You were specifically taking about crediting recordings to David Lewiston instead of [unknown]. Using Peter Gabriel as an illustration why this makes sense. To me this is extremely weird analogy.
I am not opposed to crediting the project (i.e. the release) to David Lewiston.
Iâm not sure what youâre referring to - can you elaborate? If the musicians are known, I would expect to see them credited as the recording artist.
MB guidelines defer to âartist intentâ. That intent is usually reasonably clear in the case of commercial recordings, but with field recordings that is often not the case.
First statement: People like Irv Teibel, Francisco LĂłpez, Chris Watson are considered the appropriate artist for their field recordings, which I donât disagree with. In this case, they are considered involved with the recording. It is pretty much impossible that these performers of widely distributed Nonesuch Explorer Series recordings are going to ever be identified, which youâve agreed on (âeven if the emphasis at this date has to be on âpotentiallyââ).
If someone pointing a microphone at rain is an acceptable artist (there is an equivalent [nature recordings] SPA for completely uncredited recordings), I donât see how someone pointing a microphone at a person or a group of people who is/are not identified is different. You can say that it is âtaking credit for someoneâs workâ, but it doesnât matter since the artist credit is still not meant to be an objective reflection of the people involved, hence my comments about a double standard.
The difference is that in the first case, there is no work of art until it is recorded; the act of recording (and processing, editing, etc.) literally creates the art. In the latter, there is an existing work of art in the form of the performance being documented. In very rough analogy, itâs the difference between an Ansel Adams photograph and my snapshot of the Mona Lisa.
That is a terrible analogy, sorry. In both cases, the recordist legally owns the copyright of his recordings due to originality, similar to if he would take a photography. Your photo of the Mona Lisa is not considered original as it is an reproduction, see Threshold of originality#Reproductions (Wikipedia).
When a photo of the Taj Mahal is attributed to a photographer, nobody is arguing that he shouldnât be credited because âitâs claiming someoneâs else work, he isnât the responsible architect, he just pointed a camera at a building.â This analogy makes no sense and is effectively a counterargument against itself.
I see worrying similarities between a field recordist being credited as the release or track artist in the place of the performers and Bill being credited as the release or track artist for his torrent-distributed âMy Favourites Hits from the 70sâ which features Billâs favourites amongst the minor disco tracks of 1970-1979. In each case the performers are not having their rights as artists respected.
However I think a middle ground, which has the releases credited to the field recordist and annotations acknowledging that the artistic rights of the performers, to be so identified, have not been respected by the labels involved, and not by MB, balances this ethical issue.
This is also a nonsensical comparison, sorry.
See Tribal Music of Australia for an example, but I think ethical issue is the wrong way to think about it since the artist field is not always a representation of performance.
I find your approach non-colleagial.
To editors who are interested in progressing understanding of the rights of performer artists to be identified as the performer and how MB can fulfil its ethical responsibilities when it is faced with promolgating a pre-existing denial of the artistâs right: While acting ethically is more demanding than acting non-ethically, the social credibility of groups and individuals who act without sufficient regard to ethics often suffers.
eg A certain large religious organisation.
MB has no ethical burden based on what record labels do or not do. Artist rights or acting ethically is not the focus for the MB database, the Data Removal Policy is a blatantly clear example of this.
Furthermore, if you can provide credible sources for the artistâs right being âdeniedâ, you can submit an edit changing the field recordist in the artist field to the performing artist and add an annotation mentioning that the release does not credit the performer on track X.
MB is not some kind of judge, jury and executioner. This approach is a red herring.
The idea that Musicbrainz is some sort of ethics-free zone is a curious one - one that Iâm sure important participants, partners and donors would not support.
Any project that wants to have the respect and co-operation of artists will want to be seen to be respecting the rights of artists.
To do otherwise would damage the projectâs reputation and perceived artist friendliness and so negatively affect the projectâs viability.
Your suggested remedy for the case where MB is forced to promulgate the denial of a performerâs right to be identified is in line with what I included in my first comment on this thread.
⌠annotations acknowledging that the artistic rights of the performers, to be so identified, have not been respected by the labels involved, and not by MB âŚ
I am gladded to see that we have found agreement.
MBâs GDPR policy: https://metabrainz.org/gdpr
International copyright law needs to be changed for these claims of âartistic rightsâ to be objectively backed up. MB is an extension of how the record industry works.
There is precedent to follow in how libraries list their big collections of field recordings/collected folklore works in general and how the copyright system currently works, which is not subjective.
The argument that itâs unethical to the unknown performing artists to have a recordist credited in an abstract artist data field for maintenance of information, with full performance context provided by data relationships is subjective.
I would not dismiss these claims if you can provide some kind of reference to a library/information authority doing something equivalent to this. I cannot maintain editor impartiality by arguing right and wrong and thus I will politely refrain from doing it.
Yes, ethics are inherently subjective.
My view is not, âthat itâs unethical to the unknown performing artists to have a recordist credited in an abstract artist data field for maintenance of information, with full performance context provided by data relationshipsâ.
Rather my view is that it would be ethical to acknowledge that the rights of the performing artist have been denied by past actions, over which MB has no control, and that MB invites the correction of this wrong if the necessary information is available. This would probably be better communicated as a general statement of MusicBrainz policy rather than being repeated for each instance of denial of artistsâ rights.
The section Moral Rights in http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/image_rights.htm presents "
France recognizes four moral rights:
Similarly in Australia there is the Moral Rights Amendment to the Copyright Act.
The Arts Law Centre of Australia has released an Arts Law information sheet on Moral Rights.
With it, in France and Australia, being the law of the land, we can be confident that French and Australian libraries are taking steps to abide.
Sorry for late response, I didnât see it until now.
âMoral rightsâ in copyright is a loosely defined term which varies significantly from jurisdiction. Either way, in some jurisdictions, there is indeed a right, but if the right isnât claimed, thereâs nothing libraries can do.
My suggestion is still:
This provides context in the artist field, as well as noting that the performer is uncredited. I agree that the site policy should be clearer when it comes to the use of [unknown] and how to handle unidentified/uncredited artists.
Whilst there is much in your post I agree with, I canât understand why libraries would suddenly become disabled if a right is not claimed.
The librariesâ moral responsibilities and agency do not seem to depend on a right being claimed.
Rather, from what I see, the responsibility to acknowledge the artist exists irrespective of it being claimed. And libraries, as in as much as they are responsible social institutions, seek to fulfill their responsibilities. The librarians I know seem to be keenly aware of their social and ethical responsibilities.
An engineer is not an artist performer! It must not appears in main artist!