So I am now entirely confuesd about the issue of what is established information (confirmed by playing disc) and the specs on the cover.

On several older discs (circa 1998-99) there were printing and disc imaging discrepencies as the covers contained information not correlating to the disc.

Examples would include:
first release of Young Frankenstein (cover art showed a menu capture that was not the same as the disc inside)
The City of Lost Children (specs on cover do not indicate commentary yet one exists on the disc).

For both of these DVDs I got them within a week of the original title release (per existing profiles of both DVDs), and I have had the cover art approved for Young Frankenstein (dispite discrepency) but looks like my City of Lost Children will be rejected (as of 4/6/2010).

Submission Rules say we are to enter DVD overview text from the cover as is (typo errors and all), but if the cover has improper specs, we verify actual content. Am fine with that, but to reject the cover because it doesn't match the disc contents, I am finding that inconsistant.

I think it was for the early release of one of the Alien DVDs, the studio offered either new cover or insert pages to correct a series of errors on the printed paper. In that case, which cover would be proper to use, the original cover or the corrected one?

I feel with City of Lost Children, all information I can find of early reviews of the disc ( http://www.dvdreview.com/fullreviews/the_city_of_lost_children.shtml ) indicate that there is content not in the specs of the disc.

Since I bought it 4 days after it was released, I have to believe I have the original released DVD and cover art.

So what is the proper proceedure to follow for submitting cover art that conflicts with disc content?

Thanks.

PDH

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
PDH: The answer is simple

From the Rule:
"The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself."

Not the case

Correct and for the cover we always take the first release cover. (even if it has mistakes)

including my Brent Tarleton which is credited wrong on screen  , but corrected on paper brochure and souvenir booklet  but Invleos takes the actual on screen credits . I initially didn't like the ruling  but agreed it would open up too many cans of worms.. and I hate worms .. 

Just to be clear as there have been a few posts since I started my reply.

The question is:
Quoting pharmelink:

Quote:

So what is the proper proceedure to follow for submitting cover art that conflicts with disc content?

The answer is not "The authoritative source for information submitted should be the DVD itself.".
The answer is always use the original cover art that was part of the original release, even if the data on the disk is eventually proven to not match that cover art (which happens a lot).

Remember a NO vote doesn't necessarily mean the contribution will be rejected. What matters is which scan is the original one.

Make sure if you have the original version you say so clearly in your notes. Purchase date compared to release date would help document you have the original.

Also need to make sure there weren't variations released at the same time (like Sin City). That get a bit more complicated.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
Because we ONLY use the ORIGINAL release data and Covers, Pharme, at this time we don't allow for mkultiple releases or covers. That is why you got No votes, it is not a case of what might be better, though that is highly subjective, if you don't have the ORIGINAL release then it stays local ONLY.

Skip

Yup Skip, and that is what I think has happened, that a later version became the title (Special Edition) and cover art listed with correct features.

Quoting Prof. Kingsfield:

Quote:
What title is it, I may be able to assist and the UPC.

Skip

The City of Lost Children
043396-400191

I resubmitted after I checked that the disc did have the same features as already in profile, just title and cover changes

OK now this gets really messy and confusing, since it looks like at this time I see three completely different covers. However, YOURS IS the Original, my basis for that statement is once again the Sony logo, this time in the lower left of the existing image, and yours had the Columbia TriStar Home Video, CTHV or CTHE predated the takeover of Columbia by Sony. It appears right now, that the SE was released at some point between your Original AND the subsequent re-release of that cover sometime around or after 2005.

How to communicate all that concisely in your notes is a challenge, BUT those voting No are WRONG.

Skip