Late partner being sidelined - AIBU?

[Maskless]

Some years ago my partner, a classical musician, recorded his first CD. On it he played duets with another musician, a friend he'd played with since their uni days.

They were equals on the CD - let's say violinist and cellist as an example (that is not what they were) - with a photo of both as equals on the sleeve and with equal billing, names in same size and font etc and any profit split 50-50.

After my partner died, the other musician found another duet partner and as his career progressed they became well known and made a string of CDs which have sold well.

He has now re-issued that first CD.

However the sleeve shows photos only of him on the front and the back, and my late partner has been obliterated. The original CD showed their names in a way that billed them as equals, but he's changed it from "John Jones and James Smith" (not their real names) to JOHN JONES bold and big, and then in a much smaller, thinner, and italic font, underneath, it reads "with James Smith".

I feel this is disrespectful and also twisting history. 'James' played on that CD as an equal in a duet. He would never have accepted being billed in such a way as to make him look like a mere accompanist.

'John' says I am being over-sensitive due to my grief. He wanted to use up-to-date and professionally-taken photos on the cover and (obviously) 'James' wasn't alive to pose for them. As for the unequal billing, 'John' says his name is famous now, and that is what will sell the CD. Therefore his name should feature more boldly, (But of course 'James' never became famous because he died whilst the pair were on the path to fame.)

My late partner only ever made that one CD, and it hurts me so much to see his name shrunken to a mere accompanist, and his photo completely obliterated.

(BTW this isn't about money. I'm not a beneficiary of the proceeds of the CD.)

In a video 'John' was interviewed about the progress of his career and yet he did not mention 'James', with whom he was best mates and duet partner for the first ten years of it. It's like he never existed. 'John' says it would have spoiled the jolly, up-beat tone of the interview to talk about his dead ex partner.

I feel that it's bad enough that 'James' did not live long enough to enjoy the fruits of his hard work over the years without airbrushing him out of the few things he did do.

AIBU?

I put yabu, only because you're feelings are totally understandable but John items the rights to the music and he can do whatever he wants with it. At least your partner's name is still on there. He hasnt removed him all together.

John owns the rights that should say.

Yes, his very elderly and frail mother who lives in a care home hundreds of miles away. I would not bother her with this. He left home after uni and rarely visited her, so they were not close but if there is any money to come from any music income she gets it.

*

I understand why the rebranding is upsetting, but since you are not the recipient of any royalties, the ethics here are murky. Repackaging that CD probably increases sales. Increased sales mean more money for his elderly mother .

There is no reason he can’t state that James helped him on his way, or that James is on this 50/50. And he certainly could comment about it on any interview

Let's just imagine for a moment that he does in fact grieve for his best friend and playing partner of many years, and finds it upsetting to talk about him. Is he required to do it in front of strangers, potentially thousands of strangers, every time he has an interview? Press interviews are about promoting the music while also protecting the artist. He can't do something that hurts him professionally and personally just because OP would like him to.

John also didn't design the CD cover. A professional designer did. He didn't make the decision about whose name was larger. Whoever is assigned to market this release at the record label did. Unless John is the Beyonce of the music world, he is not in control of these decisions. The reissue is specifically for the purposes of targeting John's fans. And for anyone who does receive royalties from James's estate, the better it's marketed the more they will earn.

It really isn't personal, and trying to make it personal is a hiding to pain and frustration for everyone involved.

The Beyonce of the classical music world, I meant.

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts on this.