Hi,
I’m updating some Revue Starlight releases in MusicBrainz and am wondering how to handle the manufacturing credit (printed on the disc: https://ia902800.us.archive.org/1/items/mbid-67fd7a25-efca-4957-8455-efe496bd4efa/mbid-67fd7a25-efca-4957-8455-efe496bd4efa-28286384578.jpg). I see some existing releases use the label for the manufactured by relationship. I’ve previously used the parent holding company, but now I’m wondering if this is correct. Which one is preferred?
I’m not familiar with this company but I would not use a label (imprint) if it’s a manufacturer credit. If the holding has the same name as the manufacturer I would use the holding. If it appears frequently and there is no such label (company), I would create a new label, type manufacturer.
Thanks for the suggestion. In that case I will stick with the parent company as it has the same name (it translates to PONY CANYON INC. if I’m not mistaken).
I would use PONY CANYON as release label, as it is visible (between calatogue number and STEREO).
And some PONY CANYON INC. as manufacturer relationship, as you did!
Thanks for confirming. What about the phonographic copyright? “℗ $YEAR” is printed on the disc under the catalog number and the PONY CANYON text. Should I use PONY CANYON here or PONY CANYON INC.?
For phonographic copyright I’d use PONY CANYON INC., and there already seems to be some precedent for that. See also Sony Music Labels Inc., which has a lot of imprints serving as release labels but whose copyrights are almost invariably listed as Sony Music Labels Inc.
Companies manufacture products, not imprints. So you should use the company in relationships.
“PONY CANYON / STEREO” is a text pattern that the company uses to indicate what they consider to be the primary label. It’s not related to the copyright statement. The company doesn’t run very many labels today, but you can see how the word to the left of “STEREO” has changed in the past in Knife Edge, FLIGHT MASTER, NINTENDO64 SOUND SERIES, etc.
For some reason, many Japanese record companies don’t include a company in the copyright statement.
The copyright statement is probably just as legally irrelevant in Japan as it is in Austria or Germany. 
Thanks everyone. I’ll leave out the phonographic copyright as it doesn’t have a company listed.
I see you have queued Edit #108663749 - Remove relationship.
But as it is displayed without labels, maybe we should simply link to [no label], instead, no?
℗ 2021
℗ 2021 [no label]
Instead of loosing that ℗ 2021 info.
Although, the copyright on sound recordings (℗) might not be such a good idea.
There is a rights holder, and if they are named on a later release we get:
phonographic copyright (℗) by: XYZ Inc. (in 2010) and [no label] (in 2010)
…for example. At least, it should not be used at recording level!
Release-level copyright credits should never apply to recordings in the first place, but so many editors don’t care.
℗ is usually recording level, it’s for the contained sound recording
℗ relationships (with an s, because recordings will gather several ones with time) are IMO more useful set on recordings.
Releases get the ©️ relationship (usually one).
Not on compilations, and not on many albums. Some record companies specifically put track exceptions at the release level, but most don’t.
True, on compilations it is often better to keep ℗ at release level. That’s probably the reason why this is an option on releases.
No, I wrote the RFC/RFV for the relationship. I intended for the relationship to not exist on recordings, and other community members who participated in that process didn’t want it on recordings at the time.
Well, I think it should exist and it’s the right place, because ℗ is actually for the recorded material, represented by the MB recording.
…
There are cases when one track of an album has an earlier date because it was released as a single one year before the album. This could not be captured at release level.
Honestly I still prefer on recording level.
It is a sign of the recording being often rereleased again with time, and with what “label”.
What’s the issue with this information?
