So reasonably popular label Sub Pop https://musicbrainz.org/label/38dc88de-7720-4100-9d5b-3cdc41b0c474
They’re in our database as Sub Pop Records, however from my understanding they pretty much only address themselves as just Sub Pop
Rename or leave?
It’s “Sub Pop”, Sub Pop Records should be the parent company.
home page is subpop.com, logo is just Sub Pop.
@indy133 says that the logo that is visible on releases is just Sub Pop, so the release labels should probably be Sub Pop.
But for the relationships (like ℗, ©, distributor, licencee and so on), we should ideally also follow what is printed.
As we can use credited as for relationships but not for release label, then yes, seems good to rename.
Or to have both labels, where Sub Pop is an imprint of Sub Pop Records, kind of relationship.
On early releases, there often isn’t any mention of “Sub Pop Records” at all, but on later ones there are statements like this:
© ℗ 2003 Sub Pop Records. Sub Pop is a registered trademark of Sub Pop Records.
So I agree with @jesus2099, the release label should be Sub Pop and the copyright credits should go to Sub Pop Records.