credits though but if it has to be removed then let's do it.
nik
Public Domain has nothing to do with the writing of the music or lyrics, or any other conceivable artistic factor. It is a legal statement regarding who gets paid.
Public Domain must not be used as an artist. This information can go in the notes if desired.
There are a couple of hundreds
Do we need to rediscuss the use of Public Domain, Derechos Reservados, Derechos de Depósito etc? I personally think the forum decisions of years ago are fine.
"Artist" page D.R. which has quite a few credits. Mostly they are traditional type but not nearly all. It just tells they have not sourced the composer for the track. For example many Cuban compositions released in the USA have true composers but for political reasons they have not credited them. Vice versa in Cuba, too.
All in all, it's just a generic copyright disclaimer for anything unsourced (meaning=please us if you think we owe you money :-)
loukash
Neither do I if it's applied in that manner on a release where we would otherwise expect a composer name.
OK, but do you also approve "Written By" unlinked credit for such as "Adapted" and "Rights Reserved" which we also see in a composer place in many Jamaican releases especially.
Written by Rights Reserved? Doesn't sound good to me at all. To me it sounds as bad as crediting Hammond B-3 as organ player.
Yeah. I don't really see an issue for allowing P.D. if we have this.
However, as a credit.
I am willing to argue that, when used exclusively as a credit, it could be credited as such.
I don't know about unlinked. Any decision that comes out of this should be intuitive enough that we don't have another common new- mistake type issue that requires excessive moderation.
Diognes_The_Fox
Any decision that comes out of this should be intuitive enough that we don't have another common new- mistake type issue that requires excessive moderation.
All common variants of such aforementioned non-entities should be listed in http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/help/submission-guidelines-release-barcode.html because that's where they belong.
We may even want to create a new BAOI description, so that they don't get listed under Rights Society.
For instance "Legal Notice".
That's what I consider "intuitive", "straightforward" and "easy on new s"… ;)
yeah, not really commenting on the actual value this 'entity' (frankly i'm unsure i fully understand its use), just pointing out an interesting piece of database topography. however
Diognes_The_Fox
the more interconnectivity the DB has the better.
my sentiments exactly. but in this case, Copyright Control seems (to me) like a mistake that got so out of hand it ended up defining the norm. my 2 cents on the matter are that like Copyright Control or Public Domain should go strictly to the BaOI section, under Rights Society (or a new, similar entry) and make that particular field active, in the same manner as LCCN entries result in active label profiles. this would create distinct pages where one could browse exclusively items 'published' by BIEM or SACEM or ZAIKS etc ( http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/help/submission-guidelines-release-country.html )
as i see it, 'Copyright Control' is certainly not a label but a distinct moment in the life of a musical piece - its next issue could very well have a proper publisher.
edit: seems like you beat me to it
loukash
We may even want to create a new BAOI description, so that they don't get listed under Rights Society.
For instance "Legal Notice".
Diognes_The_Fox
I don't know about unlinked. Any decision that comes out of this should be intuitive enough that we don't have another common new- mistake type issue that requires excessive moderation.
A new is likely to add Public Domain/D.R. as it's on the release. If we decide for removing it from artist/label entries then we will need to keep checking it once in a while to make sure s don't add it again.
A final decision from management of what to do would be good, I'm going to submit a SR.
excel21
A new is likely to add Public Domain/D.R. as it's on the release. If we decide for removing it from artist/label entries then we will need to keep checking it once in a while to make sure s don't add it again.
Yes. Which is why I am more leaning towards documenting it and giving it a place and clearly noting what it is in it's profile.
Diognes_The_Fox
Which is why I am more leaning towards documenting it and giving it a place and clearly noting what it is in it's profile.
Then we should start linking all right societies straight away.
Seriously, I'm all for interconnectivity and stuff because that's the "killer feature" of Discogs.
But we're all in it for discographies of subjects, not for discographies of secondary attributes.
Other (Public Domain declaration on labels): D. P. (or P. D. or whatever)
Other (Copyright declaration on labels): Contr. Copyr.
Written-By [D.R.] – Unknown Artist
Neither a Rights Society nor a Publisher … or an Artist.
