| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | The following is a draft of a rule that adjusts the studio rules a bit and provides rules for entering media companies. It has been proposed in the rules committee to bring this forward to the contributions forum to see what everyone thinks. Yes, No, Something else? Quote:
List the Studios in the following priority.
* Theatrical Release Studio(s)
* Production Company(s)
Media Companies
The company(ies) responsible for the publishing (creating, assembling and ordering of the DVD/HD/BD content) and/or physical distribution of the media.
Enter in the following order:
Publisher (Content) - Usually found as a logo on the bottom of the back cover or in the credit block, often containing the words "home video" or "home entertainment. Secondary publishers (eg. The Criterion Collection's Eclipse label) may also be listed.
Licensor (Home Video Rights) - Usually found (dated with the year of the DVD release) on the back of the box or in the credit block with words words regarding "under license from...".
Distributor - Usually found as a logo on the bottom of the back cover or in the credit block with words regarding distribution.
Some companies (using similar but different names) may serve more than one function. List such companies only once, using the name from the logo. List secondary publishers even if the name is similar. If you are unsure of the function performed, do not list the company.
Do not abbreviate Studio or Media Company names. e.g, use Universal Pictures not just Universal; The Criterion Collection rather than Criterion or Criterion Collection; Walt Disney Pictures not just Disney. Exception: If the studio name is too long to fit, use standard abbreviation rules.
Omit company suffixes such as LLC, Ltd., Inc.
Omit any locality-specific suffix. e.g. Enter Paramount Home Entertainment, not Paramount Home Entertainment (UK)
There is further information about correct listings of studios and media companies, and the opportunity to ask questions if unsure, in the Contributions forum. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Lose the Publisher paragraph and it's fine. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think this is as good as we are going to get. I know exactly what you are after, though I do know a little more than the average user when it comes to the studio system. What I would like to see is input from those users, the non-studio savy ones, as they are the one who need to understand this. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Why include the licensor? As far as I can understand, they have nothing to do with the DVD release except for allowing another company to release it.
In addition, why exclude the Home Entertainme/Home Video companies that are shown when we play a disc if they are not listed on the cover? | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Reybr:
To studio afficionados the licensor data can be very interesting in what it reveals, not always but sometimes. It will generally reveal a film that the licensor would like to release but may not generate enough sales to meet the criteria of the licensor so they will license to a smaller house that does not have to meet their sales criteria.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
I think this is as good as we are going to get. I know exactly what you are after, though I do know a little more than the average user when it comes to the studio system. What I would like to see is input from those users, the non-studio savy ones, as they are the one who need to understand this. I am someone that knows nothing about studios... and I can say... it seems pretty straight-forward... but I really can't say for sure till I actually try it out and see how it works with a decent amount of profiles. As for understanding it... I think I understand what to put into the field based on the above. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: February 10, 2008 |  Posts: 244 |
| | Posted: | | | | Looks good... even with the publisher paragraph  But I would not exclude the Media companies presented on disc-startup (if not already mentioned on cover). |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | Looks pretty good for the people who contribute alot and read the forums, for the average user this might be too much to take care of  Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting DarklyNoon: Quote:
Looks pretty good for the people who contribute alot and read the forums,
for the average user this might be too much to take care of
Donnie It actually helped me a lot. And I, like Pete, don't know much about this section. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Lose the Publisher paragraph and it's fine.
Skip The publisher is responsible for the content of the disc; therefore, rather important. Quoting reybr: Quote:
Why include the licensor? As far as I can understand, they have nothing to do with the DVD release except for allowing another company to release it. They hold the rights to the main feature content. This isn't necessarily tracked in studios. Quoting reybr: Quote:
In addition, why exclude the Home Entertainme/Home Video companies that are shown when we play a disc if they are not listed on the cover? They're not excluded. The rule tells you where you will usually find this information. It doesn't mean you won't find it elsewhere. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:
Quote:
Lose the Publisher paragraph and it's fine.
Skip
The publisher is responsible for the content of the disc; therefore, rather important.
Quoting reybr:
Quote:
Why include the licensor? As far as I can understand, they have nothing to do with the DVD release except for allowing another company to release it.
They hold the rights to the main feature content. This isn't necessarily tracked in studios.
Quoting reybr:
Quote:
In addition, why exclude the Home Entertainme/Home Video companies that are shown when we play a disc if they are not listed on the cover?
They're not excluded. The rule tells you where you will usually find this information. It doesn't mean you won't find it elsewhere. Except that your definition is vague, inconsistent and applies something that is NOT applicable, most logos are usually either Distributors or licensee/licensor. There are two or three studios that actually use the term Content anywhere on their covers and they spell it out, so if you are after content then that is EASY but no applicable most of the time. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Posts: 270 |
| | Posted: | | | | I understand this "Omit company suffixes such as LLC, Ltd., Inc.".
I have seen where these are spelled out in the data base like Incorporated, Limited, or Company.
Is this acceptable?
Jim | | | Jim
More than I need, but not as many as I want! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting eaglejd: Quote:
I understand this "Omit company suffixes such as LLC, Ltd., Inc.".
I have seen where these are spelled out in the data base like Incorporated, Limited, or Company.
Is this acceptable?
Jim No | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
They hold the rights to the main feature content. This isn't necessarily tracked in studios.
True, but what have they done regarding to the DVDs you hold in your hand? As far as I can understand, not one thing. They have nothing to do with the DVD we are tracking. Since they have nothing to do with the DVD I can't understand that they should be tracked in media companies. If it's just to have them tracked, why not in the studio field? In my opinion, they are closer to the movie than the DVD so it is in the studio field they belong, if they should be tracked at all That's at least my opinion. | | |
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity | | | | Last edited: by reybr |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Perhaps not to you, reybr, but to Studio afficionados like myself and the Martian, that is as important or more so than anything called "publisher"
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
Except that your definition is vague, inconsistent and applies something that is NOT applicable, most logos are usually either Distributors or licensee/licensor. There are two or three studios that actually use the term Content anywhere on their covers and they spell it out, so if you are after content then that is EASY but no applicable most of the time.
Skip To begin with it's not "his" definition. Everything he posted here is what we came up with in the other thread (and by "we" I mean not me  . ) Secondly, if the definition doesn't work they give one that does! So far a clear majority is OK with the change. If you have a better suggestion then let's hear it. Continuously shooting down what the majority thinks will work without offering an alternative will get us absolutely nowhere.  |
|