| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | So what is it in Media Companies, or should either even be added?
MGM DVD and Blu-rays are currently distributed by Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment.
On the back covers it then always shows: Package Design © (20**) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios
The only MGM logo shown on the package is just that... a standard Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer lion trademark logo.
"MGM Home Entertainment" hasn't been shown or spelled out anywhere on the releases/packaging since Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment began distributing them.
What's the general consensus here... Do we overlook that Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment does appear and is spelled out, but invent MGM Home Entertainment? | | | | Corey |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,199 |
| | Posted: | | | | MGM was the original studio, and still holds the copyright for the artwork, but is neither the Publisher, Licensor or Distributor. Because of that, they should not be entered at all.
Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment is the proper MC. | | | 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 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 3,188 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree, I don't think we credit package design (yet). | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | From the info given in the OP I have to agree with E.T.
"Package Design" doesn't mean "Distributed By" so a definite "No" for "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios". | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Metro Goldwyn Studios makes movies. MGM Home Entertainment distributes DVDs, two entirely different functions. So the poll is invalid | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,544 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
MGM was the original studio, and still holds the copyright for the artwork, but is neither the Publisher, Licensor or Distributor. Because of that, they should not be entered at all.
Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment is the proper MC. This. |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,601 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's clear that 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment is the distributor but what about MGM? Do we know who the publisher is and whether it's MGM for Fox? The rules mention the publisher is "The company(ies) responsible for the publishing (creating, assembling and ordering of the DVD/HD/BD content)..." So, do we know whether this was Fox or are they solely the distributor? Did MGM create, assemble and order the BD content? The rules mention for Publisher ... "often containing the words "home video" or "home entertainment"." Although they may often contain those words they might not either in every case. We do know MGM is having Fox distribute these titles for MGM. What's not clear is who is creating the content for the BDs. Given that the back cover states "Package Design © 20xx Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios" and the disc states "Design © 20xx Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios" it would seem that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios is the actual publisher. Quote:
Media Companies
The company(ies) responsible for the publishing (creating, assembling and ordering of the DVD/HD/BD content) and/or physical distribution of the media.
Enter in the following order:
• Publisher (Content) - Usually found as a logo on the bottom of the back cover or in the credit block, often containing the words "home video" or "home entertainment. Secondary publishers (eg. The Criterion Collection's Eclipse label) may also be listed. | | | | Last edited: by rdodolak |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 553 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm in strong favor of including "Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Studios" in the media companies field as the media publisher and/or licensor. As you quoted, and I'll quote it again, the rules state: Quote:
Publisher (Content) - Usually found as a logo on the bottom of the back cover or in the credit block, often containing the words "home video" or "home entertainment. Secondary publishers (eg. The Criterion Collection's Eclipse label) may also be listed. MGM fits these rules. MGM's logo is on the bottom back cover. It doesn't include the words "home entertainment" but the rules make note that publishers don't always do. On these releases, the MGM logo takes precedence over Fox's own logo. The MGM logo is in the same spot on the back where the Fox logo would be on Fox's own titles, and the Fox's logo is displaced to the right. As to whether MGM actually publishes the content on the discs, I believe they do at the very least for their catalog titles. Since they filed for bankruptcy in 2009, their Blu-ray releases have included very generic gray pop-up menus. Many of these discs do not even include a main menu. Taking a look at Fox's own catalog titles released day-and-date with MGM's, you'll see Fox's discs have their own unique menu navigation which is often customized to each film. Quote:
Licensor (Home Video Rights) - Usually found (dated with the year of the DVD release) on the back of the box or in the credit block with words words regarding "under license from...". The back covers do not make any mention of a licensor. But Fox clearly does not own the rights to these titles, and MGM is the copyright holder, so MGM is technically the licensor even if it's not explicitly stated. I believe the details of their distribution agreement with Fox should be enough to warrant at the very least a licensor credit. In the "About Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC" section of the press release, it states "[Fox] also releases all products globally for MGM Home Entertainment." Their distribution deal ends in 3 years, at which time MGM will either renew (as they did in 2011) or move to another distributor. Another issue is that much of MGM's catalog was not actually produced by MGM. MGM's own pre-1986 catalog (movies like Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Singin' in the Rain) was purchased by Ted Turner and now resides at Time Warner. Much of MGM's current holdings consist of titles produced by United Artists and Orion, which they purchased after those companies went under. In these cases, MGM doesn't follow Invelos' definition of a studio, so media company would be the only place to put them. With regards to this thread's title question of whether to list them as Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Studios or Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Home Entertainment, since the words "Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Home Entertainment" do not appear on these releases, I'm inclined to go for "Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Studios" which does appear as copyright holder and for package design (although this designation itself is not tracked). "Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Home Entertainment" appears to no longer be in use. | | | My DVD/Blu-ray Collection
My Letterboxd Page | | | | Last edited: by Rizor |
|
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,601 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rizor: Quote:
The back covers do not make any mention of a licensor. But Fox clearly does not own the rights to these titles, and MGM is the copyright holder, so MGM is technically the licensor even if it's not explicitly stated. I believe the details of their distribution agreement with Fox should be enough to warrant at the very least a licensor credit. In the "About Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC" section of the press release, it states "[Fox] also releases all products globally for MGM Home Entertainment." Their distribution deal ends in 3 years, at which time MGM will either renew (as they did in 2011) or move to another distributor. As you mentioned, MGM is the copyright holder and owns the rights to these files. The rights holder can license out the work they hold rights to which in this case would be MGM Studios. In general, licensees can't sub-license out the work unless they have been granted those specific rights by the licensor. In addition, here's a screen capture of the warning statement on the WarGames Blu-ray disc.  As you can see it mentions "the copyright holder has licensed this disc (including its soundtrack) for private home use only." In order to license there must be a licensor. Further, it states "This disc is not to be exported, distributed and/or sold by way of trade without a proper license from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc." Thus as we see here MGM Studios is the licensor according to the previous quote. | | | | Last edited: by rdodolak |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 553 |
| |
  | Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 |  Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | | Cor | | | | Last edited: by Corne |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,188 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree that IF (and that's still a pretty big if imho) MGM should get an MC credit it should be as Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios like the writing on the package. One of the reasons I only wanted a distributor field in the first place and not this needlessly complicated mess we ended up with instead... *sigh* Who is this Meyer anyway?  | | | | First registered: February 15, 2002 |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,667 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Corne: Quote:
MGM is the actual copyright holder. It is indeed - MGM is the copyright holder of the film, nobody's disputing that. The question is: does something fickle as being the film's current (!) copyright holder (these things can, and often do, change over time) qualify for a Media Company entry? |
|
| Corne | | Registered: Nov. 1, 2000 |
| Registered: April 5, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | This: Quoting rdodolak: Quote:
"the copyright holder has licensed this disc (including its soundtrack) for private home use only." In order to license there must be a licensor.
Further, it states "This disc is not to be exported, distributed and/or sold by way of trade without a proper license from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc." Thus as we see here MGM Studios is the licensor according to the previous quote. | | | | Cor |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting Corne:
Quote:
MGM is the actual copyright holder.
It is indeed - MGM is the copyright holder of the film, nobody's disputing that. The question is: does something fickle as being the film's current (!) copyright holder (these things can, and often do, change over time) qualify for a Media Company entry? The copyright holder is the licensor – they own the rights and licensed it to another company. MGM used to license their films out to Sony Pictures Home Entertainment several years ago. It is helpful to list these companies because licenses can expire and rights can revert back, making the discs go out of print. The impetus for keeping track of the licensor in the early days of writing the rule was The Criterion Collection. They licensed a whole bunch of films from StudioCanal that went out of print when the company made a new deal with Lionsgate. This meant that you needed to keep an eye on all other StudioCanal controlled-titles to see what other rights might expire. Hence, the lcensor field was added to the rules. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | On the recent licensed MGM titles to Shout! Factory, this appears on the back cover text:
"under license from Twentith Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc." | | | | Corey |
|