| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
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? Absolutely not. Ken needs to ammend the rule so that dumbasses like me don't confuse what he wrote with what he meant. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | midnit: The Copyright Office will give you the answer, just be warned it may not be the answer you would like it to be, or that I might like but it will be THE answer. As I have noted the Poster Block is not always correct and does not match the Copyrighted title. Skip  | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm perfectly fine with whatever the "answer" is. Just as long as it actually is the "answer". That's been my issue from the start. If the answer includes a possessive, then so be it. More often than not, the answer will not include the possessive which runs counter to the way some folks were previously interpreting titles. That doesn't mean that possessives will be completely purged from the database, nor should they. There are plenty of instances where the possessive is clearly part of the title. Same goes with quotes. Those are few as well, but there are titles out there that clearly include quotes.
Oh, and I agree that it would be nice if Ken either amended the language in the rule OR verified that the language he has used is indeed correct. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm amazed this wasn't pointed out when Ken asked for our opinion and help in wording the rule in the rules committee forum.  The only hint of it was when James said this (bold added by me): Quote:
Quoting gardibolt:
Quote:
So is it the copyright notice on the back of the case that controls...
It's my reading of the rule that the copyright notice is the credit block on the back cover. It seems to me that the rule is giving two ways (copyright notice and fonts) to determine the title without having to use an external source.
If the copyright notice isn't on the box and the font situation is unclear, I would think that an external source could be used to document the title. But that's just my interpretation.  It sure would have been nice if those who disagreed with James' interpretation would have spoken up then before Ken posted the new rule. Unfortunately they were too busy arguing about... wait for it... 'The Birds'.  As it sits right now I agree 100% with Max(except for the part about him being a dumbass. ) Quote:
Ken needs to ammend the rule so that dumbasses like me don't confuse what he wrote with what he meant. Unfortunately I have to agree with Hal as well : Quote:
This garbage is never going to end! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Rick:
All of this WAS pointed out by me, but sadly because some users such as yourself are far more interested in being disagreeable and drive by a desire to impose your preferences on the database so that you can get pre-packaged data to your liking then all of that was ignored.
I have previously and numerous times
referred to the Poster data and the fact it is not always accurate
I have acknowledged that MOST possessives are probably not valid legal titles
I have stated when others started talking about US Copyright site, that it is the only place to get the ACTUAL title as copyrighted
I have also stated that this far too complex a solution, and one that is not implemented easily by ALL users in ALL cases in EVERY instance
The end result here is that while the majority got their way, they have created a major MESS, and this will happen most of the time.
@ midnit
We want the same thing. Exactly.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | It doesn't seem like that major of a mess. Change copyright block to credit block and the mess is cleared up. Easy as pie.
It's inevitable that at least one title isn't 100% correct, but at least we will have a consistent, clear and unambiguous reference for title information. That beats what we had before, IMO. | | | | Last edited: by mdnitoil |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
As it sits right now I agree 100% with Max(except for the part about him being a dumbass. ) Thanks Rick. I appreciate that  . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mdnitoil: Quote:
It doesn't seem like that major of a mess. Change copyright block to credit block and the mess is cleared up. Easy as pie. I'm assuming someone said it was "a major mess" and you're not replying to me (the blocked user feature sometimes makes reading the forums a bit tricky  ) FWIW I agree that a simple re-wording and changing the words 'copyright section' to 'credit block' will solve the problem. As you say, easy as pie  mmmmm pie...... |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Rick:
All of this ...... Remainder of quote removed out of respect for the many Skip-blockers. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..... | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:
Quote:
It doesn't seem like that major of a mess. Change copyright block to credit block and the mess is cleared up. Easy as pie.
I'm assuming someone said it was "a major mess" and you're not replying to me (the blocked user feature sometimes makes reading the forums a bit tricky )
FWIW I agree that a simple re-wording and changing the words 'copyright section' to 'credit block' will solve the problem. As you say, easy as pie
mmmmm pie...... Oh...yeah, there was a mention of impending doom that you might have missed. Never say piece of cake. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 4,679 |
| | Posted: | | | | I can remember many times when Skip has chastised people for trying to follow the letter of the rules when Skip knew "the intent". Now Skip is trying to follow the letter of the rules when pretty much everyone else knows the intent. Why am I not surprised... | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | I just sent this PM to Ken: Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
In this thread, there's a controversy about the use of the phrase "copyright section" in the new title rule.
Below is a graphic prepared by 8ballmax of a DVD cover which shows a title in both what we call the credit block (or poster data) and also what we call the copyright block (or copyright section). Since the title is rarely in the copyright block, most of us assumed that you meant the credit block; however, of course, there are now users who won't consider data in the credit block as they feel they are strictly following your direct words to use only the copyright block.
Could you please clarify your rule by posting in the above thread or by amending the rule.
Here's the graphic:
Thanks for your help. Hope it's ok to use your graphic, 8ballmax. It illustrates the issue perfectly. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting m.cellophane: Quote:
Hope it's ok to use your graphic, 8ballmax. It illustrates the issue perfectly. No problem James...and thank you for your help in clearing this up . | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | This is going to be rich.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 168 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
I have previously and numerous times
referred to the Poster data and the fact it is not always accurate
I have acknowledged that MOST possessives are probably not valid legal titles
I have stated when others started talking about US Copyright site, that it is the only place to get the ACTUAL title as copyrightedI have also stated that this far too complex a solution, and one that is not implemented easily by ALL users in ALL cases in EVERY instance
The end result here is that while the majority got their way, they have created a major MESS, and this will happen most of the time.
Skip Bolding added by me. If that is what you stated, it sure smacks as a complete opposite of the flippant 'irrelavent' dismissal of my posting in the "The Bird's" thread when I'd cited the US Copyright Office's filing on it. I suppose it is only relavent when you want it to be. |
|
| Registered: March 24, 2007 |  Posts: 240 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
LOL, I keep telling myself nevere to say never or ALWAYS or any other DEFINITIVE comment.
Skip  The first DVD I looked at had the title [The Man With the Golden Gun] but most don't. Quite a few don't have the title in plain text anywhere on the back. | | | | Tom. |
|