Multiple licences for one release

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe30cc80cc0> #<Tag:0x00007fe30cc80bf8> #<Tag:0x00007fe30cc80b08>

I often add digital releases that are licensed under Creative Commons. However, depending on where they were uploaded (and which licences are supported by the platform), those releases might have a number of different licences associated with it. It is very common for Creative Commons licences, given that there is a number of parameter combinations available, and many licence versions since they were created.

Should I add both licence links as relationships to the one release? Or create a new release for each licensing case (with the platform specified in the disambiguation e.g. “Internet Archive release” and “Bandcamp release”)?

I only noticed recently that MB does not freak out if you add two licence links to a release. For example, I did that on this release:

Any thoughts?

edit: I also just noticed that it renders nicely on the release page:

I think it’s standard anyway to add separate releases for every download platform even if the releases are identical, but in generaly I wouldn’t say that two licenses mean two releases.
You can license your one release under different licenses so more people can use it (e.g. if you sample many songs all their licenses have to be compatible).

1 Like

It’s definitely ok to multi-license a release. Whether this is one release with two licenses or two with one each is a different question, and I’m honestly not sure.


If there’s different licenses on different platforms there might be other differences, like the cover art, date of release, whether there’s a label, what formats it’s available in, etc. In which case creating two different digital releases seems like a good idea - particularly since you’ve clearly done the research on both, and are interested in storing details like licenses. But I think both ways are fine, digital releases are relatively undefined at this stage.


Thank you everyone for you input!

I’ll make sure I check for other differences that would clearly justify creating a different entity, but will stick to linking the two different licences if it’s clear the difference only comes from the fact that the two platforms support different versions of it.

Cheers! :slight_smile: