especially “when we all pull together as a team” 
2 Likes
I pretty much would always add (p) at the recording level unless I have a reason to believe it does not apply to all recordings (as per our usual relationship guideline “Prefer most specific level”).
4 Likes
I agree.
Furthermore I’d definitely never enter an edit to remove the relationship from recordings unless I have really good reason to believe that they are wrong.
3 Likes
That’s a logical way I fully agree to and enter it in my edits, though it could lead to multiple entries in recordings as in CD1 of https://musicbrainz.org/release/ba59bf45-1a7a-45b4-b9cd-3d1389b2c0f5.
3 Likes
Yes it certainly does, and very often.
But I don’t think it should be seen as a problem. It is rather a sum of informations.
Like it’s fine to have several ISRC on recordings and fine to have the same recording in several releases.
4 Likes
Sometimes I enter phonographic copyright at release level. For example, if there’s a ℗ 2020 on a reissue while there was no copyright on earlier releases (or only ℗ xxxx without company). I think, 2020 would be confusing for a 1970s recording.
1 Like
If it is something like a reissue of The Dark Side of the Moon, then I can see the sense of adding the 2020 date to a recording. This is Pink Floyd nailing down a copyright date again. I think this is part of why they say they are “remastered” so they can claim “new recording, new copyright” and restart their 50 year clock.
If it is a compilation like NOW Hits then I think it would be wrong to add the (p) date at recording level. For something like a compilation usually the booklet is full of separate dates. And at that point I am then confused if they should be part of the Work or the Recording… so just skip it.
5 Likes
…and that’s in addition to the original copyright. 
I thought more about something like this → https://musicbrainz.org/release/36b49a1c-f0de-3033-87a0-22b77836e6d6
In this case it is already attached to the recording ¹, but the 1999 date comes from a reissue. The original albums had no phonographic copyright claims.
¹) and it seems to be wrong, should have been “Sony Music Entertainment Inc.” 
1 Like
Someone somewhere will have a (p) claim on the original. May get filled in one day. I’d leave the 1999s in place as they are technically correct, even if not first. (You also look right on the wrong Sony being selected…)
I guess the money grabbers followed different rules in the 1960s and didn’t splash their cash claims so loudly over everything.
The " Pink Floyd - Money" example I posted earlier is the kinda thing I meant. The labels keep reissuing it, and each time a new company makes a claim on the cash. Always makes me laugh that there are so many Floyd tracks and albums about the greed of the industry… and they are now among the worst for the constant boxset cash-ins. 
3 Likes
Probably, but there was no ℗ notice in 1968. It was introduced in 1971. And many countries have very different legal protections for sound recordings (and for filing claims). Up until the 1980s it was completely unusual in Austria and Germany to print something like this on releases. But as far as I know, monetary claims were not forgotten in the 1960s either 
Of course I leave it, it’s totally correct …or it will be correct when my edits are applied.
2 Likes
(post deleted by author)
There were (P) notices before 1971, but they usually just have a date without a label.
Example: https://ia800308.us.archive.org/9/items/mbid-cf0d899c-bbc6-4a33-ba74-5e335284e836/mbid-cf0d899c-bbc6-4a33-ba74-5e335284e836-14466476381.jpg. This is the 1967 release.
You’re right. I read Wikipedia → Sound recording copyright symbol - Wikipedia (very interesting!)
I confused it with the year it became mandatory (by law) in the US (…because it is no longer, I read an article about that)
It was introduced 10 years earlier in 1961, although without naming the rights owner.
1 Like