There's a contribution up for vote (not mine) to change this title from "William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist III" to just "The Exorcist III".  It is being overwhelmingly voted No on (14 no votes) with comments like "See rules and credit block" and "please read the rules on possessives", etc.

Well, so far I'm the only Yes vote and I'm a little confused.

Here's the rule:

Quote:
Include possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title. If quotes surround the title in the credit block (generally on the back cover), check whether the possessive is within the quotes. In the absence of quotes to verify, check the font size used for the title on the front cover. Generally, possessives which use a significantly smaller font are not part of the title.

Now first, here's the title as displayed on the front cover:



And here's the credit block from the back cover:




Now, I'm not sure why so many of the comments mention the title having quotes around it in the credit block, but mine doesn't have any (nor the one in the database).  I also checked every scanned cover I could find on the internet for this movie and could not find any version that had quotes.  So, according to the rule, with the absense of quotes, you then check the font size of the possessive which to me this one sure is significantly smaller then the title itself.

So, what am I missing? 

I'm wondering if everyone has the same cover .

To me, the part of the rule I've highlighted would make the title The Exorcist III for Profiler purposes:

Quote:
Include possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title. If quotes surround the title in the credit block (generally on the back cover), check whether the possessive is within the quotes. In the absence of quotes to verify, check the font size used for the title on the front cover. Generally, possessives which use a significantly smaller font are not part of the title.

We don't have quotes in this example, so we follow the next rule, which concerns font size. We have a clear font-size distinction here, so I believe it's safe to say that The Exorcist III is the title.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You missed a keyword, James. Generally. Generally does not equal always. In short, you are trying to read more into it than is actually there. The Font style is the same, so I stand by my argument. Should I check the copyrighted title.

And BTW I already know the ACTUAL answer based on FACT. Not supposition nor a misinterpretation of the Rule.

Skip

Font style isn't mentioned in the rule. Font size is. The fonts are very different sizes. My reading of "generally" is that the word is used to allow for exceptional situations in which the font size would be smaller, yet the possessive would still be part of the title based on quotes.

Whatever the copyrighted title is has no bearing on what we use. The word "generally" is not an escape hatch to use the lookup at the copyright office, which has been proven to have errors.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You missed a keyword, James. Generally. Generally does not equal always. In short, you are trying to read more into it than is actually there. The Font style is the same, so I stand by my argument. Should I check the copyrighted title.

And BTW I already know the ACTUAL answer based on FACT. Not supposition nor a misinterpretation of the Rule.

Skip

Font style isn't mentioned in the rule. Font size is. The fonts are very different sizes. My reading of "generally" is that the word is used to allow for exceptional situations in which the font size would be smaller, yet the possessive would still be part of the title based on quotes.

Whatever the copyrighted title is has no bearing on what we use. The word "generally" is not an escape hatch to use the lookup at the copyright office, which has been proven to have errors.

As has your system, James, numerous times, which still has no basis in FACTS or data, but ONLY in the wants of the user.

The argument you have always used, just like here, James is not based on data or anything real. it is simply based onyour conclusion that you don't THINK that possessives are part of the title. I didn't put them there, the filmmakers did, why I don't know nor do I care, it's the data, stupid.(I have to thank Bill Clinton for something) You wanted to exclude based on NOTHING more than preference, so now we have to improvise in order to support your premise or preclude it as the case may be. In this case, the Rule is not helpful,Generally is too broad), the back cover is not helpful, the front cover uses the SAME font style throughout. So, what are we to do, James, I do NOT accept your reading of the Rules since youy are trying to apply a definition to a word that simply does not exist.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You should not try and apply a false definition to the word GENERALLY, James. Words have meaning and generally does not mean ALWAYS. At best it means MOST OF THE TIME and we have no basis for how to define most of the time, other than your attempt to change the deinition of Generally.

Skip

I didn't say that "generally" equals "always". I said that "generally" allows for exceptional situations. If there is a DVD where quotes surround the possessive and the title in the credit block AND the fonts of the possessive and title were of different sizes, that would be an exceptional situation. He had to allow for that possibility in the rule; hence, the use of the word "generally". It's pretty easy reading.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You missed a keyword, James. Generally. Generally does not equal always. In short, you are trying to read more into it than is actually there. The Font style is the same, so I stand by my argument. Should I check the copyrighted title.

And BTW I already know the ACTUAL answer based on FACT. Not supposition nor a misinterpretation of the Rule.

Skip

Font style isn't mentioned in the rule. Font size is. The fonts are very different sizes. My reading of "generally" is that the word is used to allow for exceptional situations in which the font size would be smaller, yet the possessive would still be part of the title based on quotes.

Whatever the copyrighted title is has no bearing on what we use. The word "generally" is not an escape hatch to use the lookup at the copyright office, which has been proven to have errors.

As has your system, James, numerous times, which still has no basis in FACTS or data, but ONLY in the wants of the user.

I'm just reading the words, Skip.

Quote:
The argument you have always used, just like here, James is not based on data or anything real.

This is not about me or what you think I "always" do.

Quote:
it is simply based onyour conclusion that you don't THINK that possessives are part of the title. I didn't put them there, the filmmakers did, why I don't know nor do I care, it's the data, stupid.(I have to thank Bill Clinton for something) You wanted to exclude based on NOTHING more than preference, so now we have to improvise in order to support your premise or preclude it as the case may be.

Not true. I'm just reading the rule and making the mistake of having a different opinion than you. It's really frustrating trying to participate in this forum when one is not allowed to state an opinion without being accused of heresy.

Quote:
In this case, the Rule is not helpful,Generally is too broad),

Well, it's the word he picked. We can't toss it out if we don't like it. It's there.

Quote:
the back cover is not helpful,

The back cover has an extra wide space between the possessive and the title, which I believe bolsters the argument to exclude the possessive, but that's not covered in the rules unfortunately.

Quote:
the front cover uses the SAME font style throughout.

Font style is irrelevant. Show us where font style is mentioned in the rules.

Quote:
So, what are we to do, James, I do NOT accept your reading of the Rules since youy are trying to apply a definition to a word that simply does not exist.

I never said "generally" equals "always". You've stated it several times, but it's not true. I never said that. I said that "generally" allows for exceptions. That's not "always". On that, we agree.

LOL, James, so now you are into interpreting data as well.. why am I NOT surprised. Like I said I simp;ly do not buy your definition of Generally and how you and Vega think ity should be. Come up with something more data based and not built around your simple desire to exclude based on your like or dislike.

Dismantling what i say into bits and pieces gets me NOT to read what you say James.
.Skip

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I didn't say that "generally" equals "always". I said that "generally" allows for exceptional situations. If there is a DVD where quotes surround the possessive and the title in the credit block AND the fonts of the possessive and title were of different sizes, that would be an exceptional situation. He had to allow for that possibility in the rule; hence, the use of the word "generally". It's pretty easy reading.

I have to disagree with you here James.  If there are quotes around the possessive and the title in the credit block, we don't care whether or not the fonts of the possessive and title are of different sizes.

The font size portion of the rule only comes into play when there are no quotes in the credit block.

I agree that if the 1st part of the rule is true, then for contribution purposes, one stops there and nothing that follows matters.

However, my statement was not meant to change the order in which one applies the rule. I was trying to point out that the use of the word "generally" allows the two parts to work together where one part doesn't appear in conflict with the other.

Again, I do agree that for contribution purposes, if the result of the 1st part is true, then the 2nd part is not considered.