How to credit companies as artists?

We have the labels Bravado International Group also probably belongs here (1 entry currently).

At the same time we have artist profiles for Bravado International Group Merchandising Services, Inc. (10 credits), which basically are for the same company.

I found release In Flames - Battles with a bunch of unlinked 'Other' credits; besides several people also entries for 'Bravado International' and 'Bravado USA' were listed (see revision 25). Under the headline "Merch" the release itself here lists certain employees starting the list with 'Bravado International:' and 'Bravado USA:' respectively (note the colon).

That led me to the conclusion that the companies do not appear on their own but are listed as an affiliation of the people that follow. I reworked the credits to 'Merchandising [Merch, Bravado International]' and 'Merchandising [Merch, Bravado USA]' to have them linked, but dropped the companies as artists. This is justified in my view because they did not contribute to the merchandising any further on their own but they are acting through their employees, which are d to them. I think they don't deserve their own credit.

syke now suggests to have them restored because otherwise there would be a loss of valid data. My view is that valid data has not been removed, but still appears in the elaboration of the credit role 'Merchandising [Merch, Bravado International]' and 'Merchandising [Merch, Bravado USA]'.

I have to add that I am not a friend of parallel label and artist entries for companies. I am aware that there are certain cases where companies also can be entered in the general credits section as artists when their contribution is significant and otherwise it can not be included. On the downside of this approach remains a fragmented data situation for the activities of these companies, which is a thing I wish to avoid.

I am asking for community how we best handle these credits. I am happy to restore them, but I don't think that this is ed from the release. If the organisations also should be credited as artists I would prefer to use one of the existing artist profiles (listed above) to avoid an even more fragmented data situation.

Thanks for your advice.

It's only just occurred to me that the company a person works for is very much akin to the musical group a person is a member of. I therefore think that RSG §2.1.5(a) applies:

2.1.5. Marketing additions or substitutions.

A) When an artist is billed as "[Artist Name] of [Band]," the "[Artist Name]" portion is considered the focal credit, and only the artist name is credited. The "[Band]" may be mentioned in the Release Notes.

Entering the company name in square brackets seems a good solution to me. The company is not a separate artist, so shouldn't be credited separately; and using Other to unlink a role that should be linked (merchandising) seems wrong to me. I therefore don't think valid data have been lost in your edit.

Following...
As I have a similar question/issue, which I posted about here:
https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/1118922?message_id=11593713#11593713

Concerning Michael Ostin as an A&R/Marketing credit, listed on release liner as "A&R: Michael Ostin for DreamWorks"

I agree that probably RSG §2.1.5(a) could apply.
I fully agree with your idea of considering a company affiliation similar to a group hip.

The crucial point in your case Blue_Stone is that we also have a kind of crossover scenario between artist and label entries

andrenafulva
It's only just occurred to me that the company a person works for is very much akin to the musical group a person is a member of. I therefore think that RSG §2.1.5(a) applies:

the problem with that logic however is, that the actual manager is not the person, but the company. The bands are contracted to the company, not the individual working at the company. Thus if you want to go the route of actual involvement as the OP states, the individual persones wouldn't be credited, because the actual manager / booker / lawyers / merch companies are the companies, not the people working there.

dr_no
This is justified in my view because they did not contribute to the merchandising any further on their own but they are acting through their employees, which are d to them. I think they don't deserve their own credit.

that argument holds no water. We have never treated companies and individual people differently when crediting them.

dr_no
I am aware that there are certain cases where companies also can be entered in the general credits section as artists when their contribution is significant and otherwise it can not be included.

that is a completly incorrect statement. Companies are credited in the general credits section when they are credited on the release. we do not determine whether or not their involvement is significant. Never have and most likely never will.

dr_no
Under the headline "Merch" the release itself here lists certain employees starting the list with 'Bravado International:' and 'Bravado USA:' respectively (note the colon).

yep, that tells you that the actual credit goes to Bravado and Bravado USA, as thats who was contracted to handle the merch for the band. Not the people working there

Thank you for letting us know your point of view syke

I agree that we should align any changes (if necessary) to the relevant Discogs guidelines and that a loss of information should be avoided.

Unfortunately you didn't make an attempt to link a possible update to the current situation with regards to the existing artist profiles.

When the release originally was submitted, there was no 'Merchandising' credit role available, so to add the credits in question with the unlinked 'Other [Merch]' credit role was a feasible way to follow the guidelines.

Using the 'Merchandising' credit role now will create a linked artist entry. If the result of this forum thread is that the companies also should be listed as artists, I would prefer to use one of the artist profiles already present (to avoid further fragmentation of the database). I then would suggest to use the Bravado Merchandise profile with appropriate ANVs.

An alternative solution in my eyes could be to add the company to the LCCN section:
Marketed By – Bravado Merchandising

The original information still is available in the elaboration of the 'Merchandising' credit role and is depicted on the images. It can also be reproduced in the release notes.

Just as an aside: Yes, it is the company that has the contract, but it's the people who are doing the work, not the companies - they do nothing and don't exist without them. You can say that a company never dies (it gets dissolved or merged or even transformed into another company), but that also means that a company has no life for itself. It is just a form of organisation and therefore different from what we consider an artist. In general, the principle of Discogs is that LCCN section is for organisational credits and general credits section is for personal credits (artist credits).

##EDIT: dobnothing DO nothing

There seems to be a (relatively new) guideline that covers this situation:

RSG §2.1.5

2.1.5. Marketing additions or substitutions.

A) When an artist is billed as "[Artist Name] of [Band]," the "[Artist Name]" portion is considered the focal credit, and only the artist name is credited. The "[Band]" may be mentioned in the Release Notes.
Example: Just For Today / Don't Put It Off Till Sunday

B) When an artist is billed as [Artist] [Company], the artist is credited with an ANV as on release - using the most relevant PAN. The company may be mentioned in the release notes.

Examples:
ANV: Dani Dynamita = PAN: Dani G (2) (Company name is Estudios Dynamita)
ANV: Jeffrey Zipper = PAN: Jeffrey Jay (Company name is Zipper Mobile)

Also see these guidelines:

RSG §10.2.7

10.2.7. Companies, businesses, etc. can be credited if they are directly given a credit on the release, for example, 'Design - Central Station Design'.

RSG §10.2.7.1

10.2.7.1. Where the credit describes the company or business as a location, for example, 'Remastered at Abbey Road Studios', this is not appropriate for the Discogs credit system, but can be entered into the Label / Company section. Combined information such as 'Design by Joe at Virginart' (possibly abbreviated in some way, such as; 'Design - Joe@Virginart') should be separated - 'Joe' gets the design credits, and 'Virginart' goes in the Label / Company section. Usually, the use of the word 'at' (in any language), or the use of a symbol intended to mean 'at', implies it is not suitable for a Discogs credit, but can usually be entered into the Label / Company section.

The first guideline quoted above, Guideline 2.1.5, example B, seems to cover the situation asked about in the original post in this thread. This guideline tells us to credit the person to their PAN, and that crediting the company is optional. The Guideline suggests crediting the company in the release notes, but it also seems appropriate to me to instead credit the company in the "Label, Company, Catalog Number, Etc." section of the submission form. That seems more than appropriate, since both the person and the company are mentioned on the actual release notes, and by listing both of them, it allows people to easily track the credits on both the company and artist's end.

Indeed, Guideline 10.2.7.1 gives us the "Design - Joe@Virginart" example and tells us to list "Virginart" in the "Label / Company section."

By the way, this appears to be the thread that was the source of the above-quoted 2.1.5 guideline involving Jeffrey Zipper:
https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/1021317

Interestingly, the Jeffrey Zipper entries do not appear to be very cleaned up (nor merged) in the year since that thread was posted and the guideline added.

On a related note, back to the very first point made in this thread, I agree that it's a real problem when data for the same company is for various reasons scattered into multiple different Discogs entries. This makes it very difficult to quickly and efficiently view the data on the companies' end.

It would go a long way toward solving the problem if Discogs would allow ANV's for companies. But apparently the community has been waiting on that innovation for many years, to no avail:

https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/767694

Yet the guidelines do seem to tell us that it's okay to list the actual true company on Discogs when you're sure that the company name that appears on the release is a typo or an inaccurate variation of the true name, provided that you're certain of this and you explain it in the notes:

RSG §4.2.1 & RSG §4.2.2

4.2.1. Please check (using the search function) for slight variations in the name (for example with or without 'Records' on the end). For example, "EMI Records Ltd" and "EMI Records Limited" are the same company and should be listed on the same page, whereas EMI Music Australia Pty Ltd is a separate company and should be entered on its own page. Note that these companies will probably appear on a release along with the Label (brand) 'EMI', which should be added separately.

4.2.1.a. For smaller 'independent' labels and companies, such a variation is usually unintentional, so you can normally adjust the label name to match the existing Discogs entry. Please make a note of any adjustments in the Release Notes and the Submission Notes.

4.2.1.b. For larger 'major' labels and companies, any difference may be significant, in of defining a separate branch, brand or company. These should be entered as on the release, unless there is proof that it is simply a variation for the exact same brand or company.

4.2.2. The responsibility is on the wishing to combine label or company names to provide proof that the entity they are trying to combine is indeed one and the same.

I also wish Discogs would not allow the creation of companies as "Artist" pages. Companies are not artists, and it would help avoid duplicate entries if Discogs did not allow s to list companies as artists.

Finally, I would like to ask the community for some on a similar data situation.

Consider the artist "James Atom" at Atom (10).

The situation with "James Atom" is exactly like the "Jeffrey Zipper" and "Dani Dynamita" examples discussed in the above-quoted guideline. In that example in the guidelines, we are told:
ANV: Jeffrey Zipper = PAN: Jeffrey Jay (Company name is Zipper Mobile)
By extension, in my example, it should be:
ANV: James Atom = PAN: James Bates (2) (Company name is Atom (10))

Given the "Jeffrey Zipper" and "Dani Dynamita" examples, is it appropriate to edit "James Atom" to be an ANV of "James Bates (2)" and to also list the company Atom (10) separately, in the Companies field and/or in the Notes?

nathanjamesbaker
Consider the artist "James Atom" at James Atom, a name that I regard is actually just an ANV for James Bates (2)

1st - you should start a forum thread BEFORE doing mass edit
and Atom is definitely not an ANV of James Bates (2) so all your yesterday edits were wrong

and while it's about you edits:
this kind of thing changing name should also be done BEFORE mass editing and discussed first
https://discogs.versitio.com//nathanjamesbaker/submissions#item=%2Frelease%2F19270813-Lone-Voyagers-Lovers-and-Lands%2Fhistory

julass

Please stop following me everywhere on Discogs and harassing and bullying me. You are doing a wonderful job of living up to your self-proclaimed title as "The Most Disgusting Bully On Discogs." Since you refuse to engage in a reasoned discussion and respond with little more than "you have no idea what you are doing" and the equivalent of "I am right and you are wrong," I will now be putting you on ignore.

I would welcome thoughtful, reasoned dialogue from anyone else, especially if they can directly respond to my query of whether "James Atom" is the same or different from the "Jeffrey Zipper" and "Dani Dynamita" examples in the guidelines.

nathanjamesbaker
Please stop following me everywhere on Discogs and harassing and bullying me. You are doing a wonderful job of living up to your self-proclaimed title as "The Most Disgusting Bully On Discogs." Since you refuse to engage in a reasoned discussion and respond with little more than I "have no idea what I am doing" and the equivalent of "I am right and you are wrong," I will now be putting you on ignore.

nice :)

Thanks for participating nathanjamesbaker.

I think your case is somewhat different from the one discussed above.
Without knowing your evidences I would say no, "James Atom" is not a valid ANV for James Bates (2). ANVs are for variations of the same name, here we have a completely different name.

##Edit: linked name

dr_no

Without knowing your evidences I would say no, "James Atom" is not a valid ANV for James Bates (2). ANVs are for variations of the same name, here we have a completely different name.

But how is "James Atom" any different than the "Dani Dynamita" and "Jeffrey Zipper" examples in the guidelines?

"Dani Dynamita" is a marketing name for someone named Dani G with a company named Estudios Dynamita. "Jeffrey Zipper" is a marketing name for someone named Jeffrey Jay with a company named Zipper Mobile. And "James Atom" is a marketing name for someone named James Bates with a company named Atom.

Evidence: https://discogs.versitio.com/artist/1996727-James-Bates-2

So, if the guidelines tell us "Jeffrey Zipper" should be an ANV for Jeffrey Jay, why shouldn't we do the same with "James Atom" (and perhaps explain that in the notes)?

nathanjamesbaker
So, if the guidelines tell us "Jeffrey Zipper" should be an ANV for Jeffrey Jay, why shouldn't we do the same with "James Atom" (and perhaps explain that in the notes)?

Dani G (2) for 2 out of 93 credits in total, this is a rather poor evidence.

The first one from my understanding is a valid solution.
The second one is questionable in my eyes, I wouldn't rely a series of edits on this example.

to add my (blocked) 2 cents:
besides "James Atom" we got also "Mr Atom" and that would suggest that "Atom" was intentional nickname

From my understanding all these Atom credits (with ANVs) on the profile of James Atom.

##EDIT: a wrong are wrong

dr_no

Jeffrey Jay and Jeffrey Zipper are linked as alias names in the database (these are kept as different entries, there is no ANV in use). Guidline 2.1.5 needs to be updated, it actually does not reflect the current data situation.

Dani Dynamita is used as an ANV of Dani G (2) for 2 out of 93 credits in total, this is a rather poor evidence.

But this is a *new* guideline that was added within the past couple years: https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/936584?page=11&message_id=10640341#10640341

As for the actual data not reflecting this new guideline for these particular examples, that just means the data hasn't yet been cleaned up per the guideline. I had previously noted that someone should do that cleanup now that the guideline has been adopted:

Interestingly, the Jeffrey Zipper entries do not appear to be very cleaned up (nor merged) in the year since that thread was posted and the guideline added.

The reason I have been citing the guideline rather than the data is because the guideline should control.

I am still not hearing any arguments why "James Atom" should be any different from how the *guideline* treats "Jeffrey Zipper."

dr_no
From my understanding all these Atom credits (with ANVs) on the profile of James Bates (2) are wrong.

I do agree with that. I will clean that up in due course.

But I don't think the solution is to link "atom" (and the like) to any person, such as James Bates nor "James Atom." "Atom" is a company -- not a person, and not an artist. Plus, "James Atom" is not the name of a real person; rather, that name was either used as a marketing name or possibly in error. Finally, the guidelines tell us, via the "Jeffrey Zipper" example, to NOT make names like "James Atom" an alias, but rather handle them with an ANV and a link to the real person.

To summarize, per the guidelines I have cited (§2.1.5, 10.2.7, 10.2.7.1, 4.2.1, and 4.2.2), like "ATOM," "atom," and "Atom" on releases are clearly referencing the company rather than the person and should be handled solely with company links to https://discogs.versitio.com/artist/1996727-James-Bates-2.

I'm not sure about "[email protected]," but that should probably be treated as a link to the company.

For some of these situations where an ANV and link to James Bates is clearly appropriate but the company is also at least implicitly if not explicitly mentioned (e.g., "James Atom," "mr atom"), it might also make sense to either link to the company and/or mention the company in the notes, per the "Jeffrey Zipper" examples in guideline 2.1.5.

Finally, in situations where a different company name than the real company name was used on the release (e.g., "Atom Design Company" rather than "Atom," I think that should probably be linked to the actual company (Atom), since we know it's all the same company, per guideline 4.2.1. But I really wish there were a way to do ANVs for companies -- this is a good reminder of how valuable that would be.

nathanjamesbaker
I will clean that up in due course.

how about it's gonna happen now or we can sort it out with votes as you've asked for:
https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/172073?message_id=11653069&page=193#11653069

This is a bit of mess, isn’t it?

There are multiple issues/guidelines/forum consensuses involved here.

First and foremost it shows the wisdom of starting a forum discussion BEFORE a mass edit is executed.

Second is the concept of “Marketing additions or substitutions” for Artist names.
julass, take a minute to read the updated RSG §2.1.5. and the forum discussions that led to the change and recent forums discussing it’s implementation. One of which is linked above. Though that discussion gets confusing with all the different guidelines getting discussed at same time.
This is the discussion that got this particular Guideline change going though,
https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/1021317

There is definitely change afoot on how we handle [Artist] [Band Name] / [Artist] [Company Name] but it seems to me like it has not been consistently defined or used since the Guideline changed.

It would seem in the case of “James Atom”, nathanjamesbaker is correct and we are not to create an Alias, but rather an ANV and per the Guidelines and examples presented, the ANV would be “James Atom”. There was some discussion if the Company could then be added to the LCCN, and some said that that would depend if it can be shown the Company was involved in the release or just the person. Based on how James Bates and Atom is credited on releases, Atom is a one-man-show, so I would think it could be added to the LCCN, but the Guideline says, “may be added to the release notes” so there’s that.

And it doesn’t help things that, as mentioned, for one of the examples in the new Guideline, Jeffrey Zipper and Jeffrey Jay are still separated. I linked them as Aliases for now (as well as the third matching profile, Geoffrey Zipper) to help with fixing this issue. Perhaps it doesn’t help, but based on current Guidelines these three profiles should be merged into one and it helps me to have all the profiles linked when doing edits.

Third is how we handle Companies credited as Artists and Design companies in particular.
Based on current Guidelines, it would seem "Atom" would only get an LCCN credit when “at”, “@”, “/” or similar was used. All the other credits would go to Atom Design Group. (It looks like Atom Design/Atom Design Group is used only twice. Perhaps a new Atom (#) needs to be generated as it is credited that way on the majority of releases, and the websites use just “Atom”. That is if we continue to need an Artist profile for Atom, see below.)

These forum discussions, one of which was started by https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/1064807

Staff member DtF even suggested this approach,
https://discogs.versitio.com/forum/thread/1064807#10997708

He clarified that this would be for Design companies only, but hasn’t clarified whether it was just a thought or a definite change to be implemented.

For now at least I’d suggest sticking to current Guidelines as written.

“Atom” when credited as an artist - ANV of “Atom Design Group” or generate a new Atom (#) due to reasons mentioned above.

“Mr Atom” (ANVs should not be in lower case btw) an Alias of James Bates (2)

“James Atom” an ANV of James Bates (2), Atom mentioned in Notes.

Only add "Atom" to LCCN when credited as a company (at, @, etc.)

Saying all this I think many of these Guidelines need to be clarified further. Besides the obvious Design company issues, I have many questions about RSG §2.1.5.. Will save that for another discussion.

EDIT (removed bit about [Artist Name] [Band Name] since that is a separate discussion)
EDIT #2 (I reverted my Jeffrey Jay alias edits lest someone gives me negative votes and just added linked names to the profiles.)

carrick44
“Mr Atom” (ANVs should not be in lower case btw) an Alias of James Bates (2)
“James Atom” an ANV of James Bates (2), Atom mentioned in Notes.

that doesn't stick together
if we got Mr Atom then it looks like James used nickname Atom so James Atom can be an Alias of James Bates and then Mr Atom would be an ANV of James Atom

This thread now took a different direction than originally intended. My question remains related to the situation with release Battles

Should there be an artist credit for Bravado International and Bravado USA with Bravado Merchandising be added as a company to the LCCN section? Or should the submission be left as it is?

I would appreciate some more input on this topic. Thanks everyone.