[x] Blind Guardian

There are probably similar situations in the database already but how do we properly handle this?
Blind Guardian just released a best of, including a bunch of old songs and some re-recordings. The limited edition also includes the demos they recorded when they were still called Lucifer's Heritage. The booklet clearly lists the people who recorded the demos but nowhere in the booklet those songs are explicitly credited to Lucifer's Heritage. There are a couple of pictures next to the track listing including a picture of a hand drawn Lucifer's Heritage logo though.

I'd say these are Lucifer's Heritage tracks "released by Blind Guardian". Opinions?

We've always required some crediting of the tracks before using the "released by" option. I think that one could reasonably argue that a picture of the band logo is enough crediting. One could just as easily argue that it's not explicit enough to link the songs to that band.

I'll scan those pages after work and upload them so you can see how the situation looks like.

There you go: [img819.imageshack.us] http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8484/heritageo.jpg

"Lucifer's Heritage" is mentioned on the left page. The first five songs are the first demo, the next four are the second. The last 7 songs on disc 3 *are* Blind Guardian demos though. Note that for the Lucifer Heritage demos the lineup is mentioned; for those Blind Guardian songs they omitted the lineup. I guess because everybody who pays money for the limited edition *knows* what the lineup for those songs was, just like 99,99% of those people *know* that the band was called Lucifer's Heritage for the first two demos.

Yikes. That's not a very strong credit, if you can call it that. It's hard to see what the second word in the logo is, and it looks like the only purpose of the graphic that covers the "AGE" part was to obscure the logo, which suggests to me that they don't necessarily have the rights to release anything by Lucifer's Heritage. I personally wouldn't verify it, but I recognize that it might be strong enough for others.

I agree it's not a very strong credit but I also believe you're over-analyzing that covered part of the logo. It's just a collage of old images. And collages always have pieces that cover other pieces so I don't think it necessarily means anything.