Web Covers on Artist Pages

Indeed, demos aren't promos, just recordings - as the word says, done for demonstrational reasons in order to gain a contract with a label etc.

But promos are/were always issued upfront of commercial/public releases to pre-advertise them and airplay only means making a song available for listening - but not to buy it,

Commercial has to be defined as the release generating turnover by sales - not in the philosphical sense of being part of a marketing strategy preparing to do so.

Promos never have/had any official release dates. The time of their being given/mailed to media has always been a question of a mixture of availability of finished recording masters, pressing plants capacities, lead-up time before magazines' deadlines and more factors.

The SHS definition of releases - absolutely rightly so - is based on the commercial release, which means the one being made available to the public to purchase the product(ion)s, which way ever.

A song/version/recording/album posted on YT (or a download portal) may just have leaked, which is a very different thing than being officially released.

Only legally entitled parties are in the position to issue any kind of official releases - which never applies to YT. Even if a label posts a clip there, it is done for pre-promotional reasons and never constitutes an official release.

Quote from camembert electrique

Commercial has to be defined as the release generating turnover by sales - not in the philosphical sense of being part of a marketing strategy preparing to do so.

That's debatable to say the least. So, if I buy a DVD of "Pulp Fiction", it's ok. But what if I rent the DVD? What if I watch the movie through a Video-on-demand service? What if a Cable TV channel airs it? And a free broadcasting channel?

It's hard to say Tarantino won't get any money if no-one buys his DVDs...

YouTube and Radios are not that different: if I upload my video on YouTube, or give my song to radio stations, I'm doing it because I hope to make money, maybe not now, maybe not "directly", but certainly I want people to watch the video and listen to the song. More "views", more "likes", more "fame", more money.

What's missing here? The direct "money flow" from the final consumer to the artist. But we can only assume labels pay artists their "fair share" when they officially release their albums. In fact, I'm pretty sure no artist thinks they are given their "fair share"...

Buying and selling music is only part of the equation, hardly the most important.

Of course, we can arbitrarily decide that For Sale = Allowed; Not For Sale = Not Allowed. But then we'll have at least two more problems: what if an artist decides to upload a free audio file? Or to give away copies of his brand new CD? And, as already pointed out, what if someone sells a release that was originally "not for sale"? In the former case we have a gift and not a sale, in the latter case we have a legal sale of a second-hand item that was originally intended as a gift (of sorts).

And the situation will only get more complicated, now that we have Apple Music, Spotify and the likes.

Quote from camembert electrique

A song/version/recording/album posted on YT (or a download portal) may just have leaked, which is a very different thing than being officially released.

And that's why I wrote: "As long as it is legally available, it is officially and commercially available." An Internet leak is in no way legal.

read

Read.