Yes.
Offtopic, I thought I posted here a lot but you post even more than me, which does help make me feel less guilty about posting here so much 😅
“To be” is probably one of the most polysemous word in English (and I guess other languages). There, I guess its meaning is close to a definition. Like “is the ending necessary for the title to still define the book ?”
In that case, to me the meaning of a word, be it a common word or the title of a specific work, is just the meaning that built consensus in a context. So if in the context we talk about, most people involved recognize the modified version as “Little Red Riding Hood”, then it is. Otherwise it isn’t.
Yes this definition varies across time and social context.
No, art does not have a special status.
No, authors do not get more legitimacy than anyone else to settle the debate. They can advocate for their vision, and will probably get more attention and convince more easily than other. But if the consensus remain against them, they do not have any privilege to redefine it.
More specific answer on this specific example : as far as I know, yes, since the and was changed and the changes were adopted by the vast majority of people. The only context were this example can be “false” is in the very specific case of academic studies of some sort around this work that would need to make a clear distinction and that takes places between people that care about these differences.
If the core themes are maintained and recognizable, yes.
