Digital release, unofficial cover art?



There’s the example I don’t know what to do with:

“Fan cover art” spread to several different sites including which might or might not be its own “digital release” (Does what does count as “releasing” the “album”?).

It is not immediately obvious that the cover art / release is unofficial. I checked some “samples” of mp3’s floating around - some of those have the cover embedded too.

Should something like this be
a) ignored
b) added as an "unofficial release"
c) added as a “normal release”, citing the most “official looking source” (in this case that would probably be “”?)

and if b/c:
How should the source of the cover art be documented? In this case, everything except for the cover art seems to be identical to the digital release available at the artist’s site… so…“Disambiguation”?

And more general / not only concerning this example:
Does it depend on how widely spread something is whether we want to add it here as OR ignore it? Where should the line be drawn? Or is this a case of: “If it’s out there, it should be added, even if there’s only 3 copies lying around somewhere”?


Hmm, I don’t think there’s a good way to add things like this unfortunately.
I think that’s a problem on MB’s end - we need a way to flag cover art as ‘unofficial’ (and slightly tangential, maybe a way to mark an album as having no cover art, so completionists aren’t tempted to fill in ‘gaps’…), but I’m not sure that’s worth the effort.

But as it stands I personally think the best road is to bite your lower lip and just leave the cover art blank.
I don’t think adding a new bootleg release just so the fan art is documented is necessary or that it necessarily makes anything clearer or more convenient for other users either.

I’ve come across a few cases like this myself… Regarding adding things, if a bootleg is very widespread (eg more than three copies, otherwise it’s basically a personal playlist imo), feel free to add it and the cover art, but I don’t think just fanart is something that MB should document in particular/ should add a release for, because then we’re starting to get into a whole new can of worms (with more than enough wriggly music-related worms to deal with already!). But that’s just my personal opinion :slight_smile:


There’s also already dealing with fan art, and they even use MBIDs for their music related stuff so you can pinpoint the exact release the fan art is for.


If there were a well circulated unofficial release of these tracks with the cover art attached, you could add it as a bootleg and add the fan cover art to it (corresponding to your option b). It’s not easy to draw the line for where it makes sense, but things like a release are generally not good enough reasons alone. In this case, I would just leave it (option a).