While high quality scans are preferable for all physical releases, it is acceptable to add a square digital front cover to a CD release if you are completely sure that it is exactly the same (both on shape and design) as on the CD.
For this specific release in question, I accidentally missed that the digital image used by Amazon has a different crop, and I will happily cancel my edit if it was properly pointed out (but the original downvoting member did not make it clear, and it was pointed out by another member in this thread). However, in general, it seems the style guideline is not as strict as what your post suggested.
For me, the legit reason to use digital files usually falls in one of the following:
I do own the CD, but I don’t have a scanner. Therefore I try to eyeball if the physical cover matches the digital ones available on official discography pages, retailer sites, VGMdb, etc. If a matching hi-res image is present, I would use it instead of spending an hour at the local FedEx office renting their scanner workstation.
Some Japanese releases, such as ノクトメモリア Vol.3 will actually email you a download link for an official scan of the cover as a part of the purchase (when purchased from specific retailers). In this case, I don’t see a problem using the digital “bonus” as cover art if the ones on the discography page/retail channel is inaccurate or low-res (but I always prefer non-paywalled covers whenever possible, and digital bonus is usually used as a backup resort as I technically cannot share the download link for citation purposes).
Some digital releases, such as 爱上火车 Pure Station 原声音乐集, will use the official box and disc (medium) product art for the physical CD release (which I also have and can cross-check). In this case I also don’t see a problem with re-using the files for the digital release, according to the style guidelines.
Sometimes, I might be able to find the discography page or retailer page of a release, such as Last Volume, matches the actual photos of a physical release that appeared in an auction of say, Yahoo Japan Auction or eBay, and in this case I think it is also acceptable?
I agree with @Jim_DeLaHunt that if you’re not sure the image is correct, you shouldn’t use it, but I don’t agree with the ultra-strict method of ensuring the image is correct. Yes, Amazon can have the wrong image for example (sometimes CDs have a kitchen appliance photo ) but if two or three of Amazon, Allmusic, Discogs, an eBay sale, non-Amazon-based shops, etc. have the same image, I think that’s already safe enough to add. Sure, a few cases might slip by where everyone was wrong, but that’s also true for a lot of the data we source - people won’t stop adding relationships from Discogs or whatnot just because a few times they are wrong, and it seems strange to have a higher bar for cover art for some reason.
This is not the case for Japanese music. Both Japanese retailers and Japanese consumers like taking photos of CDs and sharing them on Twitter, so it is easy to verify whether the digital cover matches the CD or not.
And that’s exactly the problem. Sometimes it looks completely the same at first glance…
Sometimes it took me hours and days to find out if the attached image actually matches the release, that I compared mine to.
So if you are using non-original images, please double-check before uploading them! It would be best to add a comment too* - on the picture, not in the edit note (there it should be anyway).
This next comment is not supposed to be a criticism, I just know sometimes I don’t write fluffy enough. This is just observation. The tricky thing is when adding a release there are loads of details to get correct. I can totally see how grabbing that image looks good. I’ve also use Amazon images when nothing else is to hand. Not everyone has a fussy critical eye that spots the cropping. I bet if you showed those images to ten editors, half of them ain’t going to see the differences. But this is also why there are multiple editors watching a release. Some of us are just mad enough to see the tiny details.
Don’t take @sammyrayy’s No vote in a negative way. It just means they were being a bit fussier with the checking of the image and could see the Amazon image was wrong.
As @ernstlx points out, this is why it is important that images need to be properly sourced in the edit notes. I bet @sammyrayy saw your Amazon note and knew to double check his CD and spotted the issue. I know I have done the same before myself. Especially when an image appears with no source notes.
@lateinautumn you should see the No vote as a positive. Because of your upload, that you thought was good, you triggered one of us who is fussier to go get a better fitting image. In this case that also came with more images of the product. That’s how a community works.
Yes it’s better to directly vote the open edits (it’s made for this) rather than reverting while they are pending, it sounds very sneaky indeed.
And more time wasted and longer unclear edit histories.
Oh that was an outlier, I have seen way more people feel attacked by no votes. I will still avoid them (editors should subscribe if they’re worried about future edits).
I think the guidelines/precedent is clear about only voting no if something is not an improvement in any way. Something that imperfectly improves the data or I can improve upon is not a no vote from me.
Note: if the cover actually doesn’t match then obviously it’s a no, but I’m mainly up-rezzing valid images
My only comment is to not grab back cover art for any US releases from Amazon. They are almost always a scan of the European release even on US Amazon.
I only use Amazon as a last resort. Hard to confuse rear covers though as barcodes are usually different between US and Europe. Also the small print changes with copyright, manufacturer, etc. You’re replying to someone who is extremely fussy about details and knows that Amazon is less reliable than EBay. It is just a second hand junk store
The barcodes aren’t different on most Sony Music Entertainment & BMG, etc. and subsidiary releases unfortunately. They use the same barcode on most, but most of the time have different cat # as Europe usually re-uses the barcode as a cat # and US usually has a shorter part of that barcode. However, they do usually say things like “Made in EU” or European record companies (Ltd., GmbH), etc on the back cover art on the US Amazon releases that are dead giveaways.
This was a bit I deleted from my original reply. But also should add I don’t add much new stuff. Maybe it is the older stuff that still had separate barcodes, but seriously - that small print is always different in some way. That small print is what would throw doubt to even an unobservant person.
Not sure how this thread has swapped to teaching me how to use Amazon. I only mention Amazon in my initial reply as I was trying to be polite. I don’t post random crap from Amazon.
I don’t know why you think I do? There are plenty of posts around of me agreeing that Amazon is an utter trash of shop and doesn’t care about what it uses to sell something. I’m the one being fussy here about seeing small cropping differences. Of course I know how to read a rear cover and all the details you mention. I just didn’t think such obvious stuff had to be said in this thread with a post about a front cover. So I don’t get why you are both replying to one of my posts as if I am an idiot. Thanks.
I need to log off now before I say what I am really thinking at this point
@IvanDobsky My initial reply was meant for the topic, not you specifically. Is there a way to go back and edit who a reply was meant for? I swear it seems sometimes I hit the big Blue reply and it’ll go to a specific editor and I hit the reply on an editors post and it replies as to the topic and not the person I meant to reply to.
I guess I just need to re-iterate it again: the note that came with the downvote was more about being confusing (i.e. if a better note that specifically pointed out what was wrong, I would cancel my edit without further questions).
) but if two or three of Amazon, Allmusic, Discogs, an eBay sale, non-Amazon-based shops, etc. have the same image, I think that’s already safe enough to add. Sure, a few cases might slip by where everyone was wrong, but that’s also true for a lot of the data we source - people won’t stop adding relationships from Discogs or whatnot just because a few times they are wrong, and it seems strange to have a higher bar for cover art for some reason.
I only mention Amazon in my initial reply as I was trying to be polite. I don’t post random crap from Amazon.
