 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...14  Previous Next
|
|
Possessives removals |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I follow what Ken said, Achim. Words have meaning and there IS a copyright area on the back cover, there was nothing to parse. There is no purpose gained in parsing words as Unicus does.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Personally, I've called it the marquee credit block but whatever. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where to look. it's the only place on the packaging where you'll get a clear representation of the title, in nice plain text. You also get any actors who are credited above the title, which is a contractual arrangement. Not that we track that sort of thing, but that's a reliable place to find it. You also get to see which actors were primarily featured at the time of release, which sometimes varies greatly from the marketing on the front cover. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,329 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
Skip...
as I said in a post here yesterday when I talked to Ken through PM because I wanted to be sure where to get the info for voting and contributing... he told me we go by the back of the case at the bottom to see what the quotes show... if the quotes are on there... that is what we use. If not... then that is when we go to research it further.
As I said before... not my ideal solution... but it is what he decided so be it. So since it seems it says "Frank Miller's Sin City" (I don't have this one to verify) it can't be removed per the rules.
LOL, Pete, except the bottom of the case is not where the poster data is at, that IS where the Copyright data IS and I have yet to EVER see any title data in the copyright section.
Skip I may be confused ... but how I said is how Ken himself told me it is meant to be done when I asked him for clarification... so that is all I can go by for voting and contributing... Not sure what you mean by poster data... rules say to take it from copyright section... and don't know where you are coming from... not to EVER see the tile in the copyright section... I have once or twice seen it without title info there... but ALMOST always see it there. EDIT: OK... it is all about what Ken chose to call the section... well all I know is how Ken clarified it when I asked him. And of course I WILL go by what ken put in the rules... and clarified to me when I asked him. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,433 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
Not sure what you mean by poster data... rules say to take it from copyright section... Poster data is what Skip calls the "credit block" on the back. That is the area where everyone understood Ken to get the "quoted Title". The copyright section is actually the very small print which is usually at the bottom of the back. You know, where the copyright years and the Studios who hold the copyright are mentioned. Skip is basically saying, that Ken used bad wording and therefore refuses to follow the rule as worded. The rule as worded is referring to an area of the cover where indeed there is very rarely, maybe indeed never, the Title is mentioned. So, technically the second sentence If quotes surround the title in the copyright section, check whether the possessive is within the quotes. according to that logic is moot. Funny, Skip. | | | 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: | | | | Right, Pete. The copyright section is that section of the cover that contains the copyright data and date(s) which is at the very bottom of the back cover (typically) and usually will include information on who the copyright holder is relative to the artwork on the cover, sometimes it will contain copyright infor relative to the film. But I have never seen the title data there. @midnit Marquee data works, I call it poster data because it resembles the movie poster information in general. However, that data is NOT definitive and sometimes does NOT yield the correct answer, that can ONLY be obtained DEFINITIVELY through the Copyrighted title itself which will have to be obtained from some other location, probably the US Copyright data. As I noted, according to that office's site, there has never been a movie with the title The Thing produced. There has been The Thing from Another World, The Thing with Two Heads  ( a truly bad film) and John Carpenter's The Thing, those are the facts. John Carpenter's film lists two AKA's The Thing and Who Goes There?, neither of which are the actual title of the film. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,595 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ya_shin: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
Not sure what you mean by poster data... rules say to take it from copyright section...
Poster data is what Skip calls the "credit block" on the back. That is the area where everyone understood Ken to get the "quoted Title".
The copyright section is actually the very small print which is usually at the bottom of the back. You know, where the copyright years and the Studios who hold the copyright are mentioned.
Skip is basically saying, that Ken used bad wording and therefore refuses to follow the rule as worded. The rule as worded is referring to an area of the cover where indeed there is very rarely, maybe indeed never, the Title is mentioned. So, technically the second sentence If quotes surround the title in the copyright section, check whether the possessive is within the quotes. according to that logic is moot.
Funny, Skip. You say "Poster data is what Skip calls the "credit block" on the back. That is the area where everyone understood Ken to get the "quoted Title"". Everyone??? I'm sorry, but when Ken says "copyright section", I take it to mean the copyright section. If he had meant "credit block" then he should ammend the rule to say so. The "credit block" and "copyright block" are two entirely seperate blocks. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting ya_shin: Quote:
Quoting Addicted2DVD:
Quote:
Not sure what you mean by poster data... rules say to take it from copyright section...
Poster data is what Skip calls the "credit block" on the back. That is the area where everyone understood Ken to get the "quoted Title".
The copyright section is actually the very small print which is usually at the bottom of the back. You know, where the copyright years and the Studios who hold the copyright are mentioned.
Skip is basically saying, that Ken used bad wording and therefore refuses to follow the rule as worded. The rule as worded is referring to an area of the cover where indeed there is very rarely, maybe indeed never, the Title is mentioned. So, technically the second sentence If quotes surround the title in the copyright section, check whether the possessive is within the quotes. according to that logic is moot.
Funny, Skip. Get it right, Achim. I don't refuse to follow it at all, I go direct to the US Copyright and attempt to verify the data or not, which is what the Rules allow for and is the ONLY way to be able to come up with the CORRECT answer. It's no skin off my nose and doesn't take much time. As I noted however in the run up to this mess, and has been PROVEN beyond a doubt here in this thread. This is NOT something that easily determined to be correct and accurate by ALL users for ALL films in EVERY case. But of course, you and nobody else wanted to listen to rational thought. You wanted ONE THING removal of possessive's VALID or NOT, the Poster (Marquee) data is not definitive, no matter how much any of us might wish it to be. The Copyright Section reveals nothing of value, the Copyright office will offer a definitive answer, though some have already proven a penchant to try and spin even that in favor of FICTION. Which BTW, I also knew would happen. None of any of this surprises me in the slightest, it does disappoint me greatly, but it does not surprise me and this is the kind of thing that will happen everytime the majority decides to follow the Whim of the Week, answers that are based purely on personal preference are never going to easily implemented. that si why IMDb is the wreck that it is. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,433 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
You say "Poster data is what Skip calls the "credit block" on the back. That is the area where everyone understood Ken to get the "quoted Title"". Everyone??? I'm sorry, but when Ken says "copyright section", I take it to mean the copyright section. If he had meant "credit block" then he should ammend the rule to say so. The "credit block" and "copyright block" are two entirely seperate blocks. I apologize. So there are several users who read the rule as written. (I have mentioned that I saw the flaw myself, but failed to point it out to Ken.  Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Get it right, Achim. I don't refuse to follow it at all, I go direct to the US Copyright and attempt to verify the data or not, which is what the Rules allow for and is the ONLY way to be able to come up with the CORRECT answer. It's no skin off my nose and doesn't take much time. You are right, I worded that wrong and apologize for that. You do follow the rule as worded! You realize that the second sentence actually makes no sense per wording and go right to the next step of the rule. The intent was obviously something else; Ken would not purposely add a moot sentence to the rules. Quote:
As I noted however in the run up to this mess, and has been PROVEN beyond a doubt here in this thread. This is NOT something that easily determined to be correct and accurate by ALL users for ALL films in EVERY case. But of course, you and nobody else wanted to listen to rational thought. You wanted ONE THING removal of possessive's VALID or NOT, the Poster (Marquee) data is not definitive, no matter how much any of us might wish it to be. The Copyright Section reveals nothing of value, the Copyright office will offer a definitive answer, though some have already proven a penchant to try and spin even that in favor of FICTION. Which BTW, I also knew would happen. None of any of this surprises me in the slightest, it does disappoint me greatly, but it does not surprise me and this is the kind of thing that will happen everytime the majority decides to follow the Whim of the Week, answers that are based purely on personal preference are never going to easily implemented. that si why IMDb is the wreck that it is. I do believe that the "poster data" is what the rule refers to and for DVD Profiler purposes it could be definitive. Well done, Skip. | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Get it right, Achim. ..... Remainder of quote removed out of respect for the many Skip-blockers. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah........ Pete has offered a clarification that he got directly from Ken that what the Rule is referring to when it says copyright data is actually the "credit block" on the back of the DVD. This is essentially the "Dan Rule". It is unfortunate that Ken created confusion in the Rules about where to look, by referring to copyright data, but it is clear from Pete's post what he actually intended. Pete, it might be worthwhile for you to actually post the direct quote if you have it in a PM from Ken. As usual, the majority of the community actually understood what was meant and where to look to see if the possessive was actually part of the title, but the same old miniscule minority is once again swimming upstream creating conflict and yet another useless debate while repeating the same crap over and over and over. This garbage is never going to end!  | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hal: It was you who had a big hand in starting it. you who has so much experience editing titles for the benefit of the Community and you who keeps make such unintelligent and insulting posts.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
You say "Poster data is what Skip calls the "credit block" on the back. That is the area where everyone understood Ken to get the "quoted Title"". Everyone??? I'm sorry, but when Ken says "copyright section", I take it to mean the copyright section. If he had meant "credit block" then he should ammend the rule to say so. The "credit block" and "copyright block" are two entirely seperate blocks. I'm in no way attempting to be a smart ass here, but you might as well completely ignore the whole rule if you're going to look at the tiny fineprint at the bottom of the rear cover. I can't say that I've ever seen the title down there so it would hardly be of any value to attempt to reference it. It seems odd to me that our first point of reference is an area that never provides the information required. Either Ken meant a different part of the rear cover when he said copyright, or he gave us a guideline that is completely useless. I know what I'm betting on. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Hal:
It was you ......... Remainder of quote removed out of respect for the many Skip-blockers. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah................. | | | | Hal |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,595 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
I'm in no way attempting to be a smart ass here, but you might as well completely ignore the whole rule if you're going to look at the tiny fineprint at the bottom of the rear cover. I can't say that I've ever seen the title down there so it would hardly be of any value to attempt to reference it.
It seems odd to me that our first point of reference is an area that never provides the information required. Either Ken meant a different part of the rear cover when he said copyright, or he gave us a guideline that is completely useless. I know what I'm betting on.
Never? I see the title of the film Mister Roberts in the Copyright Block.
 | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,433 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Never? I see the title of the film Mister Roberts in the Copyright Block. That's a good one! ...and even without the quotes  Oh, I love this. If this wasn't so sad, I'd be ROTFLMAO. | | | Achim [諾亞信； Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan.
Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ahhh, that's good. I don't have that movie, but that's a good one. Do I have to start posting reems of images where the title isn't at all mentioned in the copyright block, yet does appear in the credit block? |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | LOL, I keep telling myself nevere to say never or ALWAYS or any other DEFINITIVE comment. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...14 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |