I believe this can be closed. It looks like the misunderstanding is mine. When it says here “Label”, it does not actually mean “Label”, but “Imprint”. Imprint is a subset of a Label, but adding a label under label is not correct. Given this, this question is invalid.
It does make me wonder why it is titled “Label” vs “Imprint” though. That would solve a lot of confusion at least for me.
EDIT: In addition, given fmera’s explanation, this also means that the other two options shown on the cover and mentioned above my another editor are not valid options as they are not strictly imprints. So for the release listed, [no label] is correct.
@fmera - Is there a reason that in MB, where you want a “Imprint”, it asks for “Label”? This explains a lot of my confusion on this topic from day 1 at MB. For what ever reason, the way you explained this time around made sense in a broader perspective. This also means there are a lot of errors in MB, since independent labels are not valid as release labels, as they are more than just an imprint.
My confusion is that asking for a broad selection when you only want a subset makes no sense. If I ask for your ID number and you give me a DL number and I reject it for not being a passport number, the error is on me for not asking specifically for a passport ID number. If all MB wants are strictly imprints, why not just ask for the imprint? Sorry, although I am happy this is finally making sense, I am a bit annoyed as the problem is simply using the wrong terms for what is wanted. Not you, MB I am meaning.
since independent labels are not valid as release labels, as they are more than just an imprint.
i think you misunderstand; no label is too small or independent to count as a valid imprint. strictly, going by mbz’s own definition:
imprint: should be used where the label is just a logo (usually either created by a company for a specific product line, or where a former company’s logo is still used on releases after the company was closed or purchased, or both*)
but i have my own reservations about this qualifier; with book publishers, i don’t know of such a condition imposed. a book publisher will typically carry multiple imprints, each for a particular genre, or age group of readers, or distinguished from others in some other way. the publisher does not have to go out of business or be acquired by another before its imprints can rightfully be considered imprints.
there are also several other “production” subgroups (incl. original, bootleg, reissue) that may qualify for use as release labels provided they haven’t already had the label (logo/trademark) split from the company (which then should only be used for such relationships as copyrights, manufacturing, etc.) the only reason why some are split and others aren’t is, frankly, a question of scale. small independent companies with a solitary usu self-named label have little reason for a separate label entity, whereas major record label organizations like UMG, SME, WMG or even those of slightly lesser scale couldn’t possibly do without having the many subsidiaries, sub-divisions, and label groups under them, much less the actual labels (again, talking about brands/trademarks here) that those sub-groups own/manage.
release labels are basically product brands; they’re not the companies that sell their products using those brands.
With all due respect, this means people do not know what a record label really is then. Wanting only an imprint is not at all defined by asking for a label. IF you want an imprint, you need to ask for an imprint. If you want a record label, then ask for a record label. But do not ask for a record label and complain when someone enters a record label vs an imprint.
I would ask you look at what a record label is, what it does and how it is defined. Then you will clearly see that there is an issue with this.
I do understand, I think. Independent labels are most always more than just a logo. This will disqualify them per “imprint: should be used where the label is just a logo”. Just a logo explicitly excludes those that are more than just a brand.
The main confusion being label vs imprint. An imprint is a label, but a label is not necessarily an imprint. One is a subset of the other, and the terms are not interchangeable for all cases, just some. Just like a (c) or (p) holder is not interchangeable with label, but it can be. I will still stay and stand by my statement that a person can be a label, acting in the, or part of the, capacity and function of the record label. But, knowing that when the release asks for “label”, what is really wanted is “imprint”, this cannot really be a person anymore. There might be a case where that could be possible, but certainly not in the context of any of this post.
I only partially agree here. If you look at other references, for example, looking at the ISRC database and even metadata like that in iTunes files, label means label, not imprint. IMO, there is never a reason to use wrong terms for things. If there really is an understanding issue, all you do is add and promote the problem. Better solution would be to use proper terms and educate. Otherwise, people would call ducks cows and cars planes. Not knowing what a duck is does not make it ok to call it a cow even though they both provide meat.
It doesn’t matter. If doesn’t make them a label.
Just like you selling something to a friend doesn’t make you a store. You can overcomplicate it all you want but I have never seen anyone else say that someone being involved with the selling or distribution of their music makes them a label.
@highstrung is right. if they have been correctly classified, you can use the various production-type labels as release labels if they have not had their labels (the logos/brands/trademarks) separated from them.
I need to disagree again here. Before I explain, I need to say that business entity, business law and business tax law differ from country to country and sometimes even differs from place to place within that country… So what I say first can only apply to what I know, which applies here in the US for me, and is also not any sort of professional advice.
“Just like you selling something to a friend doesn’t make you a store.” - this statement is false, because you stated it as absolute. There is a more popular example here in the US of a car dealer. If you as a regular person sell too many card in a year (I will need to lookup that exact number), the government will treat you and tax you as a car dealer. There is also a business entity type called “Sole Proprietorship”. This is in the same mix as what a LLC is. There is a reason that MB is a documentation type organization and not a law firm, MB records, MB does not govern or dictate law.
“I have never seen anyone else say that someone being involved with the selling or distribution of their music makes them a label.” – this happens every day. I as a regular person can do business as a sole proprietor if I choose to. Look on CDBaby at what MB calls self released releases. What (or WHO) is listed as the label? People do not need your approval to act as or to do business as a company, that is up to the local governments and policy makers of their specific locale.
If you say that a person cannot be considered a record label, please provide a valid reason why not. There is no over-complication here, just the basics of business, at least in the US here, where there are literally millions of sole proprietors who by your standards don’t even exist.
So why would “Chop Not Slop” not be a valid label in MB? That is a brand that is used on releases, remixes, a radio show, etc. It is not really separated from the company, but you have just said that is ok. “Chop Not Slop” qualifies as a trademark, so it fits there as well. So I guess I still am missing why it is not valid for MB release label use?
That’s not what I said.
I said they don’t automatically become a label. Of course a person can use their name as a Label, just like you can use your name for a store.
But every artist who’s sold their CD-R on the street isn’t a Label.
Edit: just because someone has to put something into the ‘label’ field on a digital storefront doesn’t mean that they want to be, are running, or are a label. It’s just that the storefront provides no other option and this field needs to be filled in.
Where did you say this exactly, “automatically become a label”? All you have said is above and I do not see that.
None of this discussion is dealing with some or any artist selling CDs on the street. There is a difference between being a label and performing the service and function of a label. I am saying that they are a label in the sense that they are performing said service, not that they are a company that performs the services publicly and/or for hire. Many companies exist that perform services privately and/or exclusively. When someone asks for the record label, they are asking for who/what has performed the services/duties/functions that are assigned under the role of record label. Nowhere is being a company for public hire required. And actually, yes, every artist who sells a CD-R of their music on the street is in fact “acting record label” to themself, as long as there is no one else performing said functions. That is called self-released, and thus, proper data for the data field.
Where is that complicated? Why not just look at the basics? If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, etc… maybe, just maybe… it’s a duck?
As a side point, I ask what is a brand or trademark? Why is “Chop Not Slop” not a valid trademark or brand? What requirements are not met? Again keeping it simple and not complicated. What is a trademark and what is a brand? Where does this fail at those definitions?
I still don’t see any direct connection between the release in question and Chop Not Slop. On the releases that I do see on www.chopnotslop.com, I can’t find any indication of “Chop Not Slop” being used as a brand. Some of them have a logo reading “Chopped-up Not Slopped-Up, Official 100% Authentic OGRonC and the Chopstars”; that (or some part of it) might be a label name (as I think fmera alluded to above). But that logo doesn’t appear on the MTS artwork.
I said that the issue I read from you is that “person = label”. A person involved can just be a person involved, it does not make them a label.
You are calling a cow that quacks a duck.
My friend self releases records. He doesn’t want to sign to a label so he does the things a label would do himself. He does not want to be a label. He is not a label.
If you ask me what label he is signed to I don’t say “his own”. I say “none, he is independant”, like most people.
Megan Thee Stallion putting her album onto iTunes herself is the same as her handing you a CD-R on the street for the purpose of this discussion, and both should be [no label], unless she is specifically running a label under the name ‘Megan Thee Stallion’.
As for “acting record label” and “performing the functions of a record label”, that may be correct in a lot of situations - but not what the field is for.