The question is in the wake of https://musicbrainz.org/edit/60793196.
Although I tend to believe that EMI-Bovema Holland is not an imprint, I don’t want to mislead other editors. I can see the logo used on some releases. Discogs does not consider it a label.
There is no clear definition what an imprint is though?
Record companies can be very vague about their structure: companies are bought, merged, put on ice or liquidated, can be used for copyrights, releasing (what we usually consider the label), distribution, manufacturing etc. So that’s why there are no clear rules and why we usually look at catalogue numbers or simply the biggest logo on the packaging to decide what to use as a release label.
In this case it looks like EMI-Bovema (in its various name variations) is normally used as a manufacturer or rights holder. It’s a bit odd that the logo is displayed so prominently on the back, but if you look at the vinyl labels (on Discogs) it shows the regular EMI logo and EMI-Bovema as phonographic copyright holder. I looked through a couple of the releases linked to EMI Bovema and they show a similar pattern.
If you look at the back of this release, in the lower right corner there is the big EMI-Bovema logo again, this time it says “Manufactured by” above the logo. I have no idea why the logo so prominent all the time, but it does make a case for being an exception to the “the biggest logo is usually the release label” rule of thumb. So Discogs is probably right and EMI-Bovema shouldn’t be used as a release label.
See also the discussion on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/60806492
Should we have an “EMI Holland” imprint instead? https://beta.musicbrainz.org/release/f8746e40-58b4-483e-8d95-f5982f60fe1f/cover-art
Whatever it is, it has a round logo with big text on the back cover of this release so it should have been allowed to be added there.
It well might be so, as “EMI Holland” is printed so prominently on many vinyls like that one. Is “EMI Holand” an imprint of “EMI-Bovema N.V.”? What is the way of knowing this?
Of course not. How to Identify Labels clearly says to use only imprints. There is no evidence of such imprint so far. Discogs says “EMI-Bovema Holland” is a company brand.
I suspect ‘Absolutely confusing cases’ example to come from the time when we had the ONLY ONE LABEL PER RELEASE LIMITATION.
They keep ORIGINAL Jazz CLASSICS and drop Prestige NEW JAZZ which is completely arbitrary, incorrect and counter‐productive (next user may create a duplicate for the sake of different logo in their hands compared to MB metadata).
All logos must be kept for disambiguation.
Related: “primary” release label from label roles drop‐down
I totally agree. But the system currently does not have means for this. Release labels are designated for imprints, not logos.
I don’t know what means the word imprint then. I thought it meant exactly a logo. Isn’t it, then?
You can find the definition of imprint in the documentation. Please note that it does not say that each logo is an imprint. As How to Identify Labels expands on the topic, it should be pretty clear that it is definitely not so.
Imprints are the information you certainly want to add in the database and is the information available on sleeves in the form of a label logo (a.k.a. imprint).
For me it’s clear that imprint = logo.
Indeed. But from “imprint is a logo” does not follow “logo is an imprint”.
Then, the definition you quoted refers to “label logo”. What makes you think EMI-Bovema Holland is a label? Maybe you know its label code?
Then, the label identification guide says that even the logo of a label might not make the latter applicable as release label. Because it might be involved in different role like manufacturing, marketing or distribution.
If they don’t say the role, it’s not our job to find out.
We will simply list the logos (labels) as they will be looked for by the next user trying to recognise their release in hands by details such as barcode, catalogue number, labels, tracklist, cover art, etc.
We should not loose time finding out and risking to omit important stuff by omitting any labels, IMO.
Maybe ours, maybe not. Nevertheless you take on this job by taking the liberty of interpreting any logo as an imprint.
I totally understand and agree with your motives. But you want to use release labels for what they are not designated for. I did not design them that way. I simply follow what is written in the documentation and guidelines. The guideline says not to treat each logo as an imprint.
I strongly believe the system is flawed in this regard. It should distinguish between logos and release labels.
Absolutely. That’s why the system should allow entering raw data like any logo present without assigning meaning to it.
Would you be fine with the notion of primary label?
I think omitting visible data is more corruption than to keep it, albeit in a wrong (?) field, it leads to too much doubt.
I can discuss this once you give the definition of what primary label is and how to determine it both for physical and digital releases. Not the intuitive understanding of what “primary” might mean.
It won’t solve the issue with logos though. There are logos for things other than labels. Series, for example.
No. Omitting some data means not exposing the (possible) truth. Assigning incorrect metadata means creating the falsehood.
Primary labels are those seen on the spine of the CD.
I don’t care of digital releases. 
