Label type 'Imprint'

Can anybody confirm for me that the release label field (in the release editor) should be set to Labels of type=imprint?
see comments on
and related discussion at


Removing type=imprint, does not mean it can’t be used as an Imprint, IMO.
If it’s a company, it’s more than an imprint but you can still find the logo on releases.

I agree.

According to

imprint: should be used where the label is just a logo (usually either created by a company for a specific product line, or where a former company’s logo is still used on releases after the company was closed or purchased, or both)

If a company is using a logo on releases, and isn’t specifically of any production types, i guess empty is the best one can do. is a bad move to me, since it is pretty obvious the company exists and is using a logo, so @fmera comment saying:

i only set the type to indicate it is valid for use as an imprint (ie, for release labels)

just doesn’t make sense, especially in this specific case (real and active company).

Also reading Label/Type - MusicBrainz Wiki makes things pretty clear:

you should decide based on what constitutes the main activity type of the label.

In the case it seems pretty obvious to me their main activity is reissue production, but i just did a fast check of their discography.

regarding Omnivore Recordings ( ), the label was added in late 2011 ( )—without any type set until my edit. since then, the original editor who created it and the others thereafter, have all used it as an imprint, for release label use. (while i cannot recall when the imprint sub-type was introduced, i reckon it wasn’t as far back as then.)

i do not disagree that Omnivore might be considered a “reissue production” label; they do seem to license a fair bit of catalog recordings from other labels. but, even without considering how it’s been used by editors for the most part in the last five years, i think i can safely say that the cat no. prefixes these releases have (eg OVCD/OVLP for CDs & LPs respectively), and their barcodes, lend weight to the argument that Omnivore Recordings is in fact a valid imprint. so i’m not sure why you would insist in your edit note that it “clearly” isn’t one.

the other aspect is this: even if Omnivore Recordings might perhaps be characterized as a reissue production label, that fact, while good to know, has relatively less impact and limited use as far as the application of the label in edits. comparatively, whether a label is regarded valid for use as an imprint or not is much more significant to editors, generally speaking. as i’ve pointed out, from my observations, far more editors add release labels to releases than those who would apply labels to other types of edits (copyrights, manufacturing, etc) involving the subset of labels that typically aren’t valid for use as release labels. add to that the fact that any intention to now reclassify Omnivore Recordings as a “reissue production” label is going to upset all these previous edits (since you contend it’s not an imprint).

I didn’t see anyone claim it’s not a valid imprint. It’s clearly an imprint - it’s just that it’s also an actual label, not just an imprint of a separate company. The Imprint type is supposed to be used when the label is “just a logo”, with a different company behind it, rather than when it’s an actual organisation.


I didn’t see anyone claim it’s not a valid imprint

Zas did. see Edit #42088305 - MusicBrainz

it’s just that it’s also an actual label, not just an imprint of a separate company.

if by that you mean a label’s type as “imprint” is totally contingent on it not being at the same time any other entity, then that’s where i look at it differently; until a label is split up out of necessity, its purpose could be dual/several (as a part of the label wiki discusses). eg, Omnivore Recordings even while it’s (say) a reissue production company using “Omnivore Recordings” as its imprint. right now, or rather all this time, it’s been used as an imprint. should i now remove that classification?

You didn’t understand, i didn’t say it wasn’t a valid imprint (as a logo or whatever), but label type should not be imprint but reissue production:

For me, the type should rather be set to “reissue production”, according to their discography. But clearly not “imprint”.

The whole discussion is about that: you seem to think only labels with imprint type are/should be valid imprints. But as @reosarevok and few others said a label doesn’t have to have type imprint set to be a valid imprint.