There has been some discussion about the intention of the different PV types.

The current policy is that the “original” PV type should be used for the first authorized PV for a particular song. In this case authorized means that the person uploading the PV had permission to do so. The reason for this requirement is that original PVs are promoted as official, and displayed separate from reprints and “other” PVs. Promoting PVs that use content without permission as official might insult the creators of original content, which in turn makes VocaDB look bad, so we want to avoid that if possible. We’re doing this to support the creators, whether they’re doing it as a hobby or professionally.

Reprints are never “authorized”. Authorized copies uploaded on behalf of the artist use the “original” type. PVs of the “Other” type may be either authorized or non-authorized.

Some examples

  • Music producer uploads their own original song to NicoNicoDouga or YouTube. The song may include a PV or still image that is made by the music producer themselves, their friend, or another member of their circle. This is by far the most common scenario. In this case the PV is “original”.
  • Artist makes a cover of another producer’s song, using the PV from the original song without asking permission from the original artist. This is sort of gray area, but if the PV is publicly available on a video streaming site such as NicoNicoDouga or YouTube, and the original artist was properly credited, the cover PV may be categorized as “original”.
  • Artist makes a cover of a song where either the original song or the included PV is clearly copyrighted (either part of a video game such as Project Diva, music video DVD or for example TV series) and not available for public viewing. In this case the PV should be categorized as “other”. In the case that the question is only about the PV, audio-only uploads such as SoundCloud and piapro would still be “original”.

This is the current policy. It’s not set in stone, but we’re not going to change it without a good reason. We’re already quite lenient by allowing embeds of media with questionable ownership status. The main limitation is how that media is categorized.

I also realize that the current PV categorization is not optimal. Maybe we can improve it by adding a new PV type, or renaming the original/other types to something else. Defining terminology is difficult. We need to make sure that we’re not making it more complicated, so it’s going to need time for planning to do it properly.

As with all editing, don’t take it too seriously to make sure that all of your edits are absolutely completely correct. This is just something to keep in mind. The staff members will review the edits and make corrections when necessary. I’ll also mention that we’ll not enforce this unless it’s an obvious case or someone complains.

There’s also a wiki article that explains the different PV types.

Leave a Reply

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