 |
|
|
|
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  Previous Next
|
|
Media Companies |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 18, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | I've seen different views on media companies, in various contributions, enough times over the years that I think it warrants a discussion on how others perceive how media companies should be listed when a company fills more than one role. Here is a excerpt of the current rules to assist with the discussion: Quote:
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.
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...".
Distributor - Usually found as a logo on the bottom of the back cover or in the credit block with words regarding distribution. Based on the above, as I see it, companies such as Twilight Time, Arrow Video, Criterion, etc. could be both the Publisher and the Distributor. 1) Do others agree that companies, such as those mentioned above, can fill both roles? 2) If the answer is yes, then would these companies be listed first (as a publisher), before the licensor, rather than last (as the distributor)? |
| | Registered: September 30, 2008 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,805 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting rdodolak: Quote:
Based on the above, as I see it, companies such as Twilight Time, Arrow Video, Criterion, etc. could be both the Publisher and the Distributor.
1) Do others agree that companies, such as those mentioned above, can fill both roles?
2) If the answer is yes, then would these companies be listed first (as a publisher), before the licensor, rather than last (as the distributor)? 1) When it's broken down that way and I actually sit down and have a look at what the rules actually say, yes, I would agree. Companies such as Twilight Time, Arrow etc. could fill both the role of Publisher and Distributor. They license the product, put it together, market it, create features for it, packaging for it, sometimes new cover art etc. etc. and then release it. Both publisher and distributor requirements are met right there. 2) I don't know...  | | | | The night is calling. And it whispers to me soflty come and play. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think it first has to be asked if they actually do even fill both roles as Publisher and Distributor.
Arrow Video do not actually distribute their "US" releases, that is handled exclusively by MVD Entertainment Group. I think Arrow may indeed distribute their own "UK" releases however.
Criterion are currently distributed by SPHE in both the US and UK. They extended a multi-year distribution contract back in 2015. Before then Criterion were distributed by Image Entertainment.
Criterion and Arrow generally don't even list anything on their back cover/credit blocks regarding their actual "distribution" studios though, so it's often hazy if that's what they truly are beyond just the publisher. | | | | Corey |
| | Registered: September 30, 2008 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,805 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Katatonia: Quote:
I think it first has to be asked if they actually do even fill both roles as Publisher and Distributor.
Arrow Video do not actually distribute their "US" releases, that is handled exclusively by MVD Entertainment Group. I think Arrow may indeed distribute their own "UK" releases however.
Criterion are currently distributed by SPHE in both the US and UK. They extended a multi-year distribution contract back in 2015. Before then Criterion were distributed by Image Entertainment.
Criterion and Arrow generally don't even list anything on their back cover/credit blocks regarding their actual "distribution" studios though, so it's often hazy if that's what they truly are beyond just the publisher. Good info to have, thank you for sharing it!  Do you have any additional info on Twilight Time releases? Seems they handle their own distribution from what I've seen. | | | | The night is calling. And it whispers to me soflty come and play. |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Katatonia: Quote:
Arrow Video do not actually distribute their "US" releases, that is handled exclusively by MVD Entertainment Group. I think Arrow may indeed distribute their own "UK" releases however.
Criterion are currently distributed by SPHE in both the US and UK. They extended a multi-year distribution contract back in 2015. Before then Criterion were distributed by Image Entertainment. Very good point regarding the Arrow US distribution. I was thinking of the UK when I wrote my post ad overlooked the US. Thanks Katatonia. |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,851 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Katatonia: Quote:
Arrow Video do not actually distribute their "US" releases, that is handled exclusively by MVD Entertainment Group. From my point of view, that's about as interesting as saying that UPS is the US distributor. --------------- |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,639 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm surprised this thread hasn't generated more discussion.  |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | I don't think distributor should even be in the profile. Companies change distributors all the time, and it has little or nothing to do with the disc itself. For a while MGM was distributed by Warner, then by Fox, then by Sony. No one cares who distributed the discs. But that's an argument for another day; distributor is permitted by the rules so there you go.
In any event, a publisher that is also a distributor should go in the first slot of the hierarchy. The label of the release is to my mind the most relevant party that one might want to search for. If a company qualifies for multiple slots, it should be placed in the highest one appropriate. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Contribution Discussion |
Page:
1 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |