I can't speak for anyone else, but I've found that very often the answer lies in the marquee credit block printed on the rear cover.  The copyrighted title is typically contained in quotes.  If the possessive is supposed to be there, it will be inclusive in the quotes.  Often, you will see that it is explicitely excluded from the quotes.  What you end up with is something like Frank Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life", for example.  This would be a case where the possessive should be dropped from the title, according to the rules, leaving only It's A Wonderful Life.

I'm sure others will chime in with their thoughts, but this has worked for me and is much easier to deal with than a font size change.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Font size is to be used "in the absence of quotes". If the quotes are there and the possession is not part of them then removing the possession iis in violation of the rule.

If there are no quotes in the copyright section then it is a bit trickier and will undoubtedly create some good 'discussions'.

I agree. I checked out my collection last night and I have a couple of those "trickier" font-only ones!  But if the credit block (copyright notice) on the back of the box is present, and if quotes separate the title from the possessive, that's all you need and you don't have to concern yourself with the fonts or any other source.

These are titles that have no quotes on the cover or film title credits.  I haven't had a chance to verify if the copyright title has quotes or missing possive yet.  Only going by the contribution notes provided by the contributor removing the possessive.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
If the quotes are there and the possession is not part of them then removing the possession iis in violation of the rule.

Isn't that exactly backwards? 

well, only if you want to be litteral about it 





(Thanks! nice catch. I knew what I meant - my fingers didn't though  )

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Ye, they are and there are numerous possessives being removed that ARE indeed THE LEGAL title of the AND being voted to remove film. Given the people involve tracy, I am NOT surprised at all.

Skip

Legal per Kens' rules or Legal per an external source?

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
Strange... I have only seen 1 contribution to remove a possessive so far (and I have loads of movies with the possessive in the title)... and the one was correct by Ken's new rule so voted yes to it of course. I was expecting to see a ton of removals by now!

Only one? I've had 4 in my collection so far with contributions to remove the possessive. I voted yes on all of them.

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Font size is to be used "in the absence of quotes". If the quotes are there and the possession is part of them then removing the possession is in violation of the rule. If not it should be removed

If there are no quotes in the copyright section then it is a bit trickier and will undoubtedly create some good 'discussions'.

So the font size is only to help determine if the possessive is part of the title or not.  Not an automatic removal if it is a different size?

The contributors still should be looking at the copyright section as well to determine if it is part of the title?

What about box-set titles where there is a possive?

The phrase that that Rick is referring is not Rules, it is a descriptive sentence and is correct as far as it goes.

"Generally, possessives which use a significantly smaller font are not part of the title."

Generally that is coirrect, NOT ALWAYS.

"Include possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title."

Some of these SAME users that are now leaning on the Generally sentence as support to remove ultimately EVERY possessive, are the SAME users who started quoting US Copyright (I did not do that) data to support the position they were using at THAT moment. In short they are INCONSISTENT and attempting to manipulate the data to meet THEIR preferences. They will conveniently addopt whatever FICTION suits their mood of the moment as opposed to verifiable FACTS. They seem to believe that we have the ability to make a change  to a name, regardless of what one's birth certificate might say, or a Copyright filing or even perhaps changiung the actual name of a car, talk anbout delusions of grandeur. Tthey want the answer to be what they want it to be, don't confuse them with FACTS.