Are marketed autographed releases unique?

Sorry, dupe thread. Please check out/reply to http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/403277

What we have is a regular CD release that is being sold by the artist themselves, with autographs. The autographed edition is being marketed as limited edition, and is made available (ie. shipped) a couple of weeks before the official release.

Autographed copies:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=6179428&page=1
Standard release:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/6255798

So the debate is whether or not the autographed copies are allowed as a separate submission. Please see the discussion history in the first link above.

I can see these type of "special releases" being more common now, so it would nice to get a consensus before Discogs gets flooded with them :-). Thanks.

If they are standard copies that have been autographed, then no I do not think that they qualify.

A note can be made on the standard release page mentioning the autographed copies.

there were at least two other threads very recently which are discussing the matter:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/403277 And look for the other one as well yourself please.

Jarren
If they are standard copies that have been autographed, then no I do not think that they qualify.

+1.
I think RSG §1.4.3 suits this case. An autograph (when placed after printing the release!) can IMHO be considered as altering teh release. By the way, the wording of the guideline is a bit odd, as it would allow stickered or stamped promo copies (basically altered before release (=distribution)) to be submitted as separate entry.

Jarren
If they are standard copies that have been autographed, then no I do not think that they qualify.

nope. management recently ruled that releases that are marketed as signed are to be considered unique releases, because of the value to collectors

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/396604#3676811

syke
nope. management recently ruled that releases that are marketed as signed are to be considered unique releases, because of the value to collectors

Isn't that decision semi-reversed a couple posts later in that thread though:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/396604#3676817

Diognes_The_Fox
I talked this over with nik. From the looks of it, the best rule of thumb seems to be to ignore the signature and see what else if different, (ie, wording marketing the signature, etc).

I'm still not sure we have total clarity on the answer to this. And it obviously keeps coming up.

michael_c
I'm still not sure we have total clarity on the answer to this. And it obviously keeps coming up.

I read that as "when it's marketed as a signed item that is to be purchased seperately, it's unique", while a signed version that was not marketed as such (or was the only version available) is not unique

what Diognes, I think, aims at there, is that most signed copies sold via the label will be marketed as "limited edition signed by the artist", which will make it unique as it's a limited edition vs. a normal edition

If it's marketed as such, then I think it's valid to have a separate submission.

I added a StoneWire release which was made available some 6 weeks before the official release at a concert. Last week, they started taking pre-orders. According to their FB page, all pre-orders will be signed by the band. So I imagine, these will/could also be a vailid submission.
https://www.facebook.com/StoneWireUK/posts/803095313062264

syke
I read that as "when it's marketed as a signed item that is to be purchased seperately, it's unique", while a signed version that was not marketed as such (or was the only version available) is not unique

That's not exactly how I read it but I think it's a perfectly valid reading. So then the example andygrayrecords mentions wouldn't be a valid separate submission then, as all pre-orders were signed and it's not something that can be ordered separately? But if you bought it from somewhere other than the label then it wouldn't be signed, so maybe that does make it valid? There will of course be nothing at all to differentiate it from a copy one buys at a merch table and gets signed by the band.

If signed editions are allowed as separate subs, I do think things will get very grey/murky. Labels aren't the only places that market signed editions. Some retailers do it (e.g. http://www.newburycomics.com/rel/v2_home.php?storenr=103&deptnr=124 & https://www.jbhifi.com.au/music/Whats-Hot/Signed-Copies/) as do band websites, crowd funding sites (e.g. Kickstarter, Pledgemusic), etc.

If a Pledgemusic campaign offers a signed CD for $5 or $10 more than a regular CD (e.g. http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/strangercat/exclusives) and that constitutes a separate submission, I'm not really sure how that's different from a label crossing out a barcode to identify something as a promo (which Discogs doesn't currently allow as a separate sub).

Along similar lines, when a label markets something as a repress or second pressing but there is nothing to differentiate it from the first pressing, would that now be valid as a separate submission using the same "marketed as" reasoning?

michael_c
Along similar lines, when a label markets something as a repress or second pressing but there is nothing to differentiate it from the first pressing, would that now be valid as a separate submission using the same "marketed as" reasoning?

no, because you wouldn't be able to identify it. I signed release, quite obviously is easily identifiable.

michael_c
If a Pledgemusic campaign offers a signed CD for $5 or $10 more than a regular CD (e.g. http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/strangercat/exclusives) and that constitutes a separate submission, I'm not really sure how that's different from a label crossing out a barcode to identify something as a promo (which Discogs doesn't currently allow as a separate sub).

if it's marketed as a limited edition, yes. If it's just marketed as a signed edition, no

Mop66
there were at least two other threads very recently which are discussing the matter:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/403277 And look for the other one as well yourself please.

Oops, sorry. Damn, I should have searched.

There still doesn't seem to be any kind of consensus. And as pointed out, anyone can get a standard edition, have it autographed, then voila, they have a limited edition version (as far as anyone else knows), making it 1001 copies instead of 1000.

Hi folks! IMHO autographs by themselves do not make a unique release, they are post-manufacture alterations. What we really want to catalog IMHO are the editions.

Also, I updated the guidelines as noted above - http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/356624?page=1#3740731

nik
Hi folks! IMHO autographs by themselves do not make a unique release, they are post-manufacture alterations. What we really want to catalog IMHO are the editions.

just to be clear: That means that a version that is marketed as a limited edition is still a unique release even though the autograph is the only differentiating factor?

IMHO no. Marketing by itself doesn't / cannot distinguish editions.

Is it realistic to think an artist would individually sign for example 1000 items post manufacture? Wouldn't they simply take the artist's autograph, let the designer edit that into the artwork and send it to the printer to print 1000 booklets?
I have a 'limited signed edition' of a certain album where the autograph certainly doesn't look like it was written on the artwork. More like printed.

jweijde
Is it realistic to think an artist would individually sign for example 1000 items post manufacture?

It's not unrealistic at all. See photo for proof.
https://www.facebook.com/project86/photos/pb.20270930776.-2207520000.1416241474./10152530941030777/?type=1&theater

jweijde
I have a 'limited signed edition' of a certain album where the autograph certainly doesn't look like it was written on the artwork. More like printed.

If it's indeed printed it would IMO be a different release than. Same as for other minor printed differences.