![](/images/MasterShadowLeftTop.gif) |
|
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 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
|
CoO of American Werewolf in London |
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Squirrel.God: Quote: Quoting northbloke:
Quote: Can we interest the US in "Up the Chastity Belt" as an exchange?
![](/images/emoticons/laugh.gif)
Quoting northbloke:
Quote:
Just noticed: someone is contributing the US disc with a CoO of US. Dare I vote no? ![](/images/emoticons/wink.gif)
It's that contribution which prompted me to start this thread to get some discussion and opinions flowing. There are zero contribution notes other than stating that the COO has been added. Yet it's not clear what the COO is and certainly not clear that it's United States. This whole issue is getting completely insane. I couldn't care less what anybody FEELS the CoO should be. The fact that Wingnut made LOTR in New Zealand, or Lycanthrope made AWIL in England is immaterial. Ownership is the key, and always has been. Here's one that oughta drive you touchy-feely types up a wall: "Children of Men" has just been released Tuesday. It was very obviously made in England, and I'm sure some of you will try to say the CoO should be England. Guess what? Here's what it says at the end of the credits from that movie: "Copyright 2006 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved. Country of first publication: United States of America. Universal Studios is the author for purposes of the Berne Convention and all national laws giving effect thereto. This motion picture is protected under the laws of United States and other countries..." Anybody want to try to tell me that the US isn't the CoO? | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! | | | Last edited: by Rifter |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 813 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote: This whole issue is getting completely insane. I couldn't care less what anybody FEELS the CoO should be. The fact that Wingnut made LOTR in New Zealand, or Lycanthrope made AWIL in England is immaterial. Ownership is the key, and always has been. Always has been? The field has only been there for 3 weeks and Invelos have not given a clear indication of it's usage in the rules?? The only statement was contradictory - use the country of the production company, but then gave an incorrect country for the film in question. Quote: Here's one that oughta drive you touchy-feely types up a wall: "Children of Men" has just been released Tuesday. It was very obviously made in England, and I'm sure some of you will try to say the CoO should be England. Guess what? Here's what it says at the end of the credits from that movie:
"Copyright 2006 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.
Country of first publication: United States of America.
Universal Studios is the author for purposes of the Berne Convention and all national laws giving effect thereto.
This motion picture is protected under the laws of United States and other countries..."
Anybody want to try to tell me that the US isn't the CoO? You really need to read the thread properly Rifter, with maybe one exception, noone has been saying that the CoO should reflect where a film was made, but the nationality of he production company. Nowhere has Invelos given any indication that Copyright holder is the deciding factor for CoO, despite all your repeated protestations that that is the only possible factor. As for Children of Men, you have not provided the relevant info to decide it as we would need the production company name and nationality - and I don't have time to look it up right now. | | | Andy ![](http://www.lopek.com/images/filmtv/calvinhobbes/hobbes.gif)
"Credited as" Names Database |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Lopek: Quote: Quoting Rifter:
Quote: This whole issue is getting completely insane. I couldn't care less what anybody FEELS the CoO should be. The fact that Wingnut made LOTR in New Zealand, or Lycanthrope made AWIL in England is immaterial. Ownership is the key, and always has been. Always has been? The field has only been there for 3 weeks and Invelos have not given a clear indication of it's usage in the rules?? The only statement was contradictory - use the country of the production company, but then gave an incorrect country for the film in question.
Quote: Here's one that oughta drive you touchy-feely types up a wall: "Children of Men" has just been released Tuesday. It was very obviously made in England, and I'm sure some of you will try to say the CoO should be England. Guess what? Here's what it says at the end of the credits from that movie:
"Copyright 2006 Universal Studios. All Rights Reserved.
Country of first publication: United States of America.
Universal Studios is the author for purposes of the Berne Convention and all national laws giving effect thereto.
This motion picture is protected under the laws of United States and other countries..."
Anybody want to try to tell me that the US isn't the CoO? You really need to read the thread properly Rifter, with maybe one exception, noone has been saying that the CoO should reflect where a film was made, but the nationality of he production company.
Nowhere has Invelos given any indication that Copyright holder is the deciding factor for CoO, despite all your repeated protestations that that is the only possible factor.
As for Children of Men, you have not provided the relevant info to decide it as we would need the production company name and nationality - and I don't have time to look it up right now. Doesn't matter if you have time or not. Won't change a thing. It isn't 'just' the copyright either. It's the whole thing. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 4,596 |
| Posted: | | | | "Children of Men" was produced by Strike Entertainment a US production company. | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 1,414 |
| Posted: | | | | From the Wisconsin Statutes (since I'm a lawyer in Wisconsin): Quote: 180.0401(1)(a) The corporate name of a corporation: 1. Shall contain the word "corporation", "incorporated", "company" or "limited" or the abbreviation "corp.", "inc.", "co." or "ltd." or words or abbreviations of like import in another language, except as provided in par. (b) or s. 180.1907. So limited is perfectly acceptable in US corporations. | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 3,435 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote: This whole issue is getting completely insane. I couldn't care less what anybody FEELS the CoO should be. The fact that Wingnut made LOTR in New Zealand, or Lycanthrope made AWIL in England is immaterial. Ownership is the key, and always has been. John, it has been pointed out to you several times, that the Production Company is the key, not the ownership. Do we need a vote? | | | Achim [諾亞信; Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan. Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Posts: 3,830 |
| Posted: | | | | remove the field CoO: problem solved | | | Sources for one or more of the changes and/or additions were not submitted. Please include the sources for your changes in the contribution notes, especially for cast and crew additions. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 3,435 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote: remove the field CoO: problem solved I really hope that won't be necessary... | | | Achim [諾亞信; Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan. Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Giga Wizard: Quote: remove the field CoO: problem solved That works for me. After all, I don't give a rodent's rump what the country of origin is as long as it has an R1 region code. If somebody wants to think a particular movie is British (or whatever) and its really a US movie, who cares? | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting ya_shin: Quote: Quoting Rifter:
Quote: This whole issue is getting completely insane. I couldn't care less what anybody FEELS the CoO should be. The fact that Wingnut made LOTR in New Zealand, or Lycanthrope made AWIL in England is immaterial. Ownership is the key, and always has been. John, it has been pointed out to you several times, that the Production Company is the key, not the ownership. Do we need a vote? Right. And exactly HOW do you determine what a production company is, and which one really did it, when you've got sixteen different definitions floating around? Hmmm. This whole thing is ludicrous. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| ![DVD Profiler Unlimited Registrant DVD Profiler Unlimited Registrant](/images/PUD.PNG) | JonM | Registered 28 Dec 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 343 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Right. And exactly HOW do you determine what a production company is, and which one really did it, when you've got sixteen different definitions floating around? Hmmm.
This whole thing is ludicrous. So ludicrous that we've reached the point of having to use crap analogies that try to over-simplify things. I apologise in advance. Let's say that I, British citizen, wish to write a book (I'm not telling you what that book is about for the purposes of this argument; it could be thriller, sci-fi, biography, whatever, set in any country or even language). But I can't afford paper or a printer, nor do I know any publishers. You, an American do have these things and pay for them. You also negotiate deals for printing and selling. It'll probably get sold in America first. It may even be about America. We both get stinking rich, but my British name is on the cover. You "own" the book, the rights, whatever, while I wrote the thing so it's my story and idea. In Book Profiler (which Ken is going to release on Monday ![](/images/emoticons/devilish.gif) ), what country goes in CoO? IMO, it should be UK. I know this is a rubbish example which will get torn wide open, and I'm not bothered if you agree with my opinion, I'm just trying to demonstrate that it is easy to ascertain who the artistic production company is. As easy as reasing an authors name and the blurb inside the cover. With the fishy and wolfy examples that have been argued about so far, it is obvious. | | | Jon "When Mister Safety Catch Is Not On, Mister Crossbow Is Not Your Friend."
![](http://www.jonmeakin.com/phpdvdprofiler/ws.php?me=jon) |
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 5,459 |
| Posted: | | | | That seems to make sense to me JonM, you could even add that the American paid you to write the book, it would still make the book a UK production. |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting JonM: Quote: Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
Right. And exactly HOW do you determine what a production company is, and which one really did it, when you've got sixteen different definitions floating around? Hmmm.
This whole thing is ludicrous.
So ludicrous that we've reached the point of having to use crap analogies that try to over-simplify things. I apologise in advance.
Let's say that I, British citizen, wish to write a book (I'm not telling you what that book is about for the purposes of this argument; it could be thriller, sci-fi, biography, whatever, set in any country or even language). But I can't afford paper or a printer, nor do I know any publishers. You, an American do have these things and pay for them. You also negotiate deals for printing and selling. It'll probably get sold in America first. It may even be about America. We both get stinking rich, but my British name is on the cover.
You "own" the book, the rights, whatever, while I wrote the thing so it's my story and idea. In Book Profiler (which Ken is going to release on Monday ), what country goes in CoO? IMO, it should be UK.
I know this is a rubbish example which will get torn wide open, and I'm not bothered if you agree with my opinion, I'm just trying to demonstrate that it is easy to ascertain who the artistic production company is. As easy as reasing an authors name and the blurb inside the cover. With the fishy and wolfy examples that have been argued about so far, it is obvious. But this discussion has never been about artistic production, nor did the comment from Gerri address that. It is about the 'production company of record.' Take LOTR, for example. I greatly admire Peter Jackson's talent and artistic sense - LOTR and Kong are two of my favorites. But without New Line, his artistic talent would be worth didly, and those movies would never have been made. New Line "produced" Lord of the Rings by ' producing' the money that enabled Peter Jackson and Wingnut to do the work. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 3,435 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote: But this discussion has never been about artistic production, nor did the comment from Gerri address that. It is about the 'production company of record.' Take LOTR, for example. I greatly admire Peter Jackson's talent and artistic sense - LOTR and Kong are two of my favorites. But without New Line, his artistic talent would be worth didly, and those movies would never have been made. New Line "produced" Lord of the Rings by 'producing' the money that enabled Peter Jackson and Wingnut to do the work. I thought it was already established earlier in this thread, that in fact it was Peter Jackson and WingNut film being the driving force behind the project and if New Line hadn't bought the rights for him, somebody else might have... But I may have misunderstood that part of the discussion. | | | Achim [諾亞信; Ya-Shin//Nuo], a German in Taiwan. Registered: May 29, 2000 (at InterVocative) |
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation: ![High Rating](/images/Ratings/Small/1.png) | Posts: 5,459 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote: But without New Line, his artistic talent would be worth didly, and those movies would never have been made. New Line "produced" Lord of the Rings by 'producing' the money that enabled Peter Jackson and Wingnut to do the work. That's not strictly true. It's already been stated that Peter Jackson took LoTR to New Line, not the other way round. So it's safe to assume if New Line hadn't paid for it, someone else could have. And a film producer doesn't produce the money, they manage it. I've just realised - how have we ended up discussing LoTR in an American Werewolf thread? | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
| ![DVD Profiler Unlimited Registrant DVD Profiler Unlimited Registrant](/images/PUD.PNG) | JonM | Registered 28 Dec 2000 |
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 343 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote: But this discussion has never been about artistic production, nor did the comment from Gerri address that. It is about the 'production company of record.' Take LOTR, for example. I greatly admire Peter Jackson's talent and artistic sense - LOTR and Kong are two of my favorites. But without New Line, his artistic talent would be worth didly, and those movies would never have been made. New Line "produced" Lord of the Rings by 'producing' the money that enabled Peter Jackson and Wingnut to do the work. The discussion for me has always been about whether or not CoO should be the artistic source or the copyright owner. If it's the copyright owner, I would find the data ultimately useless. As I said in the thread I started, it may so often be US ownership of many worldwide productions, simply because they are willing to pay for them. Which is a good thing, but look at this list (I've added a couple of obvious US to beef it up): Taxi Driver - US An American Werewolf in London - US Godfather - US A Fish Called Wanda - US LoTR - US What's the point? Boring data just listing copyright owners. Most of the list will have "US". IMO, this version is far more interesting and relevant to the content: Taxi Driver - US An American Werewolf in London - UK Godfather - US A Fish Called Wanda - UK LoTR - New Zealand | | | Jon "When Mister Safety Catch Is Not On, Mister Crossbow Is Not Your Friend."
![](http://www.jonmeakin.com/phpdvdprofiler/ws.php?me=jon) |
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![](/images/MasterShadowRightTop.gif) |