I have a no vote on this submission because of:

Quote:
sorry, the company is really 2 entertain Video; the logo is 2 | entertain - check their website for the legally correct name

The problem is that the artwork shows 2 | entertain as the name and it is an available choice.  If it is an available choice, how can it be wrong to use it?  If it is wrong, why is it an available choice?

Plus, I'm supposed to know that 2 | entertain is not the "legal" name of the corporation?  That could be said for a lot of various companies and their logos.

Looking at the website, once I finally found it, it looks as if the legal name is "2 entertain limited" as that is what is in the copyright notice, which is supposed to be the legal name of the company.  Looking at their copyright page, guess what:

Quote:
This web site is operated by 2 entertain Limited ("2e") a company incorporated in England and Wales, whose registered office is at 33 Foley Street, London, W1W 7TL.

So, if you want to get real picky about it, 2 entertain Video is a division, whatever, of the real company, 2 entertain limited.

How many people are going to go digging into corporation names to "try" and find the real parent?

IMHO, "2 | entertain" is a perfectly legit choice for the media company, as it is at the top of the website, a registered trademark, along with the two other choices (2entertain Video and 2 entertain Limited).  It is a legal trademark, which will lead those who really care about the parentage to find the legally registered corporate name, which, IMHO, isn't 2entertain Video.

I'd rather see "2 | entertain" listed as that is what is on the artwork as the company.  No where do you see "2enterrtain video" or "2 entertain limited".

From the contribution rules:

Quote:
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.

Some companies (using similar but different names) may serve more than one function. List such companies only once, using the name from the logo. List secondary publishers even if the name is similar. If you are unsure of the function performed, do not list the company.

Based upon what I read in the rules, "2 | entertain" is the correct name to use, not "2entertain Video" as that is NOT listed anywhere on the artwork.

That means all of the other profiles in the database are incorrect as well.

All the 2 entertain releases I own have the logo as you describe but all say "distributed by 2 entertain Video" in the small print on the back. I can certainly see both sides of the coin here though.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
You are emphasizing the logo, where the logo a lot of times does not show the complete name.

Indeed. Similar example: the "Universal"-logo: that's what the logo says, but under no circumstance is "Universal" ever a valid entry for our purposes. Note that the rules say: "Do not abbreviate Studio or Media Company names."

From the contribution rules:

Quote:
Distributor - Usually found as a logo on the bottom of the back cover or in the credit block with words regarding distribution.

It does say use the credit block.  It also tells us not to abbreviate.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
Even though, you consider 2 Entertain Video a division, more that likely it is actually the distributor.  It is similar to Warner Brothers Home Video being the distributor as opposed to Warner Home Entertainment.

Which is owed by Warner Bros.  Where does the list stop?  OK, now I'm being silly.

Quote:
I say this without seeing the cover you are talking about, for you did not give us that information, so take this as such...

It can be found in the database under the subject title.  In any event, the UPC is 5051561001307.  Any Doctor Who U.K. 2 | entertain release will suffice

Quoting KinoNiki:

Quote:
I don't think I have ever seen a DVD distributor listed in the credit block. Only studios/production companies.

In this particular case, the distributor is listed in the credit block.

Quoting CharlieM:

Quote:
It does say use the credit block.  It also tells us not to abbreviate.

No, it doesn't says to use the credit block.  It is an OR option in the rule.  Yes, and it does say not to abbreviate.  But, if you go to their website, right at the top is "2 | entertain", which tells me that is is not an abbreviation.

As mentioned, another clear as mud rule.

Grabbing two Blu-rays that are sitting next to me, I find the following info.  The first is Circus from PBS.  It still isn't in the database (am I the only one who bought a copy?)  As the PBS logo doesn't really separate the owner from the distributor, unlike the Doctor Who releases which have the owner logo (BBC) and the distributor logo (2 | entertain), one needs to read the fine print.  In this case, the distributor is "PBS Distribution."  That isn't even a selectable choice (PBS and PBS Home Video are).  This can't be the only PBS Distribution release.  Are the other entries in the database wrong?

The 2nd example is the Tron Legacy release (OK, one of them).  On the back is the Walt Disney Studios home Entertainment logo (obviously not an abbreviated logo)  and credit text consisting of "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc."

Based on the rule, which is it?  The logo or the text?  The rule is an or condition.  If you are going to say that the logo describes the copyright owner of the content, think again, because the credit block has <copyright symbol> Disney.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.  Sounds like the rule needs changing to indicate that the credit block text takes priority over logo text.  Since rules haven't been changed in almost a year, I doubt that will happen.

The profile portion of the submission was rejected, IMHO, based upon incorrect interpretation of the rules.  The image scans were accepted.

As noted above, the no votes were based upon the text portion of the credits area, yet the rules DO NOT say that the credits text takes priority over the logo content.  Also noted above, a submission to the rules committee has been done.  When one looks at the back of the release, in this case, the distributor logo is readily seen by the viewer.  The credit box text is not.

Until the rules are changed, what I submitted was technically within the rules.

Sigh