Publisher on recording level

I have a release that lists the publisher of the recordings, not the same for all tracks. I tried to do this in MB, but it tells me that the publisher at the track level is depreciated.

As I do not know why this is the case, could someone explain how this is to work, when there is not a single publisher for the whole release?

I think publisher is for works. :slightly_smiling_face:


I can add it on the release, but not the recording. If it needs to go on the Work, I will avoid this for now. If it is for the work, why does the release allow it? Only trying to understand.

I think the most important relation is the work-publisher relation because the publishers hold the copyrights for the works.
We also need a 2nd relation to show how the publishers are displayed on the release: e.g.
You have a release with the publisher “Virgin Mus.”. Then we would add “Virgin Music” to the work and
“Virgin Mus.” to the release.
I don’t think we need a recording-publisher relation: You can’t add any additional info that isn’t covered by the other relations.

1 Like

What is printed on your release that makes you think there is recording publishing going on?
For instance, if it is ℗, then it means phonographic or recording copyright, not publishing.

1 Like

Yes, the artwork is clear that it states publishing vs c or p copyrights.


the release-level has duplicates of some recording and work relationships because sometimes it’s unknown which vocal credit or publisher goes to which track.

“publisher” used to be on recordings before works were introduced, if I’m not mistaken. I’m not sure what the reason is for keeping depreciated relationships in the listings is tho…

for the example pictures you shared, I believe adding this relationship at the release- or work-level would be correct, but on the work-level is generally preferred, I believe.


The artworks says:

All tunes published by Malbiz Music except for “Uncle Jam”, published by Rubber Band Music Inc BMI.

For me, as it is about publishing: Tunes and Uncle Jam are therefore Works, not Recordings, nor Tracks.

If you say Uncle Jam is:

  • Produced (recorded, performed, etc.) by Bob: Recording level
  • Written (composed, published, etc.) by Bob: Work level
  • Remastered by Bob: Erh… Release level
1 Like

This explanation made sense to me, as it painted a full picture. This does me wondering though… why does the release allow publisher, and it not depreciated like it is for recordings? On one hand, the release is even further away from the work than the recording is, but on the other hand, I also get a prior comment that it may not be known as to the specifics of publishing… but I would think if the info is not specific, it should not be added. This is why I decline to add what I have to the release, it does not apply to the release, it is recording (or work) specific.

I agree here. Maybe some sort of transition period, giving a chance to people to move data? Unsure, it is indeed strange. The release allows it, and the recording allows it but is depreciated. I would think that at least new adds would be prevented for recordings if it is really depreciated.

Because on NGS migration, when Work and Recording entities appeared, each Track relationship could be automatically moved to either new Recording (perform, record, produce, etc.) or new Work (write, publish, etc.).

But Release publishing relationships, I imagine one didn’t want to automatically move it to each Works of the Release.
It cannot be guessed for sure, unlike former Track relationships.

I guess.

1 Like

Release publisher refers to the company that “released” the album, and has nothing to do with song publishers. Per the example, the intended usage of this is for “発売元” in Japanese releases (not to be confused with “販売元” which generally is the distributor).

In general, the release publisher (発売元) would be the company that runs the imprint that is being used as the Release Label. The purpose of the relationship is to be able to credit companies from the “fine print” where they belong, which is outside the Release Label field. Therefore, there is no need to set this relationship if the release doesn’t explicitly name a company to this role.


Let me make sure I understand you correctly… you are saying that Release:Publisher is not the same “publisher” definition as Work:Publisher, correct? Assuming I understand correctly, this would be similar to the labels that state “not for release label use” and similar, correct? The labels that sit on top of the smaller ones that MB uses as the release label.

Could you please fix I have fixed my mistake in Credit Translations/Japanese - MusicBrainz Wiki ! :sweat_smile:

I suppose I stand corrected… :sweat_smile:

I’ve never seen that as a credit, but I guess it exists somewhere.

in general, the “not for release label use” can also be distributors, manufacturers, and the like which have similar names to imprints (generally a release label, to my understanding). for example, Capitol Records vs. Capitol Records, Inc. vs. Capitol Records Ltd..