Could someone advise why the images for this updated profile were declined.
No reason has been provided and I find it strange as I believe that the updated profile and images were within the contribution rules.
If the person(s) responsible for this were to go back and re-read my contribution notes, you will see where I stated that the Media company, Madman Entertainment has taken over the distribution rights to this title which were previously held by Roadshow Entertainment.  The EAN (UPC) product code, disc id and contents remain unchanged, HOWEVER THERE IS A NEW SLICK FOR THE FRONT AND REAR COVERS!!!!!!!!! 
In fact the previous image Image Contribution Approved Mar 21 2009 10:04AM was an old image with  a different EAN!!!!!! At least my contribiuution was the correct one.
As a effort has been made to update the database with this contribution, I would have thought it to be common courtesy to raise any queries, but instead my contribution received NADA, NOTHING & SFA! 

Quoting et_tu_brute:

Quote:
Could someone advise why the images for this updated profile were declined.
No reason has been provided and I find it strange as I believe that the updated profile and images were within the contribution rules.

Unfortunately, they were not.  From the rules for Cover Scans, bold by me:

If a title is re-released with the same UPC, but different cover images do not contribute the new images.

In your post, you say that the UPC is the same, but the covers are different.  Contributing those covers is expressly forbiden by the rules.

From your own contribution rules:
•The covers must match the profile exactly, including the UPC and locality.
•If a title is re-released with the same UPC, but different cover images do not contribute the new images.
The first point. It matches the profile exactly on all points. If another member was to purchase this DVD today, this is what they would be purchasing. Not the old one which is "O/P" with the previous distributor, Roadshow Entertainment, a company not in any way shape or form connected with the new Media company, Madman Entainment. The new covers must match the new updated profile to reflect this, else the updated profile is redundent because of the old images.
This second point. Once again, this exemplifies this inconsistencies of the contribution rules. I believe it relates to re-issues/re-releases of DVDs from within the same organisation. e.g. "Grease" is re-released periodically by Paramount Home Entrertainment as""Special Edition", "2-disc Rockin' Edition" and so on, and I can accept this as everything remains the same basically.
My contribution is different because the labelling has changed to a different MC with different Classification & RRP!!!

Quoting et_tu_brute:

Quote:
From your own contribution rules:
•The covers must match the profile exactly, including the UPC and locality.
•If a title is re-released with the same UPC, but different cover images do not contribute the new images.

This second point. Once again, this exemplifies this inconsistencies of the contribution rules. I believe it relates to re-issues/re-releases of DVDs from within the same organisation. e.g. "Grease" is re-released periodically by Paramount Home Entrertainment as""Special Edition", "2-disc Rockin' Edition" and so on, and I can accept this as everything remains the same basically.
My contribution is different because the labelling has changed to a different MC with different Classification & RRP!!!

It doesn't matter, a re-release is a re-release is a re-release. It wouldn't matter if it was just a correction to a spelling error or a complete change of hands for the distributor. Both are re-releases and the new version was rightly declined.

Was it the Australian profile 9330760003098 ?

In this profile the UPC of the scans are matching to UPC of the profile.

But you're writting this:
Quoting et_tu_brute:

Quote:
In fact the previous image Image Contribution Approved Mar 21 2009 10:04AM was an old image with  a different EAN!!!!!!

Does your version has a different UPC? 

Quoting et_tu_brute:

Quote:
Based on your logic then my updated profile should be withdrawn because it does not match the cover images:
* Media Company
* Classification (Rating)
* RRP/SRP

Like I said in a previous post, the contribution rules are referring to multiple releases from the same distributor/media company.  This is a re-release from a new company altogether with new branding, labeling, Classification and pricing!

That is what you think they are referiing to.  They do not, however, make that distinction.  All data must match the original release.  Beyond that, why should the people who purchased the original version have to lose that data simply because you purchased the newer one?  I am sorry, but in this instance, the rules are crystal clear.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:
Quoting et_tu_brute:

Quote:
Based on your logic then my updated profile should be withdrawn because it does not match the cover images:
* Media Company
* Classification (Rating)
* RRP/SRP

Like I said in a previous post, the contribution rules are referring to multiple releases from the same distributor/media company.  This is a re-release from a new company altogether with new branding, labeling, Classification and pricing!

That is what you think they are referiing to.  They do not, however, make that distinction.  All data must match the original release.  Beyond that, why should the people who purchased the original version have to lose that data simply because you purchased the newer one?  I am sorry, but in this instance, the rules are crystal clear.

I understand what you are saying, what I don't understand is this has a new rating (assuming this is the same UPC). RRP/SRP aside (because that changes a lot on re-releases), shouldn't this be a new profile based on the rating or media company alone?

What I mean is, can't this be entered not unlike the US/Canadian profiles that share a UPC? Personally I feel the change in media companies alone justifies this, but if they are rated differently, they very well could not be the same movie.

This just isn't a cover change, if I'm reading it correctly. This is a new disc from a new company with a new rating.

All of this is written under the idea that it is the same UPC, of course. 

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
I understand what you are saying, what I don't understand is this has a new rating (assuming this is the same UPC). RRP/SRP aside (because that changes a lot on re-releases), shouldn't this be a new profile based on the rating or media company alone?

Maybe it should be, but the rules do not allow it if it is the same feature using the same UPC.

Quote:
What I mean is, can't this be entered not unlike the US/Canadian profiles that share a UPC? Personally I feel the change in media companies alone justifies this, but if they are rated differently, they very well could not be the same movie.

It can't be done this way.  While the same UPC can exist as an R1US and an R1Canada, there is no alternate region for this DVD.

Quote:
This just isn't a cover change, if I'm reading it correctly. This is a new disc from a new company with a new rating.

All of this is written under the idea that it is the same UPC, of course. 

The rating systems may have changed over time, I don't know, but the rules are clear...since the UPC/EAN is the same, all data must reflect the original release.