Please do not add any albums/tracks for artist Flagrant (UPDATED!)

Apparently the person who contacted us was not actually authorized to speak on behalf of Flagrant. Now the real Flagrant wants this blog entry taken down because its incorrect, but we don’t censor our blog. So, this entry has the original body struck out so everyone can see what is going on. As for adding … Continue reading “Please do not add any albums/tracks for artist Flagrant (UPDATED!)”

Apparently the person who contacted us was not actually authorized to speak on behalf of Flagrant. Now the real Flagrant wants this blog entry taken down because its incorrect, but we don’t censor our blog. So, this entry has the original body struck out so everyone can see what is going on. As for adding information back to Flagrant, please feel free if you feel motivated. And stay tuned for how we plan to handle this case in the future.

It was bound to happen… Today the artist Flagrant asked us to not index any of their music. I’ll leave the artist in place with an annotation so that other brainerz can see the note in the future.

Even though I attempted to appeal to them to reconsider their decision, they did not. Nor did they provide any reason for this. So be it…

Technorati Tags:

16 thoughts on “Please do not add any albums/tracks for artist Flagrant (UPDATED!)”

  1. It’s interesting an artist request that their works not be indexed. Is there a legal basis for this, or is it simply a request? Does MB have a policy on this? Has anyone weighed the interests of the artist to those who use MB?

  2. Its never happened before and the band requested it. Since we want to play nicely with bands and users alike, we removed their two whopping tracks from our DB.

    Legally speaking, they have no basis for doing this, since all we do are index facts, which are not copyrightable. We could index whatever we want, but since we want to play nice, we’ll go along with it.

  3. This is curious. I wonder if they have issued similar requests with FreeDB or Gracenote? Ironically, I would wager this request has generated more traffic to their website than they otherwise would have enjoyed…

  4. Here are my thoughts, after getting over my initial reaction:

    1. I agree with Mayhem’s legal assessment; there is no legal basis for the artist to have indexing of his/her work removed from MB. IANAL.

    2. I assert that the MB user should largely drive MB policy, and not such artist requests. Playing nice with artist should be much lower priority, IMO. Artists who release work are going to be communicated about.

    3. In this case, we’re only talking about two tracks for an artist I’m sure most have never heard of. No big deal (at least to me). But it does set a precident, and a potentially dangerous one at that.

    4. This issue seems worthy of collective discussion of the issue and establish a policy for dealing with artist requests, and how to balance them against user interest.

    5. My vote is to politely decline all such requests to remove content from the site. Artists can edit metadata just like anyone else on MB, subject to the quasi-democracy of our vote system.

  5. @Paul C. Bryan: Full ACK.
    There would be another problem with following such requests: If they collaborate or have a track on a VA album, you’d have to use ugly workarounds.
    Since Flagrant seem very unknown, we could abandon those two tracks, but generally we should not follow such requests. Another case I could understand would be the real name of an artist. Maybe there are some artists that don’t want there real name to be known.

  6. I’m wondering about this stupid discussion. I think it’s up to every single artist to do things like that. If they don’t wanna be listed – fine! So why do you all complain about it? I know the reason why this band don’t wanna be listed in here. There are about to split up so they would like to edit or whatever any entry on this site by their own. This only works if they have got the permission to do it. And this is only possible if they register to this site by themselves!? I think that should be possible

  7. First of all: FLAGRANT ROCKS! ūüôā Can’t believe they’re gonna split up.
    Well, I don’t think that the band talked to this administrator to forbid any facts, which are not copyrightable.

    Anyways, this discussion is really superfluous!

  8. I tend to agree with Paul C. Bryan and Nine99 on this. I’m all for respecting artists’ requests, but it sets a problematic precedent, and raises problems in the Various Artists situation as well.

    This conversation might be superfluous or stupid if we are talking about one random artist with two (non-album, I think) tracks. But if we are talking about the general policy of removing metadata about tracks, I think it is a good idea to refrain from doing this.

    If an artist doesn’t want their work documented, they should keep it off the internet and any tangible medium. They shouldn’t play out or otherwise make the work available. Once the work becomes available, as a general and legal matter, its existence is a fact and should be duly documented, IMO. And last I checked (today), Flagrant’s website ( was still up, with two tracks streamable. Not documenting their stuff because they are breaking up (or whatev) is like revising history.

    I’ll not post anymore to avoid a flame war, and hopefully this situation is just an odd anamoly. But if it comes up again, I think having a more formal policy to deal with it that promotes keeping this metadata in MB should be established.


  9. If I had known it would end like that I’d not have added them in the first place, although I like their music.
    On a side note, german wikipedia and this carry information about them.

  10. Yep, I knew it was all fake… Please read the official statement of the band. They never requested anything like that.

    Musicbrainz is so damn wrong in this case. Sorry, guys, it’s totally unfair to blame a band in this way. It’d be only fair to close this whole blog entry.

    We all should apologise for our comments…

    “Lately we received some emails regarding our presence at Apparently someone asked for removing meta info about two songs of ours. In fact, before we received some emails about this event, we weren’t even aware of musicbrainz’ existance let alone that we were listed there.
    As “our” musicbrainz-page has already been removed (at least the significant parts), we don’t even know if the discussion is about us or about another band going by the same name. Well, due to some angry
    emails written by musicbrainz users we felt that an official statement is
    Neither Flagrant nor anyone affiliated with us has ever contacted – except after the fact. We also don’t have any hang ups
    about meta data of our songs being published.

    We (actually Alayna) have emailed them to clear things up, and hope that
    we’ll be able to get things straight soon. If any of the musicbrainz
    admins read this, please contact us via or by
    using the info Alayna has provided to one of you lately.

    Kind regards


  11. Indeed, it was a misunderstanding. I am personally kind of dissapointed in MusicBrainz for not fully investigating the situation. I hope that they clear up this blog post soon and fix the Flagrant band page.

    As I said in my second follow-up email to the band, I am sorry for the comments I made. As mentioned, MB really needs a more formal policy to deal with things like this so similar issues do not arise in the future.

  12. Maybe there is a publicist who needs a bonus for the extra cover this act is getting. At this rate they will end up with so many references on google they can do a comeback tour! Very amused by all this discussion about a band that seems to take themselves far too seriously. They put themselves in the public domain, not Music Brainz. There is an axiom they need to learn. Once something is posted on the internet, it will last forever. Same should apply to Music Brainz and information on it.

  13. lol, yes, they are so damn uncool and really take themselves too seriously.;) what the fuck. well, I think, nicky, your post tells a tale about the person you are. w00t

  14. I think this is a good thing this happened. It raised two major issues:

    – a request can come from an impostor. First and foremost we have to ensure of the requester’s identity before doing/thinking anything

    – it seems that nobody is legitimate to ask for data removal, as long as the data do not violate one’s privacy. There is no justification to remove data related to artists and bands who made the information public through public performances, album and press releases, etc…
    On the other hand, it is normal (and probably mandatory) to remove the patronym of an artist who uses a performance name, if this artist wants to keep it private.

    Anyway, thanks Flagrant for clarifying, and thanks the impostor for having raised these points as an exercise, before them to be a problem.

    Kind regards all

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.