Quoting Tracer:

Quote:

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?

Correct (at least that is how I understand it and it matches what the majority was requesting)

Quoting Tracer:

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

Should be looking at the copyright section 1st to see what it shows.

Quoting Tracer:

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

Good point. As I understand it possesives are only to be added only if they can be verified as part of the title.  Just because they are listed on the box doesn't mean they are part of the title.

Do you have any examples of these box sets? Might as well get the debate going now. 

So I knew how to vote and contribute (as I was a little confused by the wording myself) I just double checked with Ken through PM and we are indeed supposed to look at the copyright on the lower back cover to see how it is listed there. If the quote is around the possessive then we use possessive and all in the titles if it is like it is on The Thing... John Carpenter's "The Thing" then we only use The Thing. so the way I understand it... The only time we look elsewhere is when there is no quotes to tell us on the lower back of the case.

Not what I personally wanted... but that is ok... I am always willing to contribute only as per the rules.

Quoting Addicted2DVD:

Quote:
So I knew how to vote and contribute (as I was a little confused by the wording myself) I just double checked with Ken through PM and we are indeed supposed to look at the copyright on the lower back cover to see how it is listed there. If the quote is around the possessive then we use possessive and all in the titles if it is like it is on The Thing... John Carpenter's "The Thing" then we only use The Thing. so the way I understand it... The only time we look elsewhere is when there is no quotes to tell us on the lower back of the case.

Not what I personally wanted... but that is ok... I am always willing to contribute only as per the rules.

That's why I submitted that particular change to The Thing - because the back cover matched the situation in Ken's rules where a possessive was not to be used. I always thought of John Carpenter's The Thing to be the full title - I was even the one who submitted the possessive in the first place! But I'm happy to follow the rules and the rules said it wasn't one of the ones we kept.

Talking about font size - I think that can be deceptive, and I only use that in conjuction with other verification. For example, "Tim Burton's Corpse Bride" is the proper title according to the back cover, but the "Tim Burton's" bit is really quite small on the front, so some people may think it should be removed - which it shouldn't.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
I'm not sure who out there is on a mission to remove every possessive, but the copyrighted title will get you most of the way home.  If the possessive is supposed to be there, it will be included in the quotes, otherwise it needs to go.  The fact that we're even discussing copyrighted title presumably means that we can invoke the U.S. copyright office database as well, which should be pretty darn definitive...at least for region 1.  At the end of the day, I don't know if font size need ever come into play, but there's probably one wacky title out there.

I'm not sure if the US copyright office database is wholy reliable, in the sense that yes, the title is there but so is a whole load of other stuff all shoved into the "full title" field. I'm no expert on US copyright, but looking at some of the results that come up it looks like whoever applies for the copyright seems to put as much info as they can into the title field to differentiate it from anything else with a similar title. A few examples:

A search for The Thing brings up the full title: John Carpenter's The Thing / a Turman-Foster Company production ; produced by David Foster, Lawrence Turman ; co-producer, Stuart Cohen ; directed by John Carpenter.
A search for Mister Roberts brings up: Mister Roberts. By Orange Productions, Ltd.
A search for The Birds brings up: Birds; motion picture. By Alfred J. Hitchcock Productions, Inc.

Why all this extra info is there, I don't know. But in this situation I don't think the online database can be relied on to give us what we want. But it's open to discussion.

Northbloke:

RED HERRING ALERT. Search on The Thing . You will find the Classic and you will find there has NEVER been such a movie produced. You will find the classic The Thing from Another World AKA The Thing but you will NOT find the John carpenter film UNLESS you add the possessive...why...because THAT is the COPYRIGHTED title. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the procedures implemented in the US Copyright and how they list things, after you are from the UK, I am NOT unfamiliar with them, I go to the Copyright Office itself several times per year because I live in Washington DC. I would not presume to try and explain anything about how such a system, IF it exists in the UK, because I have neither the background knowledge nor the . But all this goes to show that you and others have NO INTERST in FACTIUAL data, you are intersted in your FICTION and whatever that FICTION suits you at the moment.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Search on The Thing . You will find the Classic and you will find there has NEVER been such a movie produced. You will find the classic The Thing from Another World AKA The Thing but you will NOT find the John carpenter film UNLESS you add the possessive...why...because THAT is the COPYRIGHTED title.

If the title and the possessive are separated by quotes, then for DVDP purposes, the decision ends there and the possessive is not included. That's the rule that we've been given.

Had the full "Hal rule" been implemented, then a source such as the the US Copyright Office could have been used as documentation to overrule information found on the DVD cover, but that's not what Ken chose. So we work within the confines of what we've been given. Therefore, it's just The Thing (for the release in question).

It appears to me that Ken sought to use what's on the cover, to whatever extent that's accurate or inaccurate, rather than either (1) forcing all possessives into the title, resulting in loads of inaccurate titles or (2) allowing only externally verifiable possessives to be included, which would have been the most accurate but also the most labor-intensive. With his version of the rule, you make the decision based on info gathered from the cover only. Good or bad, but it's simple...yet sometimes results in an incorrect title...but not as often as the include-all-possessives method. For that, I'm grateful.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Blah blah blah ...{snipped to protect the blockers}

Well, I tried.

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:
Woah.  Does Ken know we're about to destroy the validity of the database?

Ssh! Don't you know anything about plotting? It's supposed to be a secret!