Forum - View topicDistributor vs label consistency questions
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
WTK
Posts: 4166 |
|
||
|
I thought this should be looked into. At the moment, the entries listed below from Discotek Media, Media Blasters, and The Right Stuf International are rather inconsistent/inaccurate when it comes to the respective distributor and/or label.
Discotek Media company#10279 - Eastern Star is a "side label" (sources: 1 / 2). - Discotek Media and Eastern Star shouldn't be considered as distributors. - The current distributor is ADA Filmworks (http://www.ada-music.com/ & http://www.ada-newreleases.com). - Recent example from a Little Nemo: Adventure in Slumberland Blu-ray back cover with logos of Discotek Media, Eastern Star, and ADA Filmworks. Media Blasters company#7 - AnimeWorks is a label (like Kitty Media among others). It's not a distributor. - The current distributor for Media Blasters non-adult anime releases is still Allegro Media Group (animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2010-10-22/media-blasters-partnership-with-allegro). The Right Stuf International company#1 - Lucky Penny Entertainment is a "publishing division" (http://www.rightstuf.com/rssite/luckyPennyEntertainment/about/). There is no listing for this at the moment (it currently includes Hyakko, Ristorante Paradiso, and Sweet Blue Flowers). - Nozomi Entertainment (company#7470) is a "production division" (http://www.rightstuf.com/rssite/nozomiEntertainment/about/) and not a distributor. - The current distributor for Lucky Penny, Nozomi, and also 18+ Critical Mass Video is BayView Entertainment (http://www.bayviewentertainment.com/). Anime label is WidowMaker Films. |
|||
|
|||
|
Shiroi Hane
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 7584 Location: Wales |
|
||
|
"distributor" is a complicated thing - for one, only editors can add a company as "licensed by", but anyone can add distributor (it is thus used for most non-US licensees, even when they are an actual licensee rather than just a distributor or, indeed, are themselves using another distributor). The main reason for this is that adding "licensed by" to the English companies section changes the status of the title (bolding it in lists etc.)
The relationship between the two terms is thus not necessarily what you would expect. When I queried this in the past Dan said:
..so I'm not going to change anything willy-nilly. Now, Dan is really busy right now and dormcat, like me, is not US-based but hopefully we can get some input from EB and DW in the meantime. |
|||
|
|||
|
EmperorBrandon
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 2218 Location: Springfield, MO |
|
||
|
"Distributor" shouldn't be used at all with a licensing company where "Licensed by" should be entered by an encyclopedia editor instead. In the case of Discotek, I think all of the "Distributor" entries should be cleaned out.
I don't see the labels as being too important, and there's more inconsistency whether the information gets added or not compared to the main licensing company's name. I'm not sure if calling them a "Distributor" is actually the best way to do it, but I don't have a strong opinion on that issue. |
|||
|
|||
|
Shiroi Hane
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 7584 Location: Wales |
|
||
|
Ech. "Casshan: Robot Hunter Casshern (OAV)", to pick a random example, has Discotek has both licensee and distributor. The source for distributor is an article entitled "Discotek Licenses Casshan: Robot Hunter Video Anime"...
I'm honestly not sure whether these should be redeemed or falsified. |
|||
|
|||
DerekTheRed
 Posts: 3544 Location: ::Points to hand:: |
|
||
|
Seems to me that the reason that so many licensors like Discotek have distributor credits instead of Licensed by credits is exactly because only editors can add that credit. Contributors see a news story, like this one about the original Cutey Honey, being picked up by Discotek, then they go to the encyclopedia to add the Licensed by credit but they can't so they add distributor instead without ever making mention of it here.
Currently the system directs the user to the Encyclopedia main forum, but that clearly doesn't work. Maybe a band-aid remedy would be to have it send PMs to the editor staff instead? Or to allow the information to be added, but it remains hidden until an editor approves it? Of course, I see problems with both of those approaches, but it seems like a change of some sort is needed. EDIT: Actually, you know what? I'm just going to spend a couple hours going through the big R1 companies and checking for instances when they are listed as distributing a title, but not credited as the licensor. Hopefully that'll catch us most of the way up. Updates in the licensed anime thread to follow. |
|||
|
|||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
||
|
Ahh, the old problem of US releases, where licensees, distributors, labels, imprints, etc. can mix up pretty confusing.
To staff: Please read Chris' posts #131854 and #530543. These were old problems as you can see on their dates.
The problem exists beyond US. For example, the distributor of Proware is Nameware, a legally different company that has different phone numbers from Proware but shares the same office building. In fact they were registered under names of two brothers respectively. |
|||
|
|||
|
EmperorBrandon
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 2218 Location: Springfield, MO |
|
||
|
Thanks, DerekTheRed. Discotek titles are mostly listed as "Licensed by" now with redundant "Distributor" entries removed. There's two left I need some help on:
Lupin III: Secret Files (OAV) Source is "Lupin III First TV Series DVD has both versions of the short film on disc 4." Need some additional verification on this (don't have the set myself) Lupin III: Strange Psycho-Kinetic Strategy (live-action movie) For whatever reason, English companies are locked out, so I will need an encyclopedia editor that can change this before it can be added as licensed. |
|||
|
|||
|
DerekTheRed
Posts: 3544 Location: ::Points to hand:: |
|
||
|
Right, I forgot to look into Secret Files, but that one was weird. Discotek's product listing shows "Both versions of the Lupin III pilot film" as an extra, which seems to be consistent with the plot summary for Secret Files. Or at least half of it.
|
|||
|
|||
Calathan
 SubscriberPosts: 9113 |
|
||
|
I had been thinking of making a topic about Lupin III: Secret Files, so I'll just write my opinions here. I personally think Lupin III: Secret Files should be retitled "Lupin III pilot films" in the encyclopedia. Secret Files seems to to me to be more of a release than an anime, in terms of how ANN normally treats things. When the pilots were produced, they weren't produced as part of something called Lupin III: Secret Files, but instead that was the name of the product they were first released in. I assume each of the trailers was also produced separately, and I would also assume they were originally released separately as theatrical trailers. Renaming the entry "Lupin III pilot films" would make it simpler to say that Discotek has licensed it, as Discotek has licensed the pilot films, but I don't think they have licensed the trailers for those three films (though perhaps they have . . . I don't really know). The bulk of the content in Secret Files is the pilot films (35 minutes of the run time, according to various sites).
Also, the plot summary on the Lupin III: Secret Files page isn't a plot summary, so I think it should be changed to a "Comment". I assume the pilot films actually have a plot which could be summarized to make an actual plot summary. |
|||
|
|||
Dessa
 Posts: 4438 |
|
||
|
I've been watching this thread, and I've noticed three things:
1) The "licensed by" credit is a staff-only credit 2) If "licensed by" and "distributed by" is the same company, "licensed by" takes precedence. 3) Separate companies for "licensed by" and "distributed by" seem to be pretty rare. As a future solution, should the "distributed by" credit also be locked to staff, then? The ones currently messed up still have to be fixed, but that would prevent any more from being messed up. |
|||
|
|||
|
Shiroi Hane
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 7584 Location: Wales |
|
||
|
"distributed by" is used instead of "licensed by" for pretty much all non-US licenses precisely because it can be entered by anyone (and doesn't confer any special status).
|
|||
|
|||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
||
In fact there is: companies with "Distributor" could be picked up by the Releases database; anime/manga entries with neither "Licensed by" nor "Distributor" cannot have Releases links. BTW, it's "Distributor," not "Distributed by." |
|||
|
|||
|
Shiroi Hane
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 7584 Location: Wales |
|
||
|
Sorry, there is that. What I meant is that "distributor" doesn't bold the titles in lists unlike "licensed by", and I think there was something about an effect on one of the release lists too.
|
|||
|
|||
|
WTK
Posts: 4166 |
|
||
|
- Doubutsu Takarajima should be using the main DVD title: Animal Treasure Island
- Gunbuster 2 => Gunbuster 2: Diebuster (source) - Hurricane Polymar => New Hurrican Polymar (source) - Samurai Pizza Cats => Legendary Ninja Cats (source) - Lupin III: Secret Files (OAV) | CDJapan From LUPIN III (Theatrical) DVD LIMITED BOX: The bonus DVD contains "Lupin III Secret Files 1 & 2," theatrical trailers, compilation of intro and outro themes. - Lupin III: Strange Psycho-Kinetic Strategy (live-action movie) was released before Eastern Star was established, so it can't be the distributor. [Since Eastern Star is kept as distributor] the following are currently not indicated as such (based on releases that have been released/solicited)
|
|||
|
|||
|
EmperorBrandon
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 2218 Location: Springfield, MO |
|
||
There seems to be a difference in the English and Japanese descriptions there. The Japanese description makes it more clear that "Secret Files" includes those later items (the theatrical trailers and compilation of intro and outro themes). I haven't gotten any confirmation whether all of that is included in the Discotek release, so it leaves me uncertain whether it should count as "licensed" by Discotek. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group