Question about adding scans

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe30efef710> #<Tag:0x00007fe30efef648> #<Tag:0x00007fe30efef580>

I wanted to add some cover art scans to a release I just added to the site, however, the only scans I found of this specific release come from a piracy blog.
Is it okay to add this images to the site? If it is, what should I write as the edit note? Should I just explain the situation?


Totally okay! It makes no difference where scans are from as long as they are correct :slight_smile:

Yes please to adding the honest source of your images.


A source is a source. Quote the link, and say why it is good.

Perfect source is the CD in your hands. But a website link source is also good.


Aren’t links with pirated content against the rules though?
I don’t want to risk a sanction or something.

As long as you have the release in hand and can verify that the scans match visually, I think it is OK. If you don’t actually have the source to compare it to, no bueno.


The only issue I’d have with what you’re doing is if the images are watermarked with the name and/or logo of the site you got them from. In that case, I wouldn’t bother with them; we don’t want to be advertising piracy around here.


That only applies to URL relationships. For example: It’s not permissible to edit a release, add a link to a pirate site, and then categorise the URL as a “Download for free” resource.

Your case is different since you’re just citing a pirate source (in edit notes) for some scans.


Has anyone really ever faked details in scans? I think if the barcode and label/cat no. matches it should be all good?

1 Like

There was one editor who did that many years ago. Unfortunately (for historical purposes), all examples of this have now been lost.


(Just for reference, deleted coverart seems to stick around on the internet archive servers, it’s just not linked by musicbrainz anymore. See here for your example above)


That’s a bug and while it might serve useful at times I think it should be fixed. If only because it’s unexpected, undocumented behaviour that doesn’t seem intentional and can get in the way of undoing mistakes

To stay on topic, pasting links where you can pirate material might not be as unproblematic.

When I got scans from e.g. public torrents I’ll just paste the hash, for scene releases I’ll link to srrdb if available.

I figure providing just the info hash is also not safe. :\


I post links to bootlegs, concerts, etc. if it is a source that is unique.

But a copyright product that can be purchased from a shop as a physical product, or iTunes\Spotify seems a bit over the line to me.

As the OP said the only scans were on a piracy blog, that sounds like something not available in the shops. If there is a logo on there then it can be blurred in an art program.

I find some of those bootleg \ piracy links useful validation of data too. I’ve often used a link in an edit note to return for more information on that release or related releases.

I think most bands are happy for fans to access extra tunes and unusual items this way. It is just a greedy record company who gets upset as they misunderstand true fans.


I don’t think faking them is the problem. It would just lead to possibly assigning scans to a release that are incorrect (slight differences in artwork, printing on the CD label, etc.