# Phonographic copyright on shared recordings
**URL:** https://community.metabrainz.org/t/phonographic-copyright-on-shared-recordings/364102
**Category:** Style
**Tags:** relationships
**Created:** [March 5, 2018, 2:43am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/phonographic-copyright-on-shared-recordings/364102 "2018-03-05T02:43:47Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@highstrung](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/highstrung)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2018, 2:43am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/phonographic-copyright-on-shared-recordings/364102/1 "2018-03-05T02:43:47Z")
I was looking at this [1987 release of Frank Sinatra’s “Songs for Swingin’ Lovers”](https://musicbrainz.org/release/b7fda919-0d83-3b86-89f1-ce76ebdf8c97) and noticed an odd relationship:
phonographic copyright by: Masterworks Series (2013)
This is because these same recordings appeared on multiple releases, including a [Masterworks box set](https://musicbrainz.org/release/62c74248-c11a-4ac6-ad80-57a62ea2496a).
I read through a [previous thread](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/when-should-phonographic-copyright-ars-be-added-at-recording-level-vs-release-level/8799/36) on the topic, but I still can’t figure out whether this is correct usage or not. It looks weird to me, though.
---
### Author:  [@HibiscusKazeneko](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/HibiscusKazeneko)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2018, 7:11am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/phonographic-copyright-on-shared-recordings/364102/2 "2018-03-05T07:11:08Z")
Same. This is especially problematic for some older vinyl releases, because their phonographic copyright dates feature both the year and month, not just the year, so this results in differing dates between, say, singles and albums by the same artist. This doesn’t even touch on the transfer of ownership of said copyrights, e.g. when record companies merge with one another or in the case you cited where a third party licenses the recordings and reissues them (often remastering them beforehand; [there’s a separate thread for that](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/different-isrc-or-masters-not-sharing-the-same-recordings/355522)).
---
### Author:  [@jesus2099](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/jesus2099)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2018, 8:48am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/phonographic-copyright-on-shared-recordings/364102/3 "2018-03-05T08:48:51Z")
As I said in that other thread, I think it is interesting to know all published dates and labels of a recording.
Like it is also interesting to see all their ISRC they have from various releases.
If we had a track entity it would be there instead but frankly if we had a track entity, it would be a mess to edit, I prefer loosing that granularity, editing life on MB is already enough difficult it would benefit too little despite the hard work. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@cloverfield](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/cloverfield)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2026, 6:34am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/phonographic-copyright-on-shared-recordings/364102/4 "2026-10-20T06:34:11Z")
What about another case, when artist release a single on year X which has phonographic copyright on year X, then later in year Y the artist release album contain that single but has phonographic copyright by _same label_ on year Y. Should the (single) recording have phonographic copyright relationship on year X or Y?
---
### Author:  [@IvanDobsky](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/IvanDobsky)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2026, 9:10am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/phonographic-copyright-on-shared-recordings/364102/5 "2026-10-20T09:10:34Z")
> [@cloverfield](#):
>
> Should the (single) recording have phonographic copyright relationship on year X or Y?
Both X and Y. Two separate entries. It is common for multiple copyright dates to end up on a recording.
---
### Author:  [@cloverfield](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/cloverfield)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2026, 1:03pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/phonographic-copyright-on-shared-recordings/364102/6 "2026-10-20T13:03:49Z")
But MB only a single phonographic copyright relationship between a recording and a label
---
### Author:  [@IvanDobsky](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/IvanDobsky)
#### Post date: [October 20, 2026, 2:35pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/phonographic-copyright-on-shared-recordings/364102/7 "2026-10-20T14:35:44Z")
You can add as many as you need. It is not a one to one thing.
Some Pink Floyd recordings collect them each time the legal arguments change:
Example: [Recording “Dogs” by Pink Floyd - MusicBrainz](https://musicbrainz.org/recording/93972412-fe18-4656-98ed-82995598d8df)
Or Money [https://musicbrainz.org/recording/7fef22bd-76aa-4803-b56b-93a5d6e70662](https://musicbrainz.org/recording/7fef22bd-76aa-4803-b56b-93a5d6e70662)
Don’t think those lists above are complete either… These seem to get added with remasters and another excuses… I read the date as "this company added a new application for copyright from this time onwards…