Sorry to bother you Mudcatters but I have a moral dilemma with Discogs and other similar sites archiving cover and label information, and photographs of releases.

The problem is that a good many releases using my late father's songs, and that of almost every other songwriter - contain errors total misprints, and false credits.   In many cases the royalties were correctly assigned, but the covers or labels were wrong (sometimes just printing errors or other staff errors).

These sites give spaces for contributors to put songwriter information, which is then put down as fact. If you are a songwriter or relative of the person who wrote it and control the songs or have access to a database proving authorship, and no copyright dispute exists.... Should you put down the correct author or reproduce the original label as in the physical product even if you know its completely wrong?

The reason I am querying this is that I fought long and hard to get future pressings of releases altered, and alterations made to registrations when mistakes had been made. If people take information off long deleted releases that are suddenly being spread on Record Collector databases, then it's bringing back errors that had been corrected.

I am adding some of the albums that have my father's material to the discogs site - many were correct but equally some albums and singles went out with these errors.

So is it ethical to put in the correct author/composer (I'm not taking about rumors, or every average Joe doing it - but I mean if you own the song and know it was wrong/misprinted?

For years I used something called 'Moral rights' (the right to be correctly identified) on behalf of the writer, but the Internet has changed all that.

This information on the song can find its way onto Google or other recording artists might take it as fact.

So what would you do?