| Invelos Forums->Posts by ObiKen |
Page:
1 2  Previous Next
|
| Message |
Details |
Quoting Wes Carpenter:
Quote:
Seriously guys? The end credits make a definite and first hand statement about the countries of origin (see the screenshot above), and you want to change that?
My understanding is the rule for country of origin states to use the production companies in the order they appear in the credits. | Posted: Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 12604 |  | Based on the sequence of production company names in the opening/end credits and copyright (see NOTES), I would list the companies and country of origin as follows:
STUDIOS
Columbia Pictures Industries
Eon Productions
Danjaq
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
United Kingdom
United States
Czech Republic
Hope that helps.
NOTES:
[1] Film credits and copyright:
00:03:48 > ALBERT R. BROCCOLI'S EON PRODUCTIONS LTD. presents
02:23:38 > Casino Royale © 2006 Danjaq, LLC, United Artists Corporation and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
02:24:21 > A UK - Czech - Ger - US Co-Production
A STILLKING • CASINO ROYALE PRODUCTIONS LTD • CASINO ROYALE US LLC • BABELSBERG FILM CO-PRODUCTION
Made by Eon Productions Ltd. and Casino Royale Productions Ltd.
02:24:27 > RELEASED BY COLUMBIA PICTURES
[2] Production companies in order of appearance:
• EON PRODUCTIONS LTD. ==> (UK): https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/00697555
• DANJAQ, LLC ==> (USA): https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/199701010026
• UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION (USA)
• COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES (USA)
• STILLKING FILMS ==> (Czech): https://filmcommission.cz/en/director/stillking-films/
• CASINO ROYALE PRODUCTIONS LTD ==> (UK): https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05507180
• CASINO ROYALE US LLC ==> (USA): https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/200528710065
• BABELSBERG FILM GmbH ==> (Germany): https://opencorporates.com/companies/de/G1312_HRB8051
[3] Film copyright displayed full company name for release studio tradename "Columbia Pictures":
https://uspto.report/TM/72441192 (rules state not to truncate the company name).
[4] Film's copyright registration (https://uspto.report/copyright/12124053) showed Danjaq, LLC, United Artists Corporation and Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. were "employers for hire", that is, they were the authors of the film, which makes them production companies as well. | Posted: Topic Replies: 13, Topic Views: 12604 | | My understanding is MGM's "VINTAGE CLASSICS" was a collection of classic films from the (1930s-60s), which was used to differentiate it from MGM's "CONTEMPORARY CLASSICS" collection of classic films from the (1960s-90s): https://dvd.fandom.com/wiki/MGM_Contemporary_Classics
• Here is a MGM VHS promo highlighting the two collections for sale (refer 1:22 mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st6NUj3AsCQ&ab_channel=VHSTRADERS
• Here is a MGM "Contemporary Classics" VHS promo (refer 0.55 - 1:02 mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mhpb4MpIrU&ab_channel=retroVHStrailers
The voiceover stated: "MGM Contemporary Classics. What great movies are all about. Collect them all"
Both VINTAGE CLASSICS and CONTEMPORARY CLASSICS were different collections of classic films from MGM's library, and the rules state collections can be considered for the edition field.
The rules do not state the word "Collection" must be part of the edition name. | Posted: Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 8203 | | Quoting GSyren:
Quote:
...
Secondly, nowhere on the cover does it actually say "MGM Vintage Classics". There is a Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer logo but it doesn't actually say "MGM" and it's clearly separated from "Vintage Classics".
...
The logo should not be considered as part of the edition.
Some of the earlier VHS tapes that used the same "VINTAGE CLASSICS" title had a MGM/UA logo, for example, "The Apartment":
DVD ==> https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-Jack-Lemmon/dp/B00003CX8V
VHS ==> https://www.amazon.com/Apartment-VHS-Jack-Lemmon/dp/6304308396
Interpreting Metro's "VINTAGE CLASSICS" range is similar to the way we treat STUDIOCANAL's range of "VINTAGE CLASSICS" films: https://vintageclassicsfilm.co.uk/
The only instance I've found where the edition is the logo and text is "20th Century Fox Cinema Archives", not "Cinema Archives". It is actually a registered trademark name: https://uspto.report/TM/85979859 | Posted: Topic Replies: 8, Topic Views: 8203 | | Quoting trystero:
Quote:
Some of the approved profiles specify Paramount Pictures as the Media Company, while others just use Paramount. I'd like to make them all consistent, but I'm not sure which entry to standardise on. The contribution rules suggest using the name from the logo (Paramount) or the credit block (Paramount Pictures), so there's some ambiguity as to which name is correct.
The rules state: "Some companies (using similar but different names) may serve more than one function. List such companies only once, using the name from the logo."
So what were the multiple company names listed on the back cover that triggered this rule?
I could only find one media company listed (copyrights by Paramount Pictures) at the bottom of the back cover.
In addition, isn't "Paramount" a truncation of "Paramount Pictures"?
The rules state: "Do not abbreviate Studio or Media Company names. e.g, use Universal Pictures not just Universal"
Just my two cents in the ambiguity slot machine. Hope it helps. | Posted: Topic Replies: 5, Topic Views: 5545 | | "48 HRS." is a registered trade mark by Paramount Pictures Corporation: https://uspto.report/TM/74014418
Here is a specimen example from the trademark registration: https://uspto.report/TM/74014418/SPE20110622140520#1
Please note the title for the sequel is displayed as "Another 48 HRS."
Accordingly, I voted "48 HRS." (and likewise for the sequel, "Another 48 HRS."). | Posted: Topic Replies: 4, Topic Views: 6699 | |
|
| Invelos Forums->Posts by ObiKen |
Page:
1 2 Previous Next
|