"

 Celine Dion Signings 

Please do not change Celine's signings in the infobox. The infobox should only pertain to signings and not imprints traced to the artist around the world. The reason why Celine was imprinted with Columbia and not Epic in Europe and Canada is because her catalog is actually sold by her original signee, Sony Music Canada, who uses the Columbia label. The content creator on the other hand is pic records up till 2007, and 2007 onward Columbia Records. Columbia Records as a standalone company exists in two places: NYC (original standalone company for many decades) and London (a division of Sony Music UK). Every other ""Sony Music (insert country name here)"" company uses it as an A&R; imprint, they don't operate actual companies or standalone divisions called Columbia. Celine's first sony affiliate signing was in 1986 to CBS Records Canada, (CBS became Sony globally on jan 1, 1991), and Sony Music Canada used the Columbia logo on her (worked with the ""columbia"" a&r; team at Sony Canada). Then Celine went on to sign with Sony affiliates in the US, but in the US they operate as standalone companies since there's many of them (there's just not one central ""sony music"" company). However, even though she signed other sony deals in another country, her original signee (sony music canada) is still the worldwide sales agent of her work, and hence passed along their ""columbia"" item to europe sony affiliates. Notice in the infobox it indicates she is still on sony music canada, because for as long as she's involved with sony in the US, she is still tied to sony canada. Furthermore, even without this explanation, it is irrelevant what label is used in other markets where the artist isn't signed for the infobox. For example, in Japan, Sony does NOT have the rights to the Columbia trademark, hence every single Sony artist ever, whether Columbia or any other label, was released there with the Epic imprint instead by Sony Music Japan. Does that mean we go to every sony related artist and insert Epic?? Indeed not. "