RFC STYLE-283: “Imprint” label type / AR

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC STYLE-283: “Imprint” label type / AR

Alex Mauer
STYLE ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-283
Proposed AR documentation:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Hawke/Proposal/Imprint_AR
Previous discussion:
http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz/2014/2014-01/2014-01-14.html#T01-14-41-677717

Expiration date: 2014-01-23

I propose adding a new label type “Imprint” for label entities which are
merely a logo, and have no company behind them.

In addition, I propose an AR for this imprint label type, “has imprint”.
This would basically be the same as the “subsidiary” AR, but for
imprints specifically.

The idea behind this is to help distinguish the labels when a logo has
similar text to the name of the company that owns it, and/or has
transferred through several owners over the years.

This does not mean that every standalone label needs to be split into
two: If an “original production” label simply uses its own logo as the
imprint, it should be acceptable to only have the one label in MB. This
AR is intended for more situations when an imprint label is created for
a specific product line or has more complex lineage.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-283: “Imprint” label type / AR

Alex Mauer
On 01/16/2014 11:39 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> I propose adding a new label type “Imprint” for label entities which are
> merely a logo, and have no company behind them.

Just realized this is poor wording: I didn’t mean to say that they are
not owned/backed/created by a company — just that the imprint logo isn’t
directly representative of the company itself.



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-283: “Imprint” label type / AR

Duke Yin
+1 for a Label-Label "has imprint" relationship.

However, I don't fully understand how you intend to define the (modified) label types.  I have an idea, but I'd like to confirm whether you are thinking the same thing:

1) A "(Original) Production" may actually be a combination of Holding, Publisher, Distributor, and/or Imprint types.  If this is the case, it will not always make sense to split that MB Label.
2) An "Imprint" should NOT be a company-type (Holding, Publisher, Distributor)

Do these 2 points match what the other part of this RFC is supposed to be about?  If that's how you intend the label types to be different from one another, and this goes into wherever we have documentation on the label types, then I would give that part a +1 since a lot of MB labels would stand to benefit from a more concrete distinction.

e.g. 1, NIPPON CROWN is a company that controls(/ed) similarly-named imprints:
CROWN
CROWN RECORDS
CROWN GOLD
CROWN STONES
CROWN DIAMOND RECORDS
(in addition to many other imprints not featuring the word "crown" nor "nippon")

e.g. 2, AVEX ENTERTAINMENT INC. is a company that holds copyrights for similarly-named imprints:
avex trax
avex entertainment
avex tune
(in addition to many other imprints not featuring the word "avex" nor "entertainment")

e.g. 3, Ki/oon Records Inc. is a company that controls(/ed) similarly-named imprints:
Ki/oon
Ki/oon Records Overseas
(in addition to many other imprints not featuring the word "ki/oon")

e.g. 4, Sony Music Records Inc. is a company that controls(/ed) similarly-named imprints:
Sony Records
SME Records
(in addition to many other imprints not featuring the word "sony" either explicitly or implicitly)

So I would hope that this new label type would reduce vague naming confusion that exists for the 4 record companies I used as examples.

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Alex Mauer <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 01/16/2014 11:39 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> I propose adding a new label type “Imprint” for label entities which are
> merely a logo, and have no company behind them.

Just realized this is poor wording: I didn’t mean to say that they are
not owned/backed/created by a company — just that the imprint logo isn’t
directly representative of the company itself.



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC STYLE-283: “Imprint” label type / AR

Alex Mauer
On 01/16/2014 09:17 PM, Duke Yin wrote:

> +1 for a Label-Label "has imprint" relationship.
>
> However, I don't fully understand how you intend to define the
> (modified) label types.  I have an idea, but I'd like to confirm whether
> you are thinking the same thing:
>
> 1) A "(Original) Production" may actually be a combination of Holding,
> Publisher, Distributor, and/or Imprint types.  If this is the case, it
> will not always make sense to split that MB Label.
> 2) An "Imprint" should NOT be a company-type (Holding, Publisher,
> Distributor)
>
> Do these 2 points match what the other part of this RFC is supposed to
> be about?  If that's how you intend the label types to be different from
> one another, and this goes into wherever we have documentation on the
> label types, then I would give that part a +1 since a lot of MB labels
> would stand to benefit from a more concrete distinction.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m going for.

Wording suggestions welcome for the definition on
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Label/Type

Thanks



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style