From steven at abbeywoodrecords.com Fri Oct 28 14:43:50 2011 From: steven at abbeywoodrecords.com (Steven Saffer) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:43:50 -0400 Subject: [ID3 Dev] Problem with definitions of TPUB and TCOP, and the lack of a separate field for "Record Label" Message-ID: Hi, Please see below e-mail I sent to Dan O'Neill, who has requested I send it to the list. There are two issues, namely with the definitions of the TCOP field and the TPUB field, but the more urgent issue is with the definition of the TPUB field: Definition of the TPUB field as "Label or Publisher" is problematic. There needs to be a specific field for the label ? see below for explanation. Thanks, Steven Steven Saffer B.E.Sc (EE), MBA President Abbeywood Records t: +1 416 441-9578 f: +1 416 391-2646 c: +1 416 301-0700 steven at abbeywoodrecords.com http://abbeywoodrecords.com ________________________ Dear Dan, Thanks for the prompt reply. I'm pleased to be on the list, especially since I have been involved in other standards groups, as a developer at the audio company TC Electronic, and an executive at TC Applied Technologies (http://tctechnologies.tc ). Now running a record label, we have noticed that many of our partners are now asking for tagged mp3s of our catalog. I started digging into the spec as a result of uncovering differences in how these fields have been interpreted by developers of tagging apps, specifically MusicBrainz Picard and MP3Tag. As relates to TPUB, the issues I am seeing seem to be as a result of the very loose definition of the TPUB field ("either label OR publisher"), and also as a result of the lack of specifics around the TCOP field. Picard interprets and displays the TPUB field as the name of the label, whereas MP3Tag (and other tagging apps) display it as "Publisher". These differences will have a significant impact on the enforcing of copyright and the payment of royalties to artists, labels and publishers, specifically as relates to the reporting of usage to performing rights (and other) societies. For example, when an MP3 is submitted to an internet radio station that decides to use the included metadata to report to Soundexchange (the organization that collects money on behalf of featured performers), the label information is used. If the name of the publisher is used, there is a risk that the label will not see these royalties. There needs to be a separate field for the label name. A distinction needs to be made between the sound recording copyright owner (could be the same as the label but in case the content is licensed, that will not be the case), and the copyright in the composition (the publisher), and perhaps an additional field is necessary, as well as a clearer description of what these fields should contain. Although the description in the spec as relates to the TCOP field would seem to suggest that the name of the sound recording copyright owner is included in this field, it is not clearly defined and may be misunderstood by developers. Another source of confusion is that it is not clear whether the application should prefix the copyright field with the (C) symbol when displaying the information, or the person tagging should include the (C) symbol. It is also unclear whether the year should be included in the field itself when the recording is tagged, or this field will be prefixed with the data in the 'year' field when the metadata is displayed, or it will be displayed in the field heading in the app. As relates to the TPUB field, the label may be the same as the publisher, but typically they are different. As we see broader adoption of the standard and use of the metadata by the music industry, these are issues that should be dealt with now. Let me know if there is anything else you need, and if there are any upcoming meetings where this issue might be discussed. Looking forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Steven Steven Saffer B.E.Sc (EE), MBA President Abbeywood Records t: +1 416 441-9578 f: +1 416 391-2646 c: +1 416 301-0700 steven at abbeywoodrecords.com http://abbeywoodrecords.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: