| Author |
Message |
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote:
Benelux is the region name for The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. B.V. is the Dutch equivalent for LLC or Ltd. Both "Benelux" (locality suffix) and "B.V." (company suffix) are dropped per the rules. The correct name for the DVD publishing & distributing branch of Universal for the Dutch locality is simply "Universal Pictures". | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Corne:
Quote:
Benelux is the region name for The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. B.V. is the Dutch equivalent for LLC or Ltd.
Both "Benelux" (locality suffix) and "B.V." (company suffix) are dropped per the rules. The correct name for the DVD publishing & distributing branch of Universal for the Dutch locality is simply "Universal Pictures". I know that the suffixes should be removed, but I explained it for the non-europeans. Universal Studios should be entered as well. It is even credited as such. And what about Studio Canal? | | | | Cor |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote:
Universal Studios should be entered as well. It most certainly should not. Quote:
And what about Studio Canal? As far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't be listed as a media company either. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Corne:
Quote:
Universal Studios should be entered as well.
It most certainly should not.
Quote:
And what about Studio Canal?
As far as I'm concerned, that shouldn't be listed as a media company either. agreed | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Corne:
Quote:
Universal Studios should be entered as well.
It most certainly should not. "Distributed by Universal Studios" please explain to me why such a credit doesn't get a MC credit? | | | | Cor |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote:
"Distributed by Universal Studios" please explain to me why such a credit doesn't get a MC credit? IMHO, it's superseded by the more specific "Universal Pictures" credit later on in the same sentence. It's similar to the covers crediting both "Warner Bros. Entertainment" and "Warner Home Video", where again only the latter is the true media company we're after. We really don't need to list a dozen subsidiaries of the same company - we're just after the publishing/distributing arm of the company. For the Dutch locality, that's "Universal Pictures". Sure, it's all part of the worldwide "Universal Studios" conglomerate, but that's not what we're after here. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Corne:
Quote:
"Distributed by Universal Studios" please explain to me why such a credit doesn't get a MC credit?
IMHO, it's superseded by the more specific "Universal Pictures" credit later on in the same sentence. It's similar to the covers crediting both "Warner Bros. Entertainment" and "Warner Home Video", where again only the latter is the true media company we're after. We really don't need to list a dozen subsidiaries of the same company - we're just after the publishing/distributing arm of the company. For the Dutch locality, that's "Universal Pictures". Sure, it's all part of the worldwide "Universal Studios" conglomerate, but that's not what we're after here. Although I agree with you and your argumentation, the crediting is clear cut and the rules are written in such way that the entry of Universal Studios is allowed. I wasn't that much active on the forums when the MC was introduced. Why isn't the MC just called DVD Distributor? And wouldn't it make sense to add a sub-rule saying that if a distribution (MC) studio is credited more than once under different names only the distributing subsidiary should be contributed. | | | | Cor | | | | Last edited: by Corne |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 413 |
| | Posted: | | | | Finnish locality Jurassic Park box set has an identical (language-wise) copyright text block as seen in the first message.  However there is a second text block which says: "Distribution rights for program content and covers are owned by Universal Studios Finland". I believe that in this case there should not be any controversy about the MC. The first text block says nothing about MC. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote:
I've got a nice one from Universal:
EAN 5050582381993 (Region 2 - Netherlands) - Near Dark
In the copyright notice block it says:
Quote:
Distributed by Universal Studios. Available in the Benelux exclusively through Universal Pictures (Benelux), a division of Universal Pictures International B.V. Based on this information, 'Universal Pictures (Benelux)' would be the publisher and 'Universal Studios' would be the distributor. I would enter them both, in that order, minus the (benelux) of course. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Based on this information, 'Universal Pictures (Benelux)' would be the publisher and 'Universal Studios' would be the distributor. Except that it's not. Universal Studios is the film's current rights holder. Universal Pictures (without the locality suffix) is both the publisher and the distributor. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
Based on this information, 'Universal Pictures (Benelux)' would be the publisher and 'Universal Studios' would be the distributor.
Except that it's not. Universal Studios is the film's current rights holder. Universal Pictures (without the locality suffix) is both the publisher and the distributor. Not according to the text given by Corne. It, very clearly, says, "Distributed by Universal Studios" and I have no reason to doubt that statement. Please note, I am not saying you are wrong, that's just what the information tells me. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Please note, I am not saying you are wrong, that's just what the information tells me. That's indeed where the problems kick in - if the cover can't even get it right, then chances that we're going to get it right are pretty slim...  |
|
| Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Years ago we had a topic with the main studios. Why don't we make such a topic for the MCs divided by region and perhaps by locality too? I agree that crediting Universal more than once is a little overkill. In the Netherlands there are more examples, like RCV. Sometimes it's credited as RCV Entertainment, sometimes as RCV Sell Tru Entertainment and in rare cases even as RCV only. Now they renamed the company to E1 Entertainment making matters even more all over the place. And I repeat my questions that I've asked before:
Why isn't the MC just called DVD Distributor?
Wouldn't it make sense to add a sub-rule saying that if a distribution (MC) studio is credited more than once under different names only the distributing subsidiary should be contributed. | | | | Cor |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote:
Why isn't the MC just called DVD Distributor? This arose when some people wanted to track "The Criterion Collection", while the back cover actually stated "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment". To be able to allow for "The Criterion Collection" (being the company that actually put the disc together) to be tracked as well as the actual distributor, the field was named "media companies". Mostly, "publisher" (in this example: Criterion) and "distributor" (Buena Vista) are one and the same company, like Paramount Home Entertainment. But in cases where they're separate companies, people wanted to track them both. Quote:
Wouldn't it make sense to add a sub-rule saying that if a distribution (MC) studio is credited more than once under different names only the distributing subsidiary should be contributed. If you ask me, something like that would do a world of good, yes. RCV is a good example: they're all RCV-discs, no matter what little naming variations can be found in the small-print in the back cover. They all have the same big RCV logo both on the cover and the spine and appearing as an animated vignette on the screen when you put in the disc as well. I for one want to be able to have DVD Profiler show me all my RCV discs, just as I want it to be able to show my all my Universal discs, and so on. To do that, we should try to be consistent when entering this bit of data. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting T!M:
Quote:
Quoting TheMadMartian:
Quote:
Based on this information, 'Universal Pictures (Benelux)' would be the publisher and 'Universal Studios' would be the distributor.
Except that it's not. Universal Studios is the film's current rights holder. Universal Pictures (without the locality suffix) is both the publisher and the distributor.
Not according to the text given by Corne. It, very clearly, says, "Distributed by Universal Studios" and I have no reason to doubt that statement. Please note, I am not saying you are wrong, that's just what the information tells me. I won't tell you as I read it, suffice it to say it's different and as Tim noted therein lies the problem. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|