@mod
Wrong info whenever a work listed as licensed by Renta.

For example https://www.mangaupdates.com/series.html?id=115035

It says that Renta(Digital). Renta did not licensed the digital ver. because this http://renta.papy.co.jp/renta/sc/frm/item/91961/ is the digital version if the book while Renta licensed the Web/comic theater version of the chapters http://renta.papy.co.jp/renta/sc/frm/item/77846/ (jp ver) and here is the licensed http://www.ebookrenta.com/renta/sc/frm/item/79451/ (eng ver.).

The digital ver and the web version is different in some ways, the web ver missing some of the chapters that are published as volume/digital. If you don't want to use "web ver." you can always use the original term they're using in japanese "comic theater".

Thank you for pointing this detail out.
The "web version" seems to me quite ok to use in this case.

I'd like to point out that using term licensed here is not accurate. And marking books available in English on Renta as licensed is wrong.
This and similar issues was actually discuses on several occasions already:
https://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=51584
https://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=48215

possibly more.... either way I think this deserves to be included somewhere in a guide or something so people will know how to act too.
But really, marking series like this as licensed is really misleading.

Then how do you propose that we indicate that this is available via Renta? The only field that fits in our database is Publisher

________________
A just ruler amongst tyrants

I guess the best way to avoid confusion/misconception is by labeling "web ver. chapters" because the work like the example I gave above, it would be clear to people that the releases by Renta is not the same as volume release.



As for the Renta is not publisher thing by Chibi-chibi, it's kinda make sense since none of the stuff they have on their site that translated to english by them never explicitly mark "publisher Renta" while those by published by others has a little footnote "[Eng Publisher: Digital Manga,Inc.]" like this book http://www.ebookrenta.com/renta/sc/frm/item/17881/.

I also noticed that not everything release by DMI are on their site in fact some of the previously licensed but expired work by DMI is release in their site but without the footnote, example http://www.ebookrenta.com/renta/sc/frm/item/75249/ and http://www.ebookrenta.com/renta/sc/frm/item/75246/. My guess the original publisher directly wanted to release the work on Renta.

In this case more accurate label for their release would be "English on Renta" because I remember they answered one of the tumblr ask that they did not do the typesetting and stuff, those are done by other party. In other word they just make the work available for reader, a platform (like legal/paid version of batoto). This way people would know the english ver is available on Renta but did not licensed by Renta (the use of correct preposition is important in this case).

tl;dr - best way to label Renta stuff is "English on Renta" for volumes release and "English on Renta (web ver. chapters)" for chapter release.

My Opinion on:

1) positions available on Renta! should not be marked as "licensed"
- they have the official rights to profit from making the titles available in English to international customers  & they own the translations (some titles excluded). For me it counts as "licensed". Please refer for the basic definition here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/License.
Is the doubt comming from territory issue? Meaning they are not exclusive owners of the rights to publish the titles on US territory? My understanding is that any English language license, counts as marking position as "licensed" on MU. (Thats what the field title literary says btw "Licensed (in English))"

2) Distingusing chapter versions vs volume version
- are there any objections to "serialized web ver." In cases such as Minori no Te?

3) adding "English on Renta" or other variations
 - name "Renta!" In publisher field is enough as there is longer description on "publisher" profile about the way they function, so there is no need to add the same information again and again.

Regarding issue (1) and (3), For me personally the license itself was not an issue but rather where it was credited to the wrong publisher or in Renta case a non-publisher. I still believe that Renta is only a platform that sells manga.

A good argument regarding Renta as platform - from thread hyperlink by chibi-chibi

The above argument is also true for similar sites like Book Walker but in Book Walker case it's much easier because it's a platform that gather ONLY Kodakawa work licensed by various publishers (Viz, Seven Sea, Dark Horse).

Basically assuming Renta to be a publisher can be very problematic and confusing on top of the mislabelled of the chapter and vol.. When I randomly check titles under Renta https://www.mangaupdates.com/publishers.html?id=1268, there are a lot of mislabel works one of them is https://www.mangaupdates.com/series.html?id=61683 vol.1 license by DMG only it clearly stated in Renta under english publisher. It was never release in other eng ver except for the one by DMG.

For issue (2) I like the sound of "serialized web ver."

I will not add any new fields to the series page, so the only possible location it can go is "English Publisher". I will NOT rename the field to say "English Publisher/Platform" any anything similar

The only question at this point is what exactly to put. Most of the series have it as "Renta! (Digital)" or just "Renta!". I'm perfectly fine with either, but I just want it consistent. It is up to the user to go to the publisher page itself to see that it's technically not a publisher
https://www.mangaupdates.com/publishers.html?id=1268

________________
A just ruler amongst tyrants

I think only Renta!, is ok
With possibility to add coment on the version/status like in Yondaime Ooyamato Tatsuyuki

I always thought Renta was just an ebook site like many others. Only because of titles I have worked on for actual publishers are sold on there.

Example is: http://www.ebookrenta.com/renta/sc/frm/item/82070/
but it clearly states that the publisher is futurecomics. They even have their own website.
https://www.futurecomics.com/en/

In no way do I believe that Renta is a publisher. Just an ebook store.

Future comics is both a Japanese and English publisher that seems to translate their Japanese comics into English.

Last edited by Arleea at 5:35 pm, Jun 5 2016

________________
Owner of Antisense Scanslation.

Why don't just list the actual publisher like Arleea said the publisher is "future comic" and just put the link to Renta on the description like what the admin did here?

That would make a lot more sense and make good to Renta too to finally recognized as an ebook store rather than publisher, I honestly thought Renta has some sort of decree on licensing before I started this thread.

@Arleea
Can you give ma a link to any English publication Future Comics realesed themselves ( beside the one available on Renta)? Or announcement they had released English ebooks?

Last edited by rangda2 at 2:15 am, Jun 7 2016

And many publishers make English releases exclusive to Renta as their only choice of digital distribution (just like Amazon is to some English publishers). So original publisher is still someone else, but it's available only at Renta. Renta has no originally published series, but considering the complicated relationship I'm perfectly fine with having Renta labeled as publisher.
After all I'm pretty sure, or at least like to believe, this discussion is being made with intent of people buying works that are available in language they understand and want to read and at the same time legally contribute to the industry (something they can't with scanlations).

However I do have an issue with work being labeled as licensed because no permission was given to anyone by the publisher that chose to distribute through Renta.
However if MU admins agree on calling this licensed, so be it. It wouldn't be the first time MU is not entirely in line with generally recognized terms&co.
But if this is what you decide it needs to be addressed somewhere so people can refer to it, understand, and use it properly. I was surprised to see all series with Renta as publisher marked as Licensed. One is for my own understanding of License and the other is because I haven't seen any official update regarding this.
It's not addressed in FAQ or anywhere else either, but I believe it should be.

If I missed it, I apologize.