| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | "Copyright Year" makes the most sense if we like the idea that outside research is more work and possibly less reliable than watching the DVD to see what's there. A simple renaming of the field and refocus on the rule could fix that quickly.
I do like the idea of adding a "Release Date" field, too, where we can research the datum and enter it.
Because, as I wrote, the DVD version of the 1945 The Big Sleep uses the 1946 rerelease opening credits with a 1946 copyright.
By using both, we can maintain one from info directly from the DVD, and nit-pickers like me can have a more accurate sense of when a film/TV show was first shown to the public. | | | If it wasn't for bad taste, I wouldn't have no taste at all.
Cliff | | | | Last edited: by VibroCount |
|
| Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Telecine: Quote:
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
I don't think Skip is talking about that copyright date. I think he's talking about the one in the actual film credits itself.
That's why he think it's a much more reliable source for a year than anywhere else.
Mmmm...don't know that you are always going to find the current or even orginal copyright information there. It seems to me that in most case you find a Copyright Year somewhere in film credits. When it's not there, you could always use the theatrical release as fallback source. | | | | -- Enry |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | The Copyright Date the film was Originally Copyrighted does NOT change. It is part of the film. I don't recall seeiing any distributor change the Copyright date on the film, even despite a restoration, which enables them to re-copyright the film and they may not be the original copyright holder. You will see references to new Copyright information on the Case, but not on the film. Their maybe some public domai prints that do not use that particular part of the film, but then some of those remove the credit data altogether.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | And what to do with string copyright notices, e.g. ©2001, 2003, 2007 ? They're out there. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | On the film, Gard, they are on the cover, but I have never seen one on the film, unless I just simply overlooked it, which is possible.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 5,917 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'd say that if you have multiple Copyright years, take the first one listed as chances are, that's the original. The other dates are for the purpose of trying to extend the 50-year copyright. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
OK, let me make it CRYSTAL CLEAR, I think probably the best answer is to use Copyright Date PERIOD. That is data that is readily available to ALL users and requires no additional research, especially research which is often conflicting from source to source. <shakes head>
Skip If we re-purpose the existing field to be "Copyright Date", aren't we going to have to recheck every profile to see if the Copyright date is what's in that profile? Why not leave that data alone as we already know that it is the "Theatrical Release Date" and create a new field for "Copyright"? I suspect you'll find as many if more people are actually interested in the "Theatrical Release Date" than the "Copyright Date". | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
good point Telecine I'd never thought of that - there are a lot of "public domain" titles out there on DVD.
Although these titles were in copyright at one point I guess, in essence we don't need to work out when copyright ends, we only need to know when it started - which should be a lot easier. That is correct. We are only interested in the copyright date at the time the film was produced. The fact that it may now be in the public domain because of a lapsed copyright is irrelevant. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
These days it's usually at the very, very end of the end credits just after all the dolby and mpaa logos and stuff.
On older films (going back to at least the 30s) you're more likely to find it in small print under the title or listed under the production credits.
I have to admit, you'll probably find a copyright year somewhere in the credits on almost all films - it's the silents that need looking into - I'm at work so can't check mine at the moment.
Edit: and you have to remember, we're not looking for current or original copyright - we're looking for the copyright year of that print on the DVD. So if there's a year in the credits - that's the one we use. For older films, it is usually in the opening credits. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting gardibolt: Quote:
And what to do with string copyright notices, e.g. ©2001, 2003, 2007 ? They're out there. Earliest. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
OK, let me make it CRYSTAL CLEAR, I think probably the best answer is to use Copyright Date PERIOD. That is data that is readily available to ALL users and requires no additional research, especially research which is often conflicting from source to source. <shakes head>
Skip
If we re-purpose the existing field to be "Copyright Date", aren't we going to have to recheck every profile to see if the Copyright date is what's in that profile?
Why not leave that data alone as we already know that it is the "Theatrical Release Date" and create a new field for "Copyright"?
I suspect you'll find as many if more people are actually interested in the "Theatrical Release Date" than the "Copyright Date". I understand the concern you have voiced, Hal and I am not sure there is a real good answer. I suspect that there would be few that have to be rechecked, as GENERALLY the Copyright date and Theatrical Release are the same. Let me re-iterate GENERALLY,,,,not ALWAYS. I have a serious problem with Theatrical Release simply because so often it is problematic, especially as the films get older and older(going back in time, if you will) and so often the various possible sources give conflicting answers. Not to mentiuon the semi-public showings at Cannes or wherever, or the ever present rush of limited showings in December to get in under the wire for that years Oscars. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I understand the concern you have voiced, Hal and I am not sure there is a real good answer. I suspect that there would be few that have to be rechecked, as GENERALLY the Copyright date and Theatrical Release are the same. how will you decide for yourself, which ones you need to check (pop in teh DVD) and which ones are already correct due to "Copyright date = Theatrical Release"? | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Good question. Since based on what I am seeing, I expect to popping in discs for some time.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: April 4, 2007 |  Posts: 879 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:
Quote:
OK, let me make it CRYSTAL CLEAR, I think probably the best answer is to use Copyright Date PERIOD. That is data that is readily available to ALL users and requires no additional research, especially research which is often conflicting from source to source. <shakes head>
Skip
If we re-purpose the existing field to be "Copyright Date", aren't we going to have to recheck every profile to see if the Copyright date is what's in that profile?
Why not leave that data alone as we already know that it is the "Theatrical Release Date" and create a new field for "Copyright"?
In theory that's correct according the current rules. But that poll which I think was already linked in this thread clearly shows that a majority already seems to be using the copyright date anyways. Which makes your argument work the opposite way as apparently more people have currently correct data with "Copyright Year" than with "Theatrical Release Year". | | | | - Jan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,436 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think there is confusion between rechecking and recontributing.
We need to recheck ALL profiles. Especially, as hydrox pointed out, as we can't know which profile follows which line of thinking...
Recontributions will be probably be less for a change to Copyright Year, because many profiles already follow that and for a portion of the other half the Theatrical Year is the same as the Copyright Year. | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
If we re-purpose the existing field to be "Copyright Date", aren't we going to have to recheck every profile to see if the Copyright date is what's in that profile?
Why not leave that data alone as we already know that it is the "Theatrical Release Date" and create a new field for "Copyright"?
I suspect you'll find as many if more people are actually interested in the "Theatrical Release Date" than the "Copyright Date". Although I don't mind the addition of the field, the problem is that a lot of people have already admitted that they use the copyright year in the current field rather than find the true release date. So it sounds like the current field is full of inaccurate data anyway. | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
|