Talk:ARK Music Factory

Capitalization does not agree

This is a high school English fail, to have all-caps in the title and normal capitalization in the body. Undermines credibility of all concerned.

Out of Date Information

The article continues to state Patrice Wilson or Pato is the CEO of Ark Music Factory - he has stated on his website that he is no longer the CEO of Ark on his site http://patomusicworld.com. I don't think he has any further association with the company. Article is locked so I'm not going to attempt to correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.243.73 (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to the article Ark Music Factory

Does anyone know about this article's relation to the Ark Music Factory article which was deleted a few days back. Were they created by the same person? If so, is this one notable enough to stand on its own now? Perhaps it should be merged with the orignal? Illinois2011 (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems someone beat me to this. It is now a redirect. But should the all caps one be the main page? Illinois2011 (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say leave it like it is unless someone comes along with a strong reason to switch it back. Even on their own website their use both forms interchangeably, so neither style has precedence in my mind. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD rationale

Notability for this article is established only derivatively through Rebecca Black's song (as evidenced by only primary sources, or secondary sources that cover Rebecca Black). As such, either speedy or redirect to Rebecca Black.--Gnowor^T_C 20:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you take it through AfD. Please note that I previously deleted it and userfied it for Adshenshall, the original editor, and that it's a high-traffic article. Acroterion (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you're going to delete it, can you throw it back into my user domain? i think now she's in the itunes top 100 at 19, and there's a lot of hype surrounding other ARK music factory artists, the company should be seen as notable. alternatively, we could wait until one of their other artists finds success and therefore justifies the page's inclusion. until that point arrives, the page could exist in my domain again?

Adshenshall (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This got longer than I intended. In short, I think the article needs a large degree of improvement, but I respect my peers including the author, and hope that the article can be improved in short order to avoid the AfD process entirely.

High traffic != Notable. My primary concern with the page that it lacks reliable secondary coverage (see WP:RS). I had a secondary concern, as several readings of the opening of the article seemed to indicate that this page might simply be a marketing tool for ARK. Upon reading the article as a whole, I realized that it's just the opening that needed work, and as such, I've edited the beginning to make it seem less like ARK wanted new artists to contact them (which I'm assuming ARK would then charge).

The page is currently high traffic due to coverage of Rebecca Black, and most of the secondary coverage (i.e. not by ARK) appears to be of Black primarily, and mentions ARK. As a result, I feel that Rebecca Black's song certainly warrants an article, but I tend to scrutinize pages that could be easily used for advertising purposes. Between References and External Links, 3 links go to secondary sources, while 6 links go to ARK produced pages (either by uploading to youtube/myspace or actually on ARK's website). Additionally, as this and other links seem to indicate the promotion of Black was being done to drive more business to the company, I question the need for a Wikipedia article on the company at this point in ARK's existence. I do not disagree with or believe that ARK's marketing strategies (recruitment and promotion of Black) are inappropriate. I'm just seeing the chance for a business that doesn't meet notability guidelines, but still has a (protected) Wikipedia page, to derive legitimacy and possibly business from this situation. I think it would be a shame if in a year, ARK has 3 top artists that tell CNN, MTV, Reuters, and any other source they "contacted ARK based on their Wikipedia entry, and the rest is history!" This goes back to the circular logic of High Traffic = Notable.

That being said, I'll hold off on taking to AfD (as two other editors apparently do not agree that the article satisfies criteria for deletion). The text of the article is sound, but this article desperately needs coverage from reliable secondary sources to avoid an eventual AfD when hype around Rebecca Black dies down. The easy way to do this (for anyone internal to ARK) is to reach out to reporters and have an article about ARK (with only a brief mention of Black). As odd as it is, the way to get an article on Wikipedia (which I consider to be a great way to increase a subject's visibility) is to get around Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources by going to a less visible source (widely-read but local paper) and getting coverage, and then citing that on Wikipedia.

An additional tip is to de-orphan the article. Most of the links to this page come from user talk pages, or from Black's song. By inserting a link to this page on perhaps a list of LA based music labels (if there is one), or on a page covering music in the second decade of the 21st century (if there is one), you'll attract more attention to this article from veteran editors who can improve the article or offer suggestions. Really, any wikilinks to this page are helpful, as those links draw attention to this page. Right now, it just sits in a small dark corner of the encyclopedia that no one will see unless they hit Rebecca Black's song's page.

I apologize to the author if my nomination for speedy deletion seemed harsh. While I disagree that this article was ready for inclusion in the project, I highly respect the author for learning about Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and continuing to improve this article. I hope my diatribe here prompts the author to remedy or seek assistance in remedying concerns with this article. If the author's short history on WP is an indication, I'm certain that my concerns can be resolved in quite a bit less time than it's taken me to write this. Good luck and happy editing!--Gnowor^T_C 22:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice. gimme a day or two, and hopefully i can start improving the article if no-one else has. i'm a bit busy atm so i'll come to it soon. thanks for the patience! Adshenshall (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity publisher

People had a story that this company is a vanity publisher. Apparently Black's mother paid to have this all done.[1]--Crossmr (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the whole truth, though, see [2], which says a) only "some of the production costs" were paid and b) "the family could opt not to pay anything in exchange for giving up all rights to the song". --91.32.118.101 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is "vanity" the correct term here? A typical indie band will pay for the recording and video, which they then hope to get picked up. This isn't the same thing as vanity press, where the established model is to have the publisher cover costs. - Bilby (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Black's mother paid all costs, that does not make this a vanity label, which is different from a vanity book publisher. The term "vanity label" refers to sub-labels set up by famous people to release their own music or pet projects, and Ark does not operate this way. See also my comments at Talk:Rebecca_Black#Vanity_label. I've removed this designation. Chubbles (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it throws the POV of this article off to not mention that they largely operate on a model similar to vanity book publishers. You are giving them legitimacy which they do not deserve.65.0.175.249 (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Article

The introduction of the article includes the sentence, "Ark then writes music with (or for) these singers and records them, often producing music videos of these songs." The parenthetical part in this sentence levies bias against ARK itself. I nominate the removal of the segment "(or for)" or to omit the parenthesis in it. Jess4less (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how exactly? you'll need to clarify that. if the case is that a) some artists collaborate with ark and b) some artists rely on ark - then the sentence is perfectly accurate. Kaini (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The parentheses are misused and should be dropped. See Purdue OWL here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/index.php?category_id=3&sub_category_id=7&article_id=97 "Parentheses () are used to say something that is important to the main message you are writing but is not an immediate part of it, something that would interrupt the flow of your writing if you didn’t keep it separate from everything else." That ARK both co-writes and solely writes songs is essential to the sentence. Using parentheses to communicate a main point of the sentence is the equivalent of telling a secret and then saying something coy like, "oops, did that just slip off my tongue?" and winking -- all with the purpose of drawing attention to the statement. All that to say: drop the parentheses to remove this editorial nudge of the sentence, improve quality of syntax while still communicating the same factual information. I would change it myself but I can't find my old login and the article is protected. 98.213.140.70 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

would the removal of the parentheses - producing a sentence along the lines of "Ark then writes music — either independently, or in collaboration with the artists" work better in your opinion? either is fine as far as this editor is concerned. and just as an aside, WP:MOS is the manual of style you should really be working with. Kaini (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure what's best. I think that "Ark writes music with or for" is the clearest way to say it. If you think some latinate words would tone down the implications, then I like your suggestion as well. 98.213.140.70 (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit should read "Ark then writes music — either independently, or in collaboration with the artists" as stated above.Jess4less (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes in that sentence earlier, in order to incorporate a new source (a profile of Patrice Wilson in this morning's Los Angeles Times). I didn't change the phrasing about how the music is written. At the time I made the edit, I hadn't noticed this talk page discussion. I don't really see a POV problem in the current "with (or for)" phrasing (the Times article says that the singers "are given a song to record"), but if there's a consensus here to change it to something else, it's OK with me too.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that stating that ARK writes music for the artist implies something negative about the music making process that we still aren't sure about. For now, I believe "in collaboration with" works best. I made a minor edit if there are objections...--Jess4less (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A professional songwriter writes music for other people. Whatever connotation that has in your mind is independent of reality here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.171.100 (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARK has still given no further details about the song writing process. We cannot jump and say "for" the artist, as far as the public knows right now, it is only fair to say in collaboration with.--71.229.180.150 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Jey

i do not understand why this page now mentions so little of clarence jey. originally the two creators of ARK were given equal consideration, now it is presented as a one man project. wilson may happen to have had a bigger role, i'm not sure, but that doesn't change the fact that this was a two man effort. unfortunately, as this is somewhat protected, i no longer have the ability to correct the page.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Clarence_Jey

Adshenshall (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Kroeger

Chad Kroeger neither owns nor acts as a part time director for ARK Music Factory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.231.105 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahameen an ARK artist?

Considering that we're talking about This video, I'm pretty sure that its, although not a parody video (due to the upload date), not an ARK factory video. I've tried googling it and I've come up with absolutely nothing. Either I'm doing something terribly wrong, or Bahameen isn't an ARK artist. Can anybody please confirm this? --Bearflip (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Record Label validity

Despite the fact they have stated in interviews they are NOT a registered record label, we are for some reason still describing them as an official, registered label. I've removed the tags and wording in the article and rephrased them to their appropriate titles. A.M.F. is registered under the California Business index as an LLC. Also, the citation that was in the beginning of was a reference to an article about Rebecca Black's emotional state after 'Friday' went viral and mentions nothing about Ark, nor provided proof of any of the such. It was a bad reference. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is correct. The form of a company (partnership, LLC, corporation) has nothing to do with the business of the company (farm, record label, fast food restaurant). Is there ever any requirement to register as a "record label"? Where and with what branch of government? Rmhermen (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA. They do not hold a retail license either; which is why all of their music is released soley on iTunes. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA is a trade organization of record labels - it is not a branch of government so it has nothing to do with the form of a business. What is a "retail license"? Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RIAA is the organization that regulates sales, copyright etc. without RIAA certification a record label can not distribute their material for sale with any of their distributors. A retail license is a license a company needs to sell physical inventory, in this case, albums; without it they can only release their material on the internet (YouTube, iTunes etc). And yes, iTunes is a for-profit BUT it also collects a certain percentage of monies collected. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they can still produce material can they not? Isn't that what is meant by referring to ARK as a record label? a_man_alone (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about a state sales tax license (sales tax ID number)? Not hard to get at all. Is this even a "public record" - how would you know if they had one? Copyright law is set by national law and international treaty - ~~all RIAA does is provide one method of collecting royalties and fees.~~ Rmhermen (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the are just a lobbying group, Soundexchange does the royalty payment stuff. I am not even sure now where the standing for the lawsuits came from - apparently it was just a common pool of lawyers filing suits for the various copyright-holding record labels. As near as I can tell the RIAA does not regulate or control anything - it just records sales and gives out shiny wall plaques. Rmhermen (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Music Factory's home page, twitter, facebook and myspace all include the line "Community, Music/Entertainment Channel and Independent Record Label based..." I don't really think we can argue with that. Also Guardian "record label prompts teenage singer to remove viral hit" and the Daily Beast refer to "Los Angeles-based vanity record label", Urban Dictionary has "Ark Music Factory. An evil record label ..." I don't claim they are a traditional label but... Rmhermen (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but ARK does NOT hold copyrights to ANY of the songs they produce; they are released to their clients; so in turn, they can NOT sell material they do not have rights to, nor do I believe they pay royalties to promote it. Anyone can call themselves a 'Record Label', MySpace did that years ago. And no, I wasn't referring to any sales tax licenses, although this is probably one of many licenses needed to sell merchandise globally; most albums are sold in retail stores. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Black already went through this before. She held the copyrights, as originally agreed upon, and she held the right to sell it, not ARK. ARK was slapped with DMCA takedown notices on YouTube, iTunes and forced to pay Rebecca the monies earned. --19:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.176.192 (talk)

So if you agree that they call themselves a record label - why did you insist on removing it from the article? Record labels don't need to own the copyrights - they need to produce and distribute music according to the agreements that they enter into with the artists. Rmhermen (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I agreed they were a 'Record Label' -- I said ANYONE has the ability through social media to label themselves one; doesn't mean they are one. And no, you actually CAN NOT distribute copyrighted material, it's the law. The agreement I was referring was the one where they uploaded the video to YouTube, which was flagged appropriately and removed, because of the DMCA notice filed by Rebecca herself. If there was an original agreement in place, then ARK would of had permission to upload to YouTube and not risk takedown; however, this did NOT happen because it was removed per above. The truth is ARK is probably uploaded the videos with or without consent of their clients, not to be confused with their signed artists, which they DO NOT have; they have customers --97.100.176.192 (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What law is that? Surely if they're the copyright holder, they can distribute material?

Occam's razor:

They call themselves a record company
They have musical artists on their books
Their business is to produce music
They sell the aforementioned product - music

Record company they be.

Rebecca Black isn't the only person they deal with, so the fact that she may have held onto copyright makes her the exception to the copyright, not the rule. a_man_alone (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, they don't hold the copyrights to the music they produce; they're released to their clients. This was already established. The Rebecca Black case was not an exception, she was the only one who decided to pursue legal action since she was a media sensation and wanted to make sure Ark didn't profit anymore off her music. See here, [3] -- this is a default. It's the way they do their business. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm wrong, but as you admit they do produce music, which makes them a record label. a_man_alone (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merely producing music doesn't make anyone a record label; I produce musical remixes and harmonies as a hobby; that doesn't make me a record label. Does it? Anyhow, it's a facade for ARK. ---97.100.176.192 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does if you call yourself a record label. Record labels don't usually own copyright, they hold publishing rights. See [4] for some of the complicates of the Beatles music legal arrangements. Rmhermen (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, IF you were a record label; ARK doesn't hold anything. Nothing. If they did, then they would of had the legal right to maintain their video on YouTube. So they aren't. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that one contract did not include Youtube rights does not say anything about the type of business. Even if they had no rights at all in that one song doesn't. Rmhermen (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube rights? What are you talking about? It was also removed from their website. They simply used YouTube as their outlet because that's the only thing they really CAN use. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca is not their artist anymore

Please go to http://arkmusicfactory.com/page/artists-1 and see that Rebecca is not their artist. --86.60.203.164 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]