Quote:

---

The / is there for a purpose. To separate the author text from the title proper.

---

rotfl

You can't have it both ways. "If it wasn't meant to be part of the title, it wouldn't be there...except for those things that are there that I say aren't part of the title."

Quote:

---

Dude, use some common sense. Look up the copyright any book. The title field contains the Title and the Author. You know as well as I do what the heck a title is and what an author is.

---

By "look up the copyright in any book," are you telling me to look at the copyright notice in, say, a novel? Copyright notices don't have title and author fields, they just list the copyright date and the copyright holder.

Instead of cluelessly demanding that I use common sense, I humbly suggest you actually get a real world clue about the things you're making claims about. If you're going to base your argument on a legal document such as a copyright registration, you have to understand and accept the meanings and effects of elements of those documents. You can't randomly decide that the "TITLE" field contains the official title, but then decide to chop off parts of it that you don't like. Either the copyright registration contains the proper title within the "TITLE" field or it doesn't; you can't have it both ways.

Quote:

---

Normally, I'd agree with you on such a line. But the name is there. It's on ALL the licensed merchandice and ALL the official references to it. It's all over the DVD. It's not like there is some doubt caused by inconsistant use of the title. The use of the full title by Disney and Touchstone is consistant. It's not a vanity tag, it's marketing.

---

That's certainly a much better argument than that it happens to be contained within the copyright registration.

Quote:

---

Our stories are similar enough to not matter. "Paperwork" or not, the fact is the copyright was on the wrong title. The film itself had been submitted. The title was changed without the proper copyright so the film fell into public domain. My whole point (without spltting hairs over the details) was that the title identifying the specific movie does has some importance.

---

But they're not similar enough at all. In my story (aka the truth) the title is irrelevant. It just so happened that, because it was the style at the time, the copyright notice was originally contained on the title card of the film. These days, copyright notices are usually contained at the end of the closing credits. The same thing would've happened to Romero had the distributor modified the end credits and forgotten to reinstate the copyright notice. The title's function as identifying the movie is completely irrelevant to why the film became public domain. It doesn't matter that the title was changed, it only matters that the copyright notice was dropped; it's simply coincidence that the copyright notice was originally contained on the title card.

Quote:

---

So in conclusion, what are you basing your position on?

---

What position? My only position has been that the title field of a copyright registration does not necessarily provide conclusive evidence of what the official title of a film is (and, earlier, that it's not particularly rare for a producer to have a vanity credit).

Quote:

---

An assumption? I've submitted legal evidence and a challenge. Can you find any official notation of the film that is not an obvious abbreviation (like "Nightmare") that does not refer to the complete title? Or even any inconsistant use of the full title on packaging for the movie, merchandice, promotional material, etc.? I'm not talking informal use, like, say, an interview with Tim Burton. I'm talking official use. If you can, then we might have a real argument. So far I don't see it.

---

Given that I've never argued that Tim Burton's vanity credit is not part of the official title, I have no desire or need to find any such evidence. In your zeal to defend yourself, you don't even know what it is that we're disagreeing about...

DJ

Somewhere, Sam Raimi is reading this, and his initial amusement has now turned to pity at how seriously you're taking the bloody TITLE...

Whoa. I said look up the copyright notice on any book meaning the Library of Congress site (short of getting on a plane to D.C. and looking it up, photocopying and mailing it to you, the website is the best I can do). I even gave an example of what I was talking about. Notice the JK Rowling Harry Potter book. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban / by J. K. Rowling ; ill. by Mary GrandPre". That is the form they are using. The title is before the slash, the author is after the slash. I have yet to see a book in the book store or even a movie that states its title with a slash like that or that all books include the author and illustrator in the title (which is what you are inferring). Please read me a little closer. I am not demanding you use common sense to agree with my argument or even the validity of my argument. I asked you to use common sense in reading the format the copyright notice is written in. It's not "having it both ways". It's simple punctuation. Considering that it is a misunderstanding, we don't need to resort to calling people "clueless". (added) Your whole point seemed to be I would think it fairly obvious that this is a digest of the info on that form and not the form itself. I haven't worked on as many copyright registrations as you, but I know how to read English. Tell ya what. Look up a book (or movie) copyright on the library of congress site that you filled out and see if it digested all the info from the separate Title and Author fields on the same line or not.

Also, you seem to be more agreeable to my point about the consistant use of the full title in any and all official references to the film as contrasted with my copyright notice point. See, what I am doing is trying to make my point by using as many sources of evidence as I can. One is the observation that Disney consistantly uses the full title. Another is the copyright notice, which is as official a reference as I can muster up short of a hand-delivered letter from Disney company itself. Someone representing the film and the entity that made it had to actually file a piece of paper to a legal office identifying the film by a certain title for a legal document. Is it "definitive"? Maybe, maybe not, but it's on a legal document submitted by the studio to identify the film. A reasonable search of other titles shows that it is not a common form for a title. The only time it is used is when they are going for something specific (like putting Dr Seuss's name in a title or Andy Warhol's) in evoking the creator's name for some marketing purpose rather than just a {vanity} credit. It's more like a brand name than a credit. Anyway, these things add up and when taken all together give a reasonably cogent stand for my assertion that the full title is indeed, "Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas".

Ugh. Ok, Whatever. You jumped in on it. If you caught something you didn't deserve, I apologize. Like I said, I was just trying to prove my argument by introducing as much evidence as I could. Several people have chimed in with different points. I'm only arguing the ones I feel I can prove. The copyright argument was just part of my total argument and still hasn't really been refuted, just gainsaid. If it isn't as close to official as is possible, I don't know what else is. You can't go by the director or writer. Stephen King insisted when promoting "Maximum Overdrive" that it was just "Overdrive" but he conceded he was overridden by the studio. My favorite film is Jack Hill's Spider Baby but his original title was Cannibal Orgy: or the Maddest Story Ever Told. Ask him today what the title is, he'll say the title the distributor imposed on it: "Spider Baby". I know films like "Pretty Woman" were made under different title and then the studio retitled them after popular songs. Ask the writer, he might call it by the original title but you won't get it at Blockbuster by asking for "$3000". The studio pays for it, the studio gets to name it. The closest to an official (if not definitive) title has to be the onscreen title and the copyright notice. The lines get blurred on onscreen titles thanks to vanity credits and "creative titles" but every film has its title somewhere on the print (don't bring up Apocalypse Now, because that is an exception on one format-and he caught flack for it, too), so next one has to go to the copyright notice. And you are correct, the copyright notice does not determine "credits," vanity or otherwise. I believe union rules do that. But it does identify a particular film with a particular title. Who's really to say it's official or not? All I know is that it is codified. In America, we don't go by common law. Our law is codified. You say you have copyright experience. I bet you that in a court of law that copyright will beat an average Joe and his "word for it" if it comes to a court case.


By the way, I usually don't argue points this far. It's all in good fun and you have to admit it's slightly interesting. Only when I am repeatedly challenged on something I believe I am correct in do I feel the need to defend myself or my position. If I'm wrong, I humbly concede.


As far as the Romero/Night of the Living Dead. I used to use your same argument about the copyright notice being cut off the film and got excoriated for it in a forum (people love to jump on the slightest error). As is my usual recourse when I feel I am correct, I researched it and found the George Romero quote (and admitted to such). It backed up the other story. Like I said, yeah, I've heard your version before. I wouldn't churlishly call my version "the truth" without something to back it up. I gave you the man, himself. He says that they mistakenly filed the copyright on the wrong title. Tell you what, he is schedualled to be in Columbus at a 24 hour horror Marathon in October ( http://www.studio35.com/horror/ ) and I'll ask him to explain it definitively. That forum on the page I linked to will have my witnesses.

I see.

Quote:

---

I even gave an example of what I was talking about. Notice the JK Rowling Harry Potter book. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban / by J. K. Rowling ; ill. by Mary GrandPre". That is the form they are using. The title is before the slash, the author is after the slash. I have yet to see a book in the book store or even a movie that states its title with a slash like that or that all books include the author and illustrator in the title (which is what you are inferring).

---

Thanks for proving my point: the title as listed on a copyright registration isn't necessarily the official title of a work.

Quote:

---

I asked you to use common sense in reading the format the copyright notice is written in.

---

Both common sense and a solid knowledge of copyright law tell me that anything and everything listed in the "TITLE" field of a copyright registration is the title of the work for purposes of registration in the Copyright Office. Common sense also tells me the title of a work as listed on a copyright registration bears no necessary relationship to the "official" title of a work, as the title as listed on the registration may well be overinclusive and list words that are not part of the "official" title.

Quote:

---

It's not "having it both ways". It's simple punctuation.

---

And "TITLE" is a simple category that includes all of the words put into it. That simple punctuation is, simply, included as part of the title. The copyright registration gives no special significance to the slash; it's simply true that the slash and all the words in the field that follow it are part of the title for registration purposes.

Quote:

---

In America, we don't go by common law.

---

In large part, we certainly do go by common law. Louisiana aside, we have a common law system derived from the English system (hence generally referred to as the Anglo-American system). This is direct opposition to the civil law system, which is prominent throughout much of the rest of the world (and Louisiana). American courts create, refine, uphold, and overturn common law in courts throughout this country every day. Our common law system, unlike a civil law system gives precedential value to the opinions of our courts.

Quote:

---

Our law is codified.

---

Some of it is, but much of it is not.

Quote:

---

You say you have copyright experience. I bet you that in a court of law that copyright will beat an average Joe and his "word for it" if it comes to a court case.

---

What in the world sort of suit would this be? Who would be suing who over what the title of a copyrighted work is and why?

Quote:

---

If I'm wrong, I humbly concede.

---

I'll believe that one when I see it...

Quote:

---

As far as the Romero/Night of the Living Dead. I used to use your same argument about the copyright notice being cut off the film and got excoriated for it in a forum (people love to jump on the slightest error). As is my usual recourse when I feel I am correct, I researched it and found the George Romero quote (and admitted to such). It backed up the other story. Like I said, yeah, I've heard your version before. I wouldn't churlishly call my version "the truth" without something to back it up. I gave you the man, himself. He says that they mistakenly filed the copyright on the wrong title.

---

No, he didn't. And, indeed, the interview that you quoted from backs me up entirely. What are you confused about? Here are the exact words from your quoted interview: "we had misguidedly placed our copyright notice on the original title." This is exactly what I have said: they put the copyright notice on the original title card; when that title card was changed, the copyright notice was not reinstated. Do you know the difference between a copyright notice and a copyright registration? A copyright notice is, for example, putting "(C) 2003 Damin J. Toell" on a book or putting "(C) 1968 Image Ten" on a film. A copyright registration, on the other hand, is the filing of a document with the U.S. Copyright Office. They're very different things. Romero clearly speaks only about the removal of a copyright notice and says nothing about any sort of filing or registration. I don't know why you don't even believe the interview that you yourself have quoted from as proof.

In addition to all of this, the law itself backs up my "story." In 1968, when the 1909 Copyright Act was still in effect, publication of a work without a copyright notice automatically put that work into the public domain, pretty much irretrievably. On the other hand, an error in the title of the work as registered in the Copyright Office was and is generally immaterial, unless somehow the change in title would have resulted in the work not being eligible for copyright protection whatsoever (a situation which does not exist with regard to the title change on NOTLD). The title of a work can be pretty much anything the copyright holder wants (although obviously customs exist with regard to the titling methodology of many types of works); the title can be non-descriptive or even just a series of letters and/or numbers. And, indeed, the title (as well as other elements of a copyright registration) may be modified via a supplementary registration. Such a change in title will not result in the work falling into the public domain (unless some problem inherent to the title itself causes the work to be uncopyrightable). Changing the title on the film before filing a supplementary registration will also not cause the work to fall into the public domain. Under the 1909 Act, Romero and company had 28 years to file a supplementary registration; if the problem was that they originally registered under the wrong title, they could've corrected that problem up until 1996.

Both Romero's own words and copyright law make it clear: the reason that NOTLD fell into the public domain was because it lacked a copyright notice.

Quote:

---

Tell you what, he is schedualled to be in Columbus at a 24 hour horror Marathon in October ( http://www.studio35.com/horror/ ) and I'll ask him to explain it definitively. That forum on the page I linked to will have my witnesses.

---

I've already met Mr. Romero and have heard the story first-hand from him. If you'd like to have him tell the story for the millionth time even though you've already read it, knock yourself out.

DJ

Shouldn't it say "Title/Author:"

What about Face/Off
does that mean the movie is called Face?

So if the official title is tim burton's nightmare before christmas, then that should mean I would be able to write a movie and call it Nightmare before Christmas with no trouble at all, right??

the reason they say bram stroker's and mary reilly's dracula, frankenstein is to just distinguish them from the endless # of films with the same title, and or subject.





when in doubt just check imdb.com

:)

The registered title for that film is actually "Face/off / aDouglas/Reuther production ; aAWCG Entertainment Production ; a aDavid Permut production ; directed by aJohn Woo."

Quote:

---

So if the official title is tim burton's nightmare before christmas, then that should mean I would be able to write a movie and call it Nightmare before Christmas with no trouble at all, right??

---

That would be a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. And, no, I wouldn't suggest doing that. :)

DJ

"uncle".


All of this minutia still hasn't refuted anything. If you want to stand on the legal technicality that that line is the full registered title for the purposes of the copyright, then we can do that. I'll bite. The sky isn't blue, it appears that way because of the way light is refracted through the atmosphere. The rose isn't red, it just absorbs the spectrum reflecting red which our brains perceive as "red" and some poor sap who's color blind doesn't even see that (ok, we don't need any digression on that. it's a joke). Fine. I assumed too much. I guess I'm too inexperienced to be able to extract from that any useful information about the title and author from the format of the full copyright title. I mean, I've never filled out the form, what do I know?

What has been proven? That the copyright registered title doesn't necessarily reflect the actual title...becaaaause it contains the author's (production company's) name in the title field along with the illustrator/director? Um. Ok. I guess I proved your point that the title has a slash that divides what is traditionally viewed as "a title" and "an author". So I can't use that whatsoever to back up my claim that Burton's name is part of the title. I'll drop that as a formal proof, but still keep it as "informal" one. It still shows someone, be it a lawyer or whatever, had some hint that it be part of the title, backed up by the consistent use of the full title by Disney. While in of itself, it doesn't prove it, it still backs the other evidence up.



I'll just leave old George alone, too. I've argued your point before and been yelled at and taken the other story and been yelled at. There's always someone ready to come out of the woodwork with his take on it.

For the record, I did find this, which bears us both out.
It shows that when there IS a discrepency on the "legal title" and the "actual title" there is a field for that.