correct company activity for RCA Editeur

On a series of french RCS Reissies we find a company Imprint on release
RCA Éditeur
What is the correct activity for LCC
a) Manufacturer?
b) Distributor?
c) Publisher?
d) Marketed by?
The pro9file gives no explanations.
Thanks

Record Company

I've just had a look at the profile and no wonder there isn't a defined role, the vast majority of the links to company roles on the subs I've dipped in to across the first 100 listed are wildly inaccurate.
Please make any linking to roles you undertake on a case by case basis based on the text used on release.
Record Company seems correct in most of the subs I've looked at so far.

avalon67
avalon67 about 9 hours ago
Record Company

Means what? Producer, copyright holder, Manufacturer a.o for the LCC section
At least its an entity. Yes.. Could also be seen as taking a license from RCA

mcr1
Please make any linking to roles you undertake on a case by case basis based on the text used on release.

All from my own collection
Maynard Ferguson - "Conducts The Birdland Dreamband" Vol 1 & 2

BTW, there is no "need" to link a company to a role unless it is the record label or you are making other edits to a sub and you see an existing incorrect link.
I can't look over the releases at the moment as this is my last look in to Discogs until the end of the week.
I'll check in when back, thanks.

Probably this link helps:
http://data.bnf.fr/13889753/rca_/
Looks like "distribution" is the main activity but also producer seems possible.

addendum:
https://www.musik-sammler.de/media/1074003/
on this link "RCA Editeur" is classified as Plattenfirma = record company.
JCD

RCA éditeur is to be considered as RCA Records
RCA is the mark
éditeur is (just like "records" a mentioning in which kind of business RCA is working

Brands are protected within a certain domain of activity

éditeur is literally translated as "publisher", but in English & in musical context, "publisher" is used to note a company that publishes musical score books. So the correct (contextual) translation would be "RCA Records", which on it's turn is a textual equivalent of the "RCA" logo. RCA Records & RCA éditeur issue (publish) records as main activity, which might or might not involve distribution, manufacturing, owning phonographic and/or other copyright of the issued material, ....

Discogswise within current conventions: enter it as: record company "RCA Éditeur", unless a clear role (such as distribution) is mentioned.

The problem is we have also as record company "Radio Corporation of America" printed on the release. If it is an entity with a french address as you explain it may have a license to issue those RCA recordings. If it is the same as RCA Records then why the different name.. In this case it would be rather "RCA " or somethink similar. I think distributing comes very near as subcompany of RCA otherwise we wouild not have that print on all those reissues.
Thanks for sharing your thouights..

Let's see what's written on releases:
"RCA Editeur
ed trademark used by authority and under control of RCA Corporation
Made in from master recordings owned or controlled by RCA Records."

I understand 'RCA Editeur' is a registred trademark for French branch of RCA, even if it's (no more?) ed on https://tmdb.eu/
With rights from RCA Corporation to use this trademark and authorizaton of manufacturing in from master recordings owned or controlled by RCA Records.
I'd go to record company for RCA Editeur, I think it fits perfectly with discogs notion of record company.

And yes, RCA Corporation and RCA Records could also be added as record companies, that's obvious for me considering text above.

BTW, we have nowhere 'RCA Editeur' on BNF database and Marque (= trademark) is RCA, RCA Camden, RCA Red Seal or RCA Victor as discogs label for those releases with a 'RCA Editeur' mention.

Releases mentioned by JazzcornerND:
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb38008454f
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb38007128t
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb380085463
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb380792119

And a few others I have:
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb38007124f
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb38009029c
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb383887297
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb38014144j
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb38009718n
http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb38009721j
A few of them have Distribution RCA on BNF database, and that's consistent with price code RC xxx we usually have on those releases.

I see no reason at all to use Distributed By for 'RCA Editeur'. We have nowhere on release this sort of information, we only have information about rights for RCA Editeur.
And when RCA has a distribution role, there is an explicit mention, for instance on those releases:
Dizzy Gillespie - Dizzy Gillespie (1946-1949)

All in all, I think Record Company is a good option for 'RCA Editeur' and I suggest to add that on profile of 'RCA Editeur' and to fix company role on those releases with a'RCA Editeur' mention.
Help for mass edit is more than wellcome if we agree for that....
Opinions?
Votes?

And may be Made By RCA Editor could also be OK considering 'Made in from masters...' below 'RCA Editor'?

May be ping
Dr.SultanAszazin
would help to have answers ...
BTW, JazzcornerND, if you could add 'RCA Editeur' in the title, it would also help.
And have this thread in the general Database Forum, not in the Advanced Discussion would be great for the visibility but I am not sure it's possible to change that ;-(

I dont think we can rename the started thread.

JazzcornerND
I dont think we can rename the started thread.

No problem, but answers / reactions are wellcome ...

JazzcornerND

I dont think we can rename the started thread.

Just go to edit your opening post and you can edit the title from there

I'm of the same opinion here, any release carrying the mention RCA Editeur should be crdited as Record Company.
There may be a distribution credit for RCA on the same release as there is also written 'RCA Editeur' but then we just add two credits for RCA, and definitely not assume that any mention of 'RCA Editeur' is automatically a distribution credit.
I think I'm agreeing with Diognes_The_Fox?

avalon67
JazzcornerND
I dont think we can rename the started thread.

Just go to edit your opening post and you can edit the title from there

Thanks, done.

Universe_In_Blue
And may be Made By RCA Editor could also be OK considering 'Made in from masters...' below 'RCA Editor'?

Firstly the company name isn't "RCA Editeur", it's similar to other French phrases found on sleeves and discs, 'Publication Phonogram' etc.
I also don't think (without seeing the full text) that Made By is suitable. Unless it states that.
Certainly "Made in from masters owned by RCA" doesn't indicate that to me.

avalon67
Firstly the company name isn't "RCA Editeur", it's similar to other French phrases found on sleeves and discs, 'Publication Phonogram' etc

I agree 'RCA Editeur' is not the company name but it's a trademark with specific rights, I feel it's a bit more than 'Publication Phonogram' which just says it was 'publié' by Phonogram (Publication is not the discogs 'Published By' but could be Produced By or Distributed By or Released By which does not exist on discogs. That's ambiguous but off topic... Let's stay with RCA Editeur).

BTW, I agree Made By RCA Editeur would probably be abusive...

Universe_In_Blue
'RCA Editeur' is not the company name but it's a trademark with specific rights,

OK, I didn't know that.

Universe_In_Blue
(Publication is not the discogs 'Published By' but could be Produced By or Distributed By or Released By

Maybe you'd like to look through
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/721445
and correct the thoughts of the last s to post there.

avalon67
I'm of the same opinion here, any release carrying the mention RCA Editeur should be crdited as Record Company.

agree

also agree that "Publication" could be Released By, but for some companies it could also be Published By

avalon67
Maybe you'd like to look through
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/721445
and correct the thoughts of the last s to post there.

Did not notice this thread, thanks! I'll have a look.

Well I have added a complete scan of the Imprint to the existing profile to see what the profile really means.
Whether it is a record producing company can only be interpreted with the expression "made" within the text. That means we have at least 2 record companies in the LCC or even 3 but no explicit distributor or part for the marketing Thats the reason I tend to distributor more than manufacturer.
Probably a french member can find out more.

avalon67
I'm of the same opinion here, any release carrying the mention RCA Editeur should be credited as Record Company.
There may be a distribution credit for RCA on the same release as there is also written 'RCA Editeur' but then we just add two credits for RCA, and definitely not assume that any mention of 'RCA Editeur' is automatically a distribution credit.

I agree with avalon67 here.

Unless it is clearly stated RCA Editeur acts as a distributor (or any other role) it is best to enter it as Record Company

JazzcornerND
Whether it is a record producing company can only be interpreted with the expression "made" within the text. That means we have at least 2 record companies in the LCC or even 3 but no explicit distributor or part for the marketing Thats the reason I tend to distributor more than manufacturer.

Yes , 3 record companies, I don't see any problem with that.
I understand this imprint is here to inform the customer about role of the French branch of RCA: French branch is still under the parent company control but they have the right to take a greater part of the job (and I guess to have a more important part of the remuneration ;-)
'Editeur' suggests they have an active role, the imprint mentioned they have the rights for that but does not say anything about what the French branch do, sub-contract or leave to the parent company ...
Once more, Record Company is perfect for that!

quote from the history (George Russel=)
Universe_In_Blue
RCA Records was not at all my suggestion, I still think we should have no company in LCCN for (P), as on my last edit.
We do not know if it's RCA, RCA Records or another company.
I mentioned RCA Records when you ask who else should that be, I did not think it has to be added, sorry if it was not clear.

I think I posted yet a lot on this thread, and everybody except you agreed with what I said.
Let's wait for staff answer if you want, but once more, we have yet 5 against 1....
Ok will change back the copyright to the notes. Its peanuts !why debate it!

I guess previous here

Coming back to this thread started by JazzcornerND, all 5 other contributors borderes and myself agree that "Any release carrying the mention RCA Editeur should be credited as Record Company .... unless it is clearly stated RCA Editeur acts as a distributor (or any other role)"

I think it's enough for updating RCA Éditeur profile and edit the releases.
JazzcornerND does not agree as you can see on George Russell history page mentioned above,

Diognes_The_Fox your contribution is wellcome!

JazzcornerND
I dont think we can rename the started thread.

You'll need to edit the first post in the thread.

avalon67
I'm of the same opinion here, any release carrying the mention RCA Editeur should be crdited as Record Company.

This sounds fine to me.

Well we know whats discussed here. There are a few opinions for a "company" credit. There is not a crumb of Info in the Internert available what the fuction of this "company" is. avalon had his doubts but didnt explain further.
I would add an explanation in the notes only about this print and thats it. The rest is guessing and private opinions.
Nik wrote some 4 years ago the following:
"Generally we are not into entering 'guessed' information, which is where the discussion fell down last time IIRC."

So the notes seem appropiate for me. I'm also wondering how a few people inm this big organization do "create" things in threads without external proof. Thats dangerous for a public db.
Thanks

JazzcornerND
The rest is guessing and private opinions.

So you're claiming that 'RCA Editeur' (or the company behind that TM) were not involved with releases bearing their name, or that they're not a record company?

Dr.SultanAszazin
I agree with avalon67 here.

Unless it is clearly stated RCA Editeur acts as a distributor (or any other role) it is best to enter it as Record Company

Another +1

avalon67
any release carrying the mention RCA Editeur should be crdited as Record Company.

Sounds good.

Well you all know that I was the one to open up the question what role this Imprint means?
It is correct that there is some role in the process of reissuing all those recordings. Whether the copyright owners (RCA Records or Record Corp. of America) have a special agreement with RCA Editeur is not cleared yet so Company or distributing or marketing is more or less guessing. I can correct in all my own Items RCA Editeur ( as far as I have added the distributor or marketing role) from LCC and add some explanation to the notes. I am not however with the "guessing" and I didnt find yet a sufficiant answer or facts in the Internet for a record company. So I am against the uncleared "company" role whatever task it has.
Main guideline is if something is not that clear to add it to the notes.
Decide as you please. How many of the 100.000 nds do care? In a great many number we will never find a correct solution withing this "closed Shop" Discogs with its own rules. That is a fact.
Thanks and good luck.

Updated RCA Éditeur profile and planned to edit releases.
Help is wellcome!

This Garima record has 'RCA Distributeur Exclusif', not 'RCA Editeur'.

With same text below :
"ed trademark used by authority and under control of RCA Corporation.
Made in from master recordings owned or controlled by RCA Records."

Many more releases like that here.

Edit: Fixed mention on Garima record as it is.

Before you start I have the following suggestion:
a) I am not generally against "a company" credit. My croiticism is the missingh proof . Not one of the other opinions in favor of your definition have added any proof.
b) Howe about this:
In all trademarks and companies are ed and listed at the local courts with a short description of the purpose. They all have a HR (= Handels) number which stays with the company, trademark as long as it exists.
Every change and new addition ist published in the newspapewrs. I think in there must be a similar olrganisation. We haver an address of RCA Editeur. If a french member could try to find out where this company is listed in an official role at the local courts in or at another official bureau we have at least tried everything to find a proper solution. If this fails then go ahead and I would not object.
JCD

As I said in my first message, I did not find it on https://tmdb.eu/
And no more today on https://tmdb.eu/trademark-search?=&order=filing_date&sort=desc&q=RCA&page=3
And neither on https://www.infogreffe.com/ which is probably the right place to search for .

BTW, once more, we have on countless releases:
"RCA Editeur
ed trademark used by authority and under control of RCA Corporation"

May be enough to consider it's a ed trademark, even if we do not find the registration?

May be indeed 'RCA Editeur' should not exist in discogs database!!!
It just says RCA is 'Editeur' as 'RCA Distributeur Exclusif' means RCA is the exclusive distributor (see the Garima record I've yet mentioned above).
If we agree with this point of view, we should have RCA as record company when we have 'RCA Editeur' on a release?

I guess if we do not find 'RCA Editeur' on databases where it should be, that just means 'RCA' is the trademark, there are many exemples of 'RCA' alone as trademark on https://tmdb.eu/trademark-search?=&order=filing_date&sort=desc&q=RCA&page=3

I'm happy to just credit RCA, as I mentioned earlier

avalon67
Firstly the company name isn't "RCA Editeur", it's similar to other French phrases found on sleeves and discs, 'Publication Phonogram' etc.

So, the credit for record company goes to RCA.

But, we still don't assume.

If it doesn't say Distributed By, we don't add it as a distributor.

Just to be clear :-)

So, the credit for record company goes to RCA.[/quote]

agreed = as printed on release[quote=avalon67]

Just a note: the LCC menue has on bottom "special retailer"

JazzcornerND
the LCC menue has on bottom "special retailer"

"Exclusive Retailer" indeed, and off topic for RCA Editeur...

May be we need some more confirmations for RCA as record company.
RCA Éditeur will no more exist on discogs database after mass edit if we do that.

Universe_In_Blue
May be we need some more confirmations for RCA as record company.
RCA Éditeur will no more exist on discogs database after mass edit if we do that.

Y'know I believe the text underneath
RCA Éditeur

Registred trademark used by authority and under control of RCA Corporation.
Made in from master recordings owned or controlled by RCA Records.
applies to RCA, and that 'Editeur' is still a description of some sort.

If you search rca 9 avenue matignon 75008 paris
You'll find several different mentions of RCA.

You can probably get more using google.fr

avalon67
applies to RCA, and that 'Editeur' is still a description of some sort.

Yes, that's also my conclusion now, and it was my very first impression also, I was surprised when I discovered a company named 'RCA Editeur'.

I wrote my last post because I think it would be fair to have a bit more agreements for RCA as Record Company when we have RCA Editeur.
If we agrree for that, no more 'RCA Editeur' in the discogs database, I am in favour of that but may be 2 contributors (or 3 it's not clear for me if JazzcornerND agree) are not enough for removing a company now with 459 entries ....

Ping once more contributors of this thread:
jweijde

I may add another observation:
the text under RCA Éditeur quoted above by avalon67 appears also on another french RCA reissue series "Jazz Line".
They all have only "RCA" as label printed on the orange disc labels (+ the text above in white tiny print) and the rear cover bottom. That s the opinion to have only "RCA" as label.This series has the prefix PL or PM (sometimes also CL) in the Cat#
As jazz collector I have many Items of this series as well as from the gatefolds with the red-white spine.
Whether this 'RCA Editeur' is only a kind of marketing print remains open because on no Item you find an Information about the role.
So its best to explain it in the notes only and and not in the LCC with a "guessed" role until sufficiant Information is found. OTOH The print is there so we'll have to mention it acc GL.
What do you think?
JCD
I would agree to a mass release if a substancial majority could be reached
a) RCA = label

JazzcornerND
the text under RCA Éditeur quoted above by avalon67 appears also on another french RCA reissue series "Jazz Line".
They all have only "RCA" as label printed on the orange disc labels (+ the text above in white tiny print) and the rear cover bottom. That s the opinion to have only "RCA" as label

Yes and No.

RCA Red Seal

And those ones with the usual 'RCA Editeur' mention have other labels:
. RCA Victor there
. RCA Classique and RCA Red Seal here
. RCA Red Seal there
. RCA Camden here

I think we have indeed choice between those options for releases with the 'RCA Editeur' mention:
Option 1: RCA as record company (and possibly a mention in release notes)
Option 2: no adding to LCCN, only a mention in release notes as suggested by JazzcornerND

And may be also:
Option 3: RCA as label (if it is not yet) and a mention in release notes

Opinions? Votes?

Arguments AGAINST Option 1 on:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/711074#7078124
AND
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/738910

Let's invite contributors of those other threads:
strummin
And Diognes_The_Fox also for news on the Trademark Owner tag....

JazzcornerND
On a series of french RCS Reissies we find a company Imprint on release
RCA Éditeur
What is the correct activity for LCC
a) Manufacturer?
b) Distributor?
c) Publisher?
d) Marketed by?
The pro9file gives no explanations.
Thanks

If there is a role specified on the release, use that role. If there is no role specified on the release, use the generic Record Company role.

There's no 'single role to use for each company name' rule; we take releases on a case-by-case basis and add what is on each release. A single company name might therefore be credited with different roles (e.g. Copyright, Licensed From, Published By) on different releases, or even on a single release.

Universe_In_Blue
This release has the usual text 'Marque Déposée - ed used by authority and under control of RCA Corporation. Made in ...' under 'RCA' alone mention, not 'RCA Editeur' and label is RCA Red Seal

Thats somewhat irritating:
I have here 8 single reissued "Jazz Line" and two 2 LPs sets in addition to the linked list of my earlier message above.
Not one has the label "RCA Red Seal" as mentioned above. Please dont mixup the labels. We have here french JAZZ reissues and NOT classic reissues.
For all Items in the series "Jazz Line" & bearing the RCA Editeur imprint the label is RCA on spine, disc labels and rear cover. There is also absolutely no credit role mentioned on these "Jazz Line" reissues for a special activity of RCA Editeur.
The current & changed profile of "RCA Editeur" suggesting the use as record company is incorrect because the discussion is ongoing without a result.
Dont lead new doing something dangerous.
Therefore my option is for the french Jazz resissues (and also for the linked list in my earlier message above)

a) Record Company: RCA Corporation...
b) Label : RCA
We submit as GL postulate what can be seen on the Item and that is a) and b) and no speculations what might be possible.

Re RCA Editeur Imprint (without a role) should be only mentioned in the notes as Imprint without a specific LCC role as long as no role is visible on any Item. The profile has to be corrected that way for the time the thread is going on.
On the various submissions any credit roles for RCA Editeur should be corrected incl. mine of course.
That should be the next step.
Thanks

JazzcornerND
The current & changed profile of "RCA Editeur" suggesting the use as record company is incorrect because the discussion is ongoing without a result.

You are ignoring what is being said by myself and others here. If there is a specific role, Distributor, Publisher or (p), we use that. If there's just a random mention then it is credited as Record Company.

JazzcornerND
Re RCA Editeur Imprint (without a role) should be only mentioned in the notes

Incorrect. If it's mentioned on the release, without a role then it's Record Company.

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you, I'm finding your posts a little confusing.

avalon67
If it's mentioned on the release, without a role then it's Record Company.

I agree.

avalon67
If there's just a random mention then it is credited as Record Company.

Thanks for that Info which I probabnly overlooked in the GL. Can you tell me pl. where I can read that.
Thanks

avalon67
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you, I'm finding your posts a little confusing.

+1

Nothing irritating but this thread is about releases which have the 'RCA Editeur' mention.
Amongst the 459 releases on discogs, less than 10% are Jazz releases, less than 10% are classical music releases and more than 80% are Chanson Française, Rock, etc ...
My Jazz Line releases are as yours with RCA on label.
But there are countless releases with 'RCA Editeur' mention which have another label : RCA Victor, RCA Red Seal etc...

And I am not sure that 'RCA Editeur' mention allows us to add RCA as label (my Option 3) for those RCA Victor, RCA Red Seal etc... releases

BTW, my main question remains:
Option 1 (Record company for RCA and possibly notes)
OR
Option 2 (only notes as suggested by JazzcornerND)

For both options, we will have NO MORE 'RCA EDITEUR' on discogs.
That's an important decision (459 links removed) for which I consider we need a bit more than 2 or 3 agreements!

As avalon67, I was in favour of option 1 but I am open, may be there are good arguments for option 2 in threads I've mentioned:
JazzcornerND but not to this question (option 1 or option 2) considering what we have on this damn imprint 'RCA Editeur' and what's said about record companies and trademarks on those 2 other threads.

Thanks in advance for your contributions!

Universe_In_Blue
Nothing irritating but this thread is about releases which have the 'RCA Editeur' mention.
Amongst the 459 releases on discogs, less than 10% are Jazz releases, less than 10% are classical music releases and more than 80% are Chanson Française, Rock, etc ...
My Jazz Line releases are as yours with RCA on label.
But there are countless releases with 'RCA Editeur' mention which have another label : RCA Victor, RCA Red Seal etc...

Ok that was a misundferstanding from my side because I am to 98% a jazz collector only and my view was directed of the french jazz reissues.
Looking at the Items we should carefully concentrate whats printed on the release and label is for the jazz reissues RCA only as I see from my records. Other musical sections/genres (Pop, Classical a.o.)may have label variations with RCA and that would be ok

As asked above what is the source that an Imprint always means a company credit (in the LCC or where)?
I cant such a GL.
Thanks

One more explanation of THE text.

"RCA Editeur" means RCA is 'Editeur' (as 'RCA Distributeur' means RCA is 'Distributeur'). 'Editeur' means RCA 'released' the record, that's the best translation I can find, 'Editeur' means RCA has a major role on the release, WE DO NOT KNOW WHICH ONE but an 'Editeur' does a lot, that should be enough for record company.
Label would also be a correct translation of 'Editeur', and 'RCA Editeur' could be seen as a logo. In this case RCA would be second label for those RCA Victor and RCA Red Seal releases, but I guess that's very debatable and I would not insist too much for that option ...

"ed trademark used by authority and under control of RCA Corporation"
That just said a ed trademark is used by authority and under control of RCA Corporation, but It does not say what is the trademark and who has the right to use it!!!!
(On some releases, we have this sentence without any RCA Editeur mention, or with RCA Distributeur mention).
RCA Corporation could be added in LCCN as .... Trademark Owner when we have this tag, but not as record company. A trademark owner is not a record company, it is a company, read andrenafulva ....

"Made in from master recordings owned or controlled by RCA Records." :
That does not say who made it but there is no ambiguity, RCA Records is a Record Company, once more read the thread mentioned above for confirmation.

My (final?) proposition for mass edit:
. RCA = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. RCA Corporation = Trademark Owner when the tag exists ...
. RCA Records = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. Release notes: mention of 'RCA Editeur'

Opinions? Votes?

Universe_In_Blue
My (final?) proposition for mass edit:
. RCA = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. RCA Corporation = Trademark Owner when the tag exists ...
. RCA Records = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. Release notes: mention of 'RCA Editeur'

That sound good to me.
Thanks for thinking it through again.
JCD

Thanks for your contribution too JazzcornerND
I am OK for mass edit but, help is wellcome...
And let's wait a few more days for possible objections.

JazzcornerND
avalon67
If there's just a random mention then it is credited as Record Company.

Thanks for that Info which I probabnly overlooked in the GL. Can you tell me pl. where I can read that.
Thanks

You have been redqing this thread?
The consensus is that any mention which doesn't specifically give RCA Editeur another role is credited as Record Company, siupported by DTF, as well as nik in another thread some years ago.

You know perfectly well that it's not in the GL otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I can see now that

avalon67
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you, I'm finding your posts a little confusing.

was unnecessary, as you're doing what you can to confuse and cloud the issue, (Exclusive Retailer FFS) just as you did when using your previous name.

Universe_In_Blue
And let's wait a few more days for possible objections.

You have one here.

Any mention of RCA Editeur should be reflected in LCCN, not the notes, as agreed by everyone in this thread bar JazzCorner.

Universe_In_Blue
My (final?) proposition for mass edit:
. RCA = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. RCA Corporation = Trademark Owner when the tag exists ...
. RCA Records = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. Release notes: mention of 'RCA Editeur'

Opinions? Votes?

Just to make sure I didn't misunderstand you,
If a release states 'RCA Editeur' without any specific role attached, you propose to add RCA as Record Company and make a note of RCA Editeur in the notes?
Is that so?

avalon67
Any mention of RCA Editeur should be reflected in LCCN, not the notes, as agreed by everyone in this thread bar JazzCorner.

I thought you agree on those points:
1) the mention 'RCA Editeur' just means RCA is 'Editeur'
2) the company 'RCA Editeur' has absolutely no reason to exist on discogs (it's nowhere on reference databases TMDB, BNF, Infogreffe..., and it's as inappropriate as would be a company named 'RCA Distributeur Exclusif' we have on some releases with same text below, and also as inappropriate as would be a company named 'Publications Phonogram' you mentioned)
3) adding RCA as record company when we have 'RCA Editeur' on release

BTW, yes, I propose to add in this case a 'RCA Editeur' mention in release notes, I think it should help to avoid once more the creation of a wrong 'RCA Editeur' company (especially if we also add a reference to this thread in submission notes).

Edit: TMDB, not TMB

avalon67 I answered to your first message before I've seen your last one.

avalon67
If a release states 'RCA Editeur' without any specific role attached, you propose to add RCA as Record Company and make a note of RCA Editeur in the notes?
Is that so?

YES!!

And one more proposition.

Add to RCA profile : "If a French release states 'RCA Editeur', please add RCA as Record Company to LCCN (if it's not yet (P) or (C) as per guidelines)"

'RCA Editeur' image could also be added on images linked to RCA profile.

avalon67
you're doing what you can to confuse and cloud the issue, (Exclusive Retailer FFS) just as you did when using your previous name.

Its better you dont get in the way of avalon67 (one of the big egos in the club) and risk such offensive remarks offside of the discussed topic which does not help crumb. He mentioned a consensus (I've never seen) and I would suggest he should continue what he explained in his profile.
Lets see what the invited staff member has to contribute.

Universe_In_Blue
YES!!

OK!

Universe_In_Blue
(if it's not yet (P) or (C) as per guidelines)

...or any other lccn role?

BTW Universe, did other Frenh companies have these "phrases"....

Publication Phonogram
RCA Editeur

...that indicated that it was a 'product of' that company?

avalon67
...or any other lccn role?

Not sure we need that.
Record company is unuseful if we have yet (P) or (C) as per guidelines, but I see no problem to have for the same company Record Company + another LCCN role as Marketed By, Distributed By, Made By, etc ...
BTW, I've never seen another role for RCA on all images of releases I've checked on RCA Éditeur. What I've seen as I said it yet is this same text with 'RCA Distributeur Exclusif' or 'RCA' alone above or without any RCA mention above, never RCA Editeur and another role (and I've checked a lot of images;-)
And once more, 'Editeur' is a large role in the process, record company fits very well with that.

avalon67
BTW Universe, did other Frenh companies have these "phrases"....

Publication Phonogram
RCA Editeur

...that indicated that it was a 'product of' that company?

Can't others, for now.

avalon67 you all agreed that Record Company was a good solution for RCA Editeur.

(Un?) fortunately that was at at a moment where we thought we would keep the company 'RCA Editeur' in discogs.

After more investigations (see above) it appears that:
1) The company 'RCA Editeur' has absolutely no reason to remain on discogs (it's nowhere on reference databases TMDB, BNF, Infogreffe..., and it's as inappropriate as would be a company named 'RCA Distributeur Exclusif' we have on some releases with same text below, and also as inappropriate as would be a company named 'Publications Phonogram' we have on other French releases)
2) The mention "RCA Editeur" means RCA is 'Editeur' (as 'RCA Distributeur Exclusif' means RCA is 'Distributeur Exclusif'). And 'Editeur' means RCA 'released' the record, that's the best translation I can find, 'Editeur' means RCA has a major role on the release, WE DO NOT KNOW WHICH ONE but an 'Editeur' does a lot, and that should be enough to be a record company.

=> The solution I have proposed those 2 last days when a release has the 'RCA Editeur' mention with the imprint (ed trademark used by authority and under control of RCA Corporation/ Made in from master recordings owned or controlled by RCA Records.) is:
. RCA = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. RCA Corporation = Trademark Owner when the tag exists ... (see this thread for more explanations)
. RCA Records = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. Release notes: mention of 'RCA Editeur'

JazzcornerND agreed with this solution.
Considering it wiill wipe out 'RCA Editeur' from discogs and there are at the moment 459 releases linked to 'RCA Editeur', I think we need more agreements.
That's why I pinged you once more.
Thanks in advance for your agreement for this new solution
And sorry for asking once more...

Edit: Inverted 1) and 2) for more readability I think ...

Universe_In_Blue
. RCA = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © or any other LCCN role as per guidelines)
. RCA Corporation = Trademark Owner when the tag exists ... (see this thread for more explanations)
. RCA Records = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. Release notes: mention of 'RCA Editeur'

I'm fine with this solution.
· (or any other LCCN role) = added

typoman2
I'm fine with this solution.
· (or any other LCCN role) = added

Thanks typomans for your agreement.
Would you include Label as 'other LCCN role', that means we won't add record company for RCA if RCA is yet the label (not always the case, we have a lot of RCA Victor, RCA Red Seal, etc ... releases)? It is indeed what proposed JazzcornerND for his releases (all with label RCA).

This is made too complicated.
The releases mention "RCA Editeur" without a specific role. That means it can be entered as Record Company.

I don't really see why we should now include trademark owners and master ownership in this discussion. That's not what this topic is about.

Universe_In_Blue
. RCA = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. RCA Corporation = Trademark Owner when the tag exists ... (see this thread for more explanations)
. RCA Records = Record Company (if it's not yet ℗ or © as per guidelines)
. Release notes: mention of 'RCA Editeur'

+1 agreement

Universe_In_Blue
1) The company 'RCA Editeur' has absolutely no reason to remain on discogs (it's nowhere on reference databases TMDB, BNF, Infogreffe...

Those databases you mentioned may have done the same thing as you have proposed now: change something that appears on a release into something that suits them (or you) better.

Universe_In_Blue
Made in from master recordings owned or controlled by RCA Records.

This is comparable to "Original sound recording made by ...." which appears on many releases. That's been discussed before and there's no clear solution how to credit that:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/372858

Let's resolve RCA Editeur first. It seems most people are in favor of entering it as Record Company. Even a Discogs staff member is.

jweijde
This is made too complicated.

May be but the questions are not that simple ...

jweijde
The releases mention "RCA Editeur" without a specific role. That means it can be entered as Record Company.

'RCA Editeur' is not a company, you find it nowhere, not on BNF, neither on Infogreffe, nor on TMDB, 3 major databases for this sort of info. 'RCA Editeur' means RCA has a role of 'Editeur' and I propose we have Record Company for RCA (not RCA Editeur which is pure fancy as name of a company). Do you agree with that jweijde, I am not sure how I should understand your answer.

jweijde
I don't really see why we should now include trademark owners and master ownership in this discussion. That's not what this topic is about.

Because below the 'RCA Editeur' mention we have 'Marques déposée(s). (R). ed trademark(s) used by authority and under control of RCA Corporation', see image on RCA Éditeur profile.
And the thread I'd mentioned said trademark owner is not record company which means there is no reason to have RCA Corporation as record company as it was previously proposed in the thread.

jweijde
Those databases you mentioned may have done the same thing as you have proposed now: change something that appears on a release into something that suits them (or you) better.

How can you think this sort of organization works like that, you're kidding!

jweijde
This is comparable to "Original sound recording made by ...." which appears on many releases. That's been discussed before and there's no clear solution how to credit that:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/372858

Thanks for the links, I'll look at those threads.

jweijde
Let's resolve RCA Editeur first.

OK, but it would be better to have only one mass edit (459 releases), not a first one for the 'RCA Editeur' mention and a second one for the text below this mention ;-(

jweijde
It seems most people are in favor of entering it as Record Company. Even a Discogs staff member is.

Yes, but their agreement came before I understood 'RCA Editeur' is not a company. As I said it yet, that's why I ask again.

May be velove could also have an opinion? Thanks in advance for your contribution!

I agree this is equivalent to "a RCA release" or "RCA releasing...", therefore not an entity, unless of course it is intended to indicate a Publisher but I don't think that is the case here.

T

Universe_In_Blue
How can you think this sort of organization works like that, you're kidding!

Well, I actually checked the BNF database a few times and they didn't always list the information in the way it actually appears on releases. That's because they have a different scope than Discogs.

jweijde
Well, I actually checked the BNF database a few times and they didn't always list the information in the way it actually appears on releases. That's because they have a different scope than Discogs

I agree with that but as per RSG §4.6.2 Record Company - Legal trading entity.
Hard to accept 'RCA Editeur' as a record company if it's nowhere on reference databases for legal entities (companies, trademarks, ...).

Universe_In_Blue
Hard to accept 'RCA Editeur' as a record company if it's nowhere on reference databases for legal entities (companies, trademarks, ...).

Thanks for your intensive efforts to find a solution.
I have invited "Nik" via PM to in and let us have his arguments. I know he is against "guessing" what might be and thats the majority of arguments I see here.
Your suggestion just to mention the Imprint in the notes is by far the most logic argument and withing the GL rules.
Thanks
PS: How many "record companies" shall an Item have with holding copyrights?

JazzcornerND
I have invited "Nik" via PM to in and let us have his arguments. I know he is against "guessing" what might be and thats the majority of arguments I see here.

Let's wait for nik point of view.
BTW, I have no doubt about 'RCA Editeur', it is not known as a legal entity, it can't be a (discogs) record company.
And I agree the main question is to decide if it's abusive (guessing) to say RCA is a record company for those releases with the 'RCA Editeur' mention. I think it's not but I agree it's debatable...

Checked a bit more the list of 459 releases on RCA Éditeur

A lot of them (probably most) have not RCA on center labels but RCA Victor, RCA Red Seal, ...
And all those RCA Victor, etc ...releases I've checked have also RCA logo on sleeve, usually on front cover, see for instance this one.
That probably means:
. those RCA Victor, RCA Red Seal, etc ...releases should also have RCA as second label, even if most have not,
. all releases with 'RCA Editeur' mention should have RCA as primary or second label

Universe_In_Blue
RCA Éditeur

It seems to me that RCA Éditeur means the record company was the French division of RCA.

In that case it does make sense to not just use RCA as Record company (at least not because of the appearance of 'RCA éditeur')

RCA are duplicate entries of each other, judging by the releases I checked.
It doesn't look like "RCA " is a correct entry either.

Both RCA éditeur & RCA are used for credit roles for the RCA local division located at Avenue Matignon 9, 75008 Paris
Similar to RCA éditeur (which means the record was released by the Record Company division RCA in Paris) there often appears RCA distributeur exclusif (which means the record was distributed by the RCA division in Paris) (where distributeur exclusif appears the same way as éditeur)

The Paris division of RCA is currently present as a correct entry here:RCA S.A.

It is factual correct to enter RCA S.A. as record company / distributor / ... in cases where RCA is mentioned accompanied by the Avenue Matignon 9-address.

I know this goes against the company form mentioned or not fetish on Discogs, but such a fetish should not overrule facts in any case. One entity = one profile.
That's the only way to create an accurate database and remove the complexity of unneeded dupe profiles.
RCA éditeur is not an entity
Neither is RCA

The profile of RCA éditeur can point to the correct profile with some explanation, some for RCA . Both can be invalidated.
Of course before doing so, more releases should be checked under both entries to see they all actually clearly point towards RCA-Avenue Matignon 9, 75008 Paris (which is RCA S.A.)

Thanks for this thorough investigation.
At least, it confirms it was not such a bad idea to have this thread in 'Advanced Discussion'!
I agree it's an opportunity to clean up what we have on discogs about French branch of RCA.
You're right, Dr.SultanAszazin, we need to check a bit more releases under these different entries... and I'll do that!
BTW, first comment, Yes to 'One entity = one profile', but No to 'One adress = one profile'

Universe_In_Blue
No to 'One adress = one profile'

Yes, good to say that.
One address might indeed house more than one entity.

Universe_In_Blue
and I'll do that!

Great!

Dr.SultanAszazin

Great!

But I hope other contributors will check those releases too ;-)

Dr.SultanAszazin
Universe_In_Blue
No to 'One adress = one profile'

Yes, good to say that.
One address might indeed house more than one entity

In other context:
https://www.discogs.sie.com/forum/thread/52dcbd5d5e75a73fa73c1807#3682726

Nik's quote:
"...We have discussed this before, but there wasn't a resolution. Generally we are not into entering 'guessed' information, which is where the discussion fell down last time IIRC. "

Everrything what 'might' be is guessing and not facts.
Its sooooo simple.
Thanks

JazzcornerND
Everything what 'might' be is guessing and not facts.

Yes indeed. But the statement "One address might indeed house more than one entity" is a general statement, not a specific one for this case. I mean exactly what you say -> one address is not a reason to suppose something is one entity (& the other way around, a different address is no reason to automatically suppose there are two entities)

Right now things should be double checked. There is no hurry, just an opportunity to clarify some things on RCA in .

What we know sure is that "RCA éditeur" is not an entity and not a valid entry
Currently it looks like (almost sure) "RCA " isn't an entity either (should be double checked)
RCA S.A. is for sure an existing entity.

That is no guesswork, but looking how the result of guesswork, that resulted in fake profiles, should be solved.

About RCA

No (relevant) entry for RCA on databases:
https://tmdb.eu/
https://www.infogreffe.com/
https://www.societe.com/

But I’ve found RCA on BNF :
https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb138897539

And I’ve checked all IMAGES of the 170 entries on RCA
There are a few explicit entries for RCA , they are rare but there are:

℗ RCA :
Stéphane Grappelli - I Hear Music

Ed. RCA :
Laurent Voulzy - Les Inédits De Laurent Voulzy

Sous licence RCA :
Sergei Rachmaninoff*, François-Joël Thiollier - Complete Works For Piano, Vol. 1

Sampler release for MIDEM with title ‘RCA ’ :
Various - RCA - Midem 77

Published By RCA :
Johnny Hallyday - Lorada Tour (can’t read what’s written on image but could be exact...)

Sous licence RCA Victor :
Lucid Beausonge - Tu T'Demandes / Ghetto

I guess those entries (except the last one) and also the BNF entry could justify to keep RCA on discogs

But for the 162 other entries, at least those with images (most of them), RCA entry in LCCN is not relevant. It should be :
. What we’ll decide when there is the ‘RCA Editeur’ mention
. AND / OR Price code RC xxxx in BAOI
. AND / OR label as logo (RCA, RCA Victor,... but never RCA , there is no ‘RCA ’ logo)
. AND / OR Distributed By RCA in LCCN when we have one of those mentions :
---- Distribution RCA
---- RCA distributeur exclusif
---- Distribution exclusive RCA
---- Distribution en RCA
---- Distribution RCA
---- Even when we have the ambiguous ’Distribution RCA ’ as on Milva - Canzone (only those 2 releases are like that)

And, as I said it yet, and I confirm considering all images I’ve checked, we NEVER have together the ‘RCA Editeur’ mention and one of the distribution mentions for RCA.

----------------------

About RCA S.A.

I have not checked very deeply but found a few things.

Pressé et distribué par RCA S.A. (with RCA Editeur mention) :
Evelyn "Champagne" King* - Action / Let's Get Crazy

Distribué par RCA S.A. (without ‘RCA Editeur’ mention) :
Bowie* - Pinups

That’s enough to say RCA S.A. and RCA Editeur are not the same.
They have to be considered separately.
There is no ambiguity for me about RCA S.A., it’s a company ed on https://www.infogreffe.com/ and roles are clear on releases.

----------------------

Let's come back to RCA Editeur with a few STATEMENTS (not guessing) :
. RCA is ‘Distributeur’ when there is one of the distribution mentions above on release, and nobody disputes Distributed By in LCCN is how it has to be entered on discogs
. ‘RCA Editeur’ is not a company, it’s nowhere on relevant databases
. RCA is ‘Editeur’ when there is the ‘RCA Editeur’ mention on a release
. ‘Editeur’ is a role
. Role of an ‘Editeur’ is to release records

We just have to CHOOSE (not guess, choose) what’s the best way to enter this role on discogs. There are 2 options :
Option 1 : record company (most of us said yet that’s the best option)
Option 2 : no role in LCCN
And nobody disputes a ‘RCA Editeur’ mention could / should be added in release notes regardless of the option.

And it’s not necessary to have ‘record company if RCA has not another LCCN role’ as first option, I confirm there is NEVER another role for RCA on release (except label) when there is the ‘RCA Editeur’ mention.

And it’s not necessary to have a third option ‘label’, I confirm also there is always a RCA logo somewhere when there is the ‘RCA Editeur’ mention, that means RCA is always primary or second label .
That’s an important point.
When there is a RCA Editeur mention on a non-RCA release, I’d say a RCA logo has been ADDED , small. (see images of those 2 releases).
If we think it’s enough, we choose Option 2 (no other role in LCCN)
If we think we need more on discogs, we choose Option 1 (record company).

Sorry for the long post, hope it will help to finalize ....

Edit: About RCA S.A., added precision par RCA S.A. in bold characters.

As has been mentioned above, I agree this is being made too complicated.

There's been general agreement that

Universe_In_Blue
Option 1 : record company (most of us said yet that’s the best option)

Unless there is a RCA logo elsewhere in a prominent position, there is no reason to add as 'Label'.

Universe_In_Blue
that means RCA is always primary or second label

which I disagree with. It means that RCA is involved as a company. There is a difference.

Universe_In_Blue
RCA is ‘Distributeur’ when there is one of the distribution mentions above on release, and nobody disputes Distributed By in LCCN is how it has to be entered on discogs

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
RCA can be credited, on the release, as distributor, but if there is also a 'RCA Editeur' mention, then RCA should also receive a record company lccn role.

I don't think nik is going to comment here (it'd be great if he did) but we do have Diognes_The_Fox agreeing

Diognes_The_Fox
avalon67
I'm of the same opinion here, any release carrying the mention RCA Editeur should be crdited as Record Company.

This sounds fine to me.

avalon67
Unless there is a RCA logo elsewhere in a prominent position, there is no reason to add as 'Label'.

As I said it yet, there is ALWAYS a RCA logo on releases with the 'RCA Editeur' mention, as primary label on center labels or as second label elsewhere, see my 2 exemples 'small' and 'big' at the end of my previous message .

avalon67
RCA can be credited, on the release, as distributor, but if there is also a 'RCA Editeur' mention,

As I said it yet, It NEVER happens. Amongst the 250+ releases I've checked, there is NO release with both a distribution mention for RCA AND a 'RCA Editeur' mention.

avalon67
I don't think nik is going to comment here (it'd be great if he did) but we do have Diognes_The_Fox agreeing

As I said it yet, unfortunately his agreement was for 'RCA Editeur' as record company and it came before we understood RCA Editeur is not a company.
What I ./ We? want now is: RCA as record company for releases with a RCA Editeur mention.

JazzcornerND
What is the correct activity for LCC

I always thought that RCA éditeur was another name for French RCA, along with RCA .
Some LPs released with the "RCA éditeur" logo in get credited on licensed releases as © RCA/, so using Record Company seems to be the best option IMO.

Also exists same question on https://www.discogs.sie.com/fr/forum/thread/770417#7651265, on it record company seems to come out in majority.

marxos
Also exists same question on https://www.discogs.sie.com/fr/forum/thread/770417#7651265

That is this forum thread.

Even a majority cannot create a new company via a number of pers. opinions. If there is no proof for such a company then we leave it open and have the notes to explain.
Was it checked whether a reg. trademark IS always a company.
I think the best solution was allready presented/ mentzioned here = to mention the print in the notes alone.
A database should only use reliable facts and not a bunch of opinions. This happens in recent times more and moreI
So I do repeat it once more : no proff -= no company.
Thanks

Another case of too many cooks....
The company already exists, on Discogs. Why deny it?
I’ve reverted the profile and will edit subs tomorrow, per consensus above.
Please file an SR if you disagree. Any negative votes will be reported.
Any edits to remove information are subject to RSG §14.1.4

scenescof
The company already exists, on Discogs. Why deny it?

Because 'RCA Editeur' is nowhere on relevant databases: https://tmdb.eu/ , https://www.infogreffe.com/ , https://catalogue.bnf.fr/index.do , https://www.societe.com/
= RCA Editeur is not a legal entity:
= RCA Editeur is not a company in the real world!

RCA is a company (in the real world and on discogs), nobody disputes that.

'RCA Editeur' means RCA is Editeur as 'RCA Distributeur Exclusif' means RCA is Distributeur Exclusif.

Nobody disputes Distributed By in LCCN when there is a 'RCA Distributeur Exclusif' (or one of the other similar mentions) on the release.

The only question is:
Shall we go for RCA (not RCA Editeur) as record company (in LCCN) when there is a 'RCA Editeur' mention on a release?

I should have made it simple enough for once ....

Universe_In_Blue
The only question is:
Shall we go for RCA (not RCA Editeur) as record company (in LCCN) when there is a 'RCA Editeur' mention on a release?

Of course. RCA is correct. Its prinmted on most labels. Probably I did misunderstand you. But RCA was not my initial question as you may .
Thanks

JazzcornerND
Of course. RCA is correct.

GREAT!

JazzcornerND
But RCA was not my initial question as you may .

Of course it was about RCA Editeur. But what we did not know and learnt is that

Universe_In_Blue
'RCA Editeur' is nowhere on relevant databases: https://tmdb.eu/ , https://www.infogreffe.com/ , https://catalogue.bnf.fr/index.do , https://www.societe.com/
= RCA Editeur is not a legal entity
= RCA Editeur is not a company in the real world!

Can we please get on with it and invalidate "RCA Editeur" and use RCA instead, the profile links also will need to be dissolved.
Maybe a mention on the profile, similar to what we have on EMI, that 'RCA should be added as Record Company, not Label, unless the release is specifically on RCA', may help submissions for those releases that have another imprint as primary issuing Label.