Reproduced legacy copyright/company credits in a boxed set

I'm currently working on a 4 CD boxed set submission by NMC Music Ltd., on the individual CD sleeves.

I know the old catalog numbers go in baoi. What I don't know is what to do with these company credits. Right now I'm putting them in notes. Do they go in lccn as well?

Here is the submission in question: קורין אלאל* - האלבומים המקוריים = Original Albums It's one of four from this series entered into the database so far.

Anyone? Do legacy credits go in notes only or in lccn?

I a discussion regarding releases like Heron - Heron
It was decided that the legacy label should be treated as a label.
They were considered part of the marketing.
I have no idea if you could transfer this to companies, I'd rather we would not.
If we have a LLCN stating NMC Music Ltd. and that company has nothing to do with the release, then we would seem to enter incorrect information, while in the case of labels, it's a branding which is on the release.

marcelrecords
If we have a LLCN stating NMC Music Ltd. and that company has nothing to do with the release, then we would seem to enter incorrect information

I tend to agree with that. CBS Records Ltd. (the Israeli company) hasn't been around since 1989. NMC Music Ltd. disappeared in 2008 when NMC was acquired by Globus-United. Those companies had nothing to do with a 2009 or later boxed set.

But still they are mentioned. In my opinion they can therefore be entered in the submission.

Fauni-Gena
I tend to agree with that.

Me too. If I browse a company that have been inactive for a while then I would find it strange to discover recent releases there.

jweijde
But still they are mentioned. In my opinion they can therefore be entered in the submission.

I agree they can. Should they? That's what I'm not so sure about.

Bong
If I browse a company that have been inactive for a while then I would find it strange to discover recent releases there.

Exactly.

jweijde
But still they are mentioned. In my opinion they can therefore be entered in the submission.

They are only "mentioned" because the covers are replicas or facsimiles of the originals. These should be seen in the same light as if an old album cover or label was illustrated within a CD booklet, so just part of the artwork and not label or company branding. I would just mention in the notes that the covers are replicas of the originals, and not mention the old company names at all. For what its worth, I don't think the old catalogue numbers should be mentioned in BAOI either; they were valid catalogue numbers for the original releases, but they don't apply to this release.

wp6345789
For what its worth, I don't think the old catalogue numbers should be mentioned in BAOI either; they were valid catalogue numbers for the original releases, but they don't apply to this release.

On that issue the Database Manager has spoken, so... they should stay. Besides, the catalog number on the individual CD labels is the old catalog number plus an NMC suffix, so those actually are still valid on my submission.

What you like to see or not on a company page shouldnt influence data entry. Just enter what is on the release. The release mentions these companies so it should be ok to enter them.

jweijde
What you like to see or not on a company page shouldnt influence data entry. Just enter what is on the release. The release mentions these companies so it should be ok to enter them.

Sorry, no, I completely disagree. Legacy artwork does not mean these companies had anything to do with this release. They didn't even exist when the release was made. You are the only one arguing for this position and it makes no sense at all to me.

If you want this enforced you'll need to get management buy in and file a Request.

my point is that it does not matter if they hadnt any involvement. Their names are there, they are credited. So theres no reason to exclude them. If we do that we are applying personal preferences to data entry.
Someone really interested in that company would like to quickly see the releases it appears on. He wont be able to if we start excluding info because we believe it is legacy.

Label and company pages are lists of releases were a certain logo or name appears on. They dont imply active involvement.
Same counts for artists. Plenty of dead artists get releases after their death and we still enter those as main artists.

You're missing the point entirely. The main box, the outer cover does not mention these companies at all. How could it? They no longer exist. This is reproduced artwork that includes text, not actual credits for the companies.

I've filed the request. Nobody else agrees with you, but since you are now dominating the conversation let's have management/staff settle it.

No, I am not missing that point. I just think that it is not relevant. They are mentioned on parts of the release. It does not matter where and active involvement also is not required. We should simply record what is mentioned on the release. If you put it in the release notes, you put info there which can and should be put in a different section.
We are already treating 'replicated' labels and catalog numbers as the 'real' thing (and rightfully so), so why make an exception for company names? Makes no sense.

My proposal would be to ditch the 'lookout for replicated artwork' guideline because it keeps data out the database and allows people to apply personal preferences to data entry.

jweijde
My proposal would be to ditch the 'lookout for replicated artwork' guideline because it keeps data out the database and allows people to apply personal preferences to data entry.

Actually, I would cal your insistence on data that isn't from the actual release involved but rather from much older releases personal preference. In any case, a Request has been filed. Hopefully we'll have a decision on Monday or Tuesday.

wp6345789
They are only "mentioned" because the covers are replicas or facsimiles of the originals. These should be seen in the same light as if an old album cover or label was illustrated within a CD booklet, so just part of the artwork and not label or company branding.

That's how I feel, however...

The response I received to my request is the following:
-RSG 4.7.9 will probably be eliminated.
-All companies, even dead ones, will be entered if they appear. The fact that they are part of legacy artwork won't matter since the Guideline that permits excluding such entries will be no more.
-The status of the companies can be explained in notes.

This is still in discussion between קורין אלאל* - האלבומים המקוריים = Original Albums.

Edit: Done, with note explaining added and a link back to this thread.

So, old LP labels, numbers and companies can now be attached to CD reissues on different labels, with different catalogue numbers, and potentially also in different countries? (Thinking here of my European-pressed Verve jazz reissues with facsimiles of old US Decca, Mercury, etc covers in the packages). Well, (mis)-Management have really outdone themselves this time! Is there any chance of getting someone who has even a skerrick of common sense to run this place? I think I'll stick to 45worlds and 45cat from now on.

I thought the Lccn was introduced to mention the companies ect.... involved into the release. Now we should enter anything there? What a kidding humour is that?

Could you clarify: Does the box (not the CDs but the container box) contain e.g. the new real (p) and (c) copyright infos for all the four CDs?

jval
Could you clarify: Does the box (not the CDs but the container box) contain e.g. the new real (p) and (c) copyright infos for all the four CDs?

Yes.

So basically entering the companies etc. from the legacy artwork you're entering lies. :)

Edit: I mean they become lies when they are entered into LCCN. Notes or BaOI would be another thing.

jval
So basically entering the companies etc. from the legacy artwork you're entering lies. :)

Edit: I mean they become lies when they are entered into LCCN. Notes or BaOI would be another thing.

Based on my comments above you know I agree with you. Perhaps you should add these comments to http://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/53564e56d07b09682ae0c374 where nik is formalizing a Guidelines change that would eliminate 4.7.9 and make clear that these legacy entries do go in lccn.

Comment duplicated somehow

Please see a new thread at http://discogs.cinepelis.org/forum/thread/53e5439cea621145d15482b1 While the situation is somewhat different (European distribution companies preserved in a national release where those companies didn't operate) the argument to leave them in notes is based on RSG 4.7.9. Has there been any progress on the Guidelines changes?