Back in 2016, we had this discussion about copyright and phonographic copyright relationships. It was decided then that the dates should be static (i.e. the same year as the begin and end date) but beyond that, there is still some ambiguity (namely, what to do about relationships that change hands over time).
Here are a few proposed solutions:
- Leave publishing relationships open-ended, so the date fields can be used to track when a company changed its name, got bought out, etc. (or as in the case with some older works, the copyright was transferred after the original expired). I’ve done this for years but have run into some resistance, which brings us to the following:
- Use static dates for publishing relationships, and then list all of the subsequent/successor publishers somewhere else, e.g. on the release level (as I often do for copyright relationships). I don’t really like this idea, as with our current schema there’s no efficient way to track which publishing relationship belongs where.
- Continually replace the names of publishers as they change over time. I’m especially not a fan of this, as it in my eyes is encouraging data loss in the name of efficiency.
Does anyone have any better ideas? I may turn this into a ticket if we can agree on some solutions.