bruce campbell vs the army of darkness has appeared to be a title/or alternate title since the film was released

i'm not into alphabetizing my dvd's but yes that is a "B" movie.

Tim Burton's Nightmare before Christmas is also the complete title--- Nightmare before christmas is the wrong title

Walt Disney presents, or Walt Disney's- are also the correct titles for a number of disney films

Ah, yeah. They made the subsequent titles less awkward.

I like to place all my DVD's randomly on the shelf, and mix them up every week!

Under those rules, I'd like to present a list of some of the movies in my collection:
Jules Verne's 20000 Leagues Under the Sea Color by Technicolor
Columbia Pictures Corporation Presents The 27th Day
Leo McCarey's An Affair to Remember
Irving Stone's The Agony and the Ecstasy
Peter Shaffer's Amadeus
Rene Clair's And Then There Were None From the Novel by Agatha Christie
Erich Maria Remarque's Arch of Triumph
Frank Capra's Arsenic and Old Lace
Joseph M Schenck Offers Roland West's The Bat Whispers With Chester Morris
Lars Von Trier Breaking the Waves
David Cronenberg's The Brood
RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. Presents Cat People
Twentieth Century Fox Presents the Day the Earth Stood Still
Ian Fleming's Dr No
Fantastic Voyage Fantastic Voyage Fantastic Voyage
Dashiell Hammett's The Glass Key
Carl Foreman's Production the Guns of Navarone
(okay they get the idea)

And one of my favorites:
Cemetery An

Why do I never hear these movies referred to by their full titles?

I thought I'd already explained and conceded that one. It's marketing. Sometimes it's part of the title, sometimes it is just an attribution. The only director that I know of that has his name as an official part of the title was Fellini. Some films however do use the author/creator's name as part of the title. Bram Stoker's Dracula, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Frank Herbert's Dune, are all the actual titles. Disney does use the Disney name in the titles on occasion. The animated films are not, but "Disney's The Kid" is. That was in the news for some reason. I can't remember why, because you can't copyright a title like that but it had something to do with the Chaplin estate fussing. They comprimised by calling it Disney's the Kid.
Tim Burton's Name is part of the marketing of that picture. They were specifically trying to use his name to evoke him. I know you can say that about all those you listed, but I still stand by this one. Just an observation: All the packaging, the posters, the merchandice, and all official references refer to it as Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. Is there any licenced use that does not refer to it by the full title? If there were, there might be some doubt. Other than obvious abbreviations (like calling it Nightmare), of course. In researching it (as far as is possible to online) anyone that ever bothers to point it out points it out as "the full title", including IMDB, Amazon and Roger Ebert. No, it's not incontravertable proof, but other than when the average Joe refers to it, it's always referred to with Tim Burton's name. The others are arguable, but I don't believe this one is.


By the way, if I haven't been clear, I concede the Army of Darkness title as a joke. The "Abbott and Costello"s became the actual titles but I don't think they really put too much thought into the awkwardness of the posted "but official" title for BA LC Meet Frankenstein. I'm sure no one intended it to be literally called "Meet Frankenstein".
And we have a confirmation on the Apocalypse Now title being before the final credits.

Oh, just for S&G's I went to www.loc.gov and clicked on the links to copyright research and found that the legal title is indeed "Tim Burton's the Nightmare Before Christmas". On some merch, they list Nightmare Before Christmas, but on anything referring directly to the film, like posters, press kits, books, etc, it lists it as Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas ("the" is commonly left off, but it's still part of the title).


Army of Darkness is listed as just that.

It should also be noted that much like "a", "an" or "the", it's just flat-out proper alphabetizing to not include the author's possessory credit, end of story.

That's absolutely right. However, Tim Burton's name is part of the title and is not a possessory credit. He neither wrote nor directed it. It is represented as "his imagination" or "his nightmare", if you will. I looked up other titles in the Library of congress copyright database at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ and none of them included possessory credits as part of the title. Tim Burton's the Nightmare Before Christmas did.

End of story, indeed.

But he did write the story and produce it. Producers often get such vanity credits; see, for example: Wes Craven's Wishmaster.

DJ

Yeah, "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" would be alphabetized under "B". "Tim Burton's 'The Nightmare Before Christmas'" would be alphabetized under "N" because "Tim Burton's..." is a possessory credi and not an actual part of the title, regardless of his involvement in the movie (which was still considerable in the case of "TNBC").

Ok, I guess I'll have to bring out the big guns.


The Wes Craven Presents was vanity but is not on the copyright paperwork as the title.

Bruce Campbell vs. is indeed a joke and not official.

And finally, Ta Da!

I can't put in in a prettier bow than that.


I rest my case.

But your "big guns" are just what the attorneys working the for the studios happened to put on the copyright registration paperwork, which may or may not represent what the filmmakers or even the studio actually consider to be the proper title for the film. And, of course, you're ignoring all of the text after the "/", which is also listed as part of the title.

DJ

I'm sure that every director has a secret pet name for his project that got changed by the studio (like all those films named after popular songs) but that doesn't make it the title. And exactly why would a studio let a lawyer go willy nilly into a copyright office and make up any name he chooses on a whim? The whole reason you copyright a film is to protect it legally. The title it is copyrighted under officially identifies the film being protected. I'm sorry, but I'm going to call that line of logic silly. (*added) A quick look on the Wishmaster Copyright says it was originally submitted as "Genie". At some point they dropped the original title and made it Wishmaster, officially. I'd think if TBNBC did something like that, it would have been noted there, maybe.

And I am ignoring the text after the "/" !? Whoa! Come on. Admit when you are wrong. I did about the Bruce Campbell thing. The title is before the slash and the text after the slash further identifies the party who produced it then after the semi colon is the director. It's punctuation on a legal document. It's just like the slash after dvdtalk.com/forum.

I give up. I've given as close to a legal document as is possible. If you still don't want to believe it, then there's not much I can do. I don't see how you can get much more official than how the film is actually registered under the law that protects them in case of a violation of their property rights.

Ask George Romero how important that is. The reason Night of the Living Dead is in public domain is the original title was Night of the Flesh Eaters (Or Night of Anubis- I can't recall exactly which one). The distribution company changed the name to Night of the Living Dead but didn't resubmit the paperwork with the proper title so it fell into PD.

It's not a matter of lawyers going "willy nilly," it a matter of whether or not to trust the decision of lawyers on hair-splitting issues like whether Tim Burton's credit on TNBC is "just" a vanity credit or of it's part of the "real" title. The decision (if one was made at all) by Disney's in-house attorneys with regard to TNBC on that issue may not actually represent the studio's official stance or Henry Selick's or Tim Burton's (or anyone else involved) view on what the "real" title is.

You may call this line of logic silly, but I call it the real world. I have worked with the in-house counsel at a major entertainment-related corporation, and I personally dealt with copyright registrations. My line of logic isn't silly, it's just true. The titles placed on copyright registrations aren't meant to be somehow definitive declarations on irrelevant hair-splitting issues.

Quote:

And I am ignoring the text after the "/" !? Whoa! Come on. Admit when you are wrong. I did about the Bruce Campbell thing. The title is before the slash and the text after the slash further identifies the party who produced it then after the semi colon is the director. It's punctuation on a legal document. It's just like the slash after dvdtalk.com/forum.

But I'm not wrong. All of the text after the slash is still on the "TITLE" field of the copyright registration. There are separate fields for "AUTHOR" information and for additional notes. Those words have purposely been included in the "TITLE" field. Nothing specifies that the words after the / are anything other than words that are part of the title. The / may just be punctuation, but it isn't punctuation that ends the "TITLE" field and starts a new field; it's still part of the "TITLE." If you think it's so meaningful what the legal titles are, then it's simply a fact that the full titles are the entire line of text, including the / and the words that come after it. You can't say that the "TITLE" field of a copyright registration has such meaning, and then decide to throw out parts of all of those titles because they don't fit in with your predetermined argument. Well, you could do it, of course, but you'd be wrong.

Again, you'll probably call my line of logic silly. But then again, I actually have experience dealing with this issues in real life. How many copyright registrations have you worked on?

Quote:

I give up. I've given as close to a legal document as is possible. If you still don't want to believe it, then there's not much I can do. I don't see how you can get much more official than how the film is actually registered under the law that protects them in case of a violation of their property rights.

Because the title as listed on the copyright registration is only meant to be specific enough to refer to a unique work. This is why the registrations include further information such as the director in the title. Hair-splitting issues like whether Tim Burton's vanity credit is "really" part of the title isn't meant to be decided by the copyright registration.

Quote:

Ask George Romero how important that is. The reason Night of the Living Dead is in public domain is the original title was Night of the Flesh Eaters (Or Night of Anubis- I can't recall exactly which one). The distribution company changed the name to Night of the Living Dead but didn't resubmit the paperwork with the proper title so it fell into PD.

False. The reason it fell into the public domain is because the original title card contained the copyright notice. When the title card was changed, the copyright notice was left out. Under the 1909 U.S. Copyright Act at that time, a failure to have a copyright notice on a work immediately put that work into the public domain. This had nothing whatsoever to do with registration and/or a failure to submit any paperwork.

DJ

Dude, you are reading way too much into it. it's there in black and white. It doesn't get much simpler. If it wasn't meant to be part of the title, it wouldn't be there. It would have been listed like that Wes Craven presents credit. They sometimes use the creator's name in the title if they have a specific reason to. Another example is the Ron Howard film Dr Seuss' How The Grinch Stole Christmas. Dr Seuss' name is part of the title. Oddly enough, so is Wes Craven's New Nightmare (That film is indeed Wes Craven's Nightmare in the film, so the title makes sense) and Dee Snider's Strangeland. But almost all of those others mentioned in the thread are vanity acceditations and not part of the official title.

Dude, use some common sense. Look up the copyright on 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.

For example:
Don't tell me the actual title is "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban / by J. K. Rowling ; ill. by Mary GrandPre. " because then you are playing a semantics game. The / is there for a purpose. To separate the author text from the title proper and to specify a work further. The post slash is informational.
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.
Ok, here's another big gun. How about a George Romero quote:
from http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...filmmaker.html
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.

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

Quote:

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

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.