I’ve been scanning cover art as I enter my CDs into the database. I’ve come across one that has significant sun damage and I’m not sure if I should put it in or not. The ink around the right and bottom is almost completely faded. My thinking has been part of why we put the cover art in is to provide information, which is still present. On the other hand, aesthetically it leaves a lot to be desired. Also, the medium and the back cover are fine. If I don’t put in the front cover do I go ahead and put those in?
If there’s no existing scan, I definitely would. Even if damaged it’s much better than nothing. Maybe it will even encourage someone else to scan a better copy.
If damaged (or simply because I do not have much time to scan my collection), when I can find a picture online that matches exactly my release (shape, text placement, cropping, everything) and is clean, I upload that one instead.
If it is the only image available, it is better certainly than nothing. I’ve uploaded a few battered images to replace either missing images or Amazon links.
Personally, I like to see the odd bit of damage on a scan. Shows it is a real album. I’d actually prefer a well loved, coffee stained, scanned cover image, to a pristine marketing image.
I also agree with @jesus2099 about sourcing a good quality replacement (i.e. Discogs). In that case I would upload both “real scan” and “clean image”. Setting the clean one as the main cover.
If anyone does digitally restore it, then (i) the restoration needs to be commented as such explaining it’s origins, and (ii) the sun-damaged original needs to be retained in CAArchive and identified as the basis for the restoration, if accurate data in CAArchive is a goal.