Talk:United Artists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Film Finance for Beginners" by Jeffrey Taylor, 2010 — possible copyright violation

Take a look at the Capter 2 of this book. Looks like it was copied from Wikipedia without mentioning the source. Nosachevd (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole company is not called UAMG.

Recently, I went under Justia's website and I've bumped into the UAMG trademark. It turns out that UAMG is a division of United Artists Corporation. Scroll down until you see the party name. UAMG is only for television, not the whole corporation. So I don't know why it's like that. See it here. King Shadeed 14:14, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily means UAMG is a division. It could mean that United Artist Corporation is trademarking its DBA name, which is only a state wide (or county in some states) name. Or trademarking before incorporating the unit, renaming of One Three Media or allowing One Three Media to use UAMG name via licensing agreement. Spshu (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

UAMG is still active

It looks as though after United Artists Media Group folded into MGM Television, after watching Steve Harvey's Funderdome, the series is copyrighted by "UAMG Content, LLC".

Look at what I found:

King Shadeed 18:17, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

So. We have been through this before. DreamWorks Studios in its second incarnation was not legal called DreamWorks Studios, but DW II Studio (or something like that). UAMG Content, LLC exist, so what they are not using that brand. Disney Enterprises, Inc. exists. It is dormant. American International Pictures, Inc. still exist as of 2015. So what, it is still as the article previously stated "With this change, UA once again went dormant." Spshu (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Did you not look at those two site I have displayed on this talk page??? King Shadeed 20:22, August 7, 2017 (UTC)
And perhaps you should take a look at this. So don't try to argue with me if you don't know what you're talking about. King Shadeed 20:29, August 7, 2017 (UTC)
I have looked. Are you daft? I know what I am talking about. It is you has not made a single point. There is no conclusion to can draw except they exist. I have point out that there are these subsidiaries that we can prove exist, but cannot prove anything from their existence. Don't post or make changes to articles base on your speculation based on the existence of some lettered plus word LLC. You are arguing that UAMG Content, LLC exists and active as an IP holder gets you United Artist being active as a unit, which it doesn't. I know what I am talking about since I dropped example after example of various corporate entities that have vague existence that don't prove anything. All this proves is that MGM TV is using an United Artist Media Group subsidiary as a IP entity, which is passive. There were 15 United Artist, 2 UA and 1 MGM & UA subsidiaries in the MGM Holding group of companies at its last bankruptcy. None of those UA subsidiaries made it possible to say that UA is active. When you can figure out what you are talk about then come back and let me know. Spshu (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Put two and two together before you "ass"ume like you always do! What does "UAMG" stand for? "United Artists Media Group". Do your company history from Mark Burnett Productions all the way to UAMG Content under MGM Television! Because clearly you don't know what you're talking about! Do you ever?? I don't remember YOU finding the information about UAMG Content! You can't be civil with other people here since you think you know everything! Your assumptions won't get you everywhere! Every year is the SAME THING with you! Stay in your place and stop trying to prove you're a better contributor and editor than everyone else! If United Artists is dormant, then why are they using "United Artists Corporation" as the co-copyright holder of the James Bond films and WHY are they using the name "UAMG Content"?? UA can't be dormant if MGM is using the United Artists name and/or its abbreviations! Keywords: "in-name-only" for the former.

Now, start from the beginning with these sources and user your common sense. Put two and two together and stop being so cocky and arrogant!:

King Shadeed 13:28, August 8, 2017 (UTC)

Look, I have been civil with you. We cannot make assumptions nor does what you found support what you say. Stop assuming what I do or do not know that is uncivil and has the tenancy to tick people off -- you know common sense. I have been aware of UAMG Content, LLC being the copyright holder for weeks. So, I read the articles and have in support of Burnett's company assuming the United Artist Media Group (UAMG) name. UAMG was merged operational in MGM Television Group. Where in the Variety article does it say UAMG Content LLC? It does not say any thing about it. The article says "...United Artists Media Group will be absorbed under the MGM Television Group umbrella." So, any UAMGroup entities for all intent and purpose are a part of MGM Television Group and are using that name - Trade name. That is why I brought up DW Studios, which still exists and is the DreamWorks Studios owned by Paramount and DW II companies which formerly operated as DreamWorks after Spielberg left Paramount's DW Studios. Dormant can mean they exist but have little activity Like sleeping or basic passive - they exist on paper and do some minor activity like hold IP. Spshu (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind the DreamWorks examples, I'll give you a BETTER example: Columbia/Embassy Television merging with Tri-Star Television. The Tri-Star and Embassy programs produced under the Columbia Pictures Television banner and the Embassy programs produced under the copyright "ELP Communications". King Shadeed 20:27, August 8, 2017 (UTC)
The source that UAMG merged into MGM TV doesn't not support UAMG is still active. Thanks for what you consider a better example that supports my position. --Spshu (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

We might want to mention which country this company was set up in and belongs to.

You know, for those of us who don't believe that the United States of 'Merukka is the only country in the world!

(While you're at it, if you could change that whole .gov thing to maybe or something? I mean at least until the US does actually take over the world!) -- (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Red XN Not a COI request The requesting editor should use the {{Edit semi-protected}} request template instead. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I just did {edit request}. I'm not particularly into spending too much time editing here. {edit request} is the most logical template name to make an... edit request with.

I have no idea what "semi-protected" means, nor if there are other templates that are set up for edit requests for other types of protection, fully protected, slightly protected, endangered article protection, prophylactic protected, or locks or blocks or whatever. I don't want to know a whole list of variant template names to achieve one thing in the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. It's not logical. That sort of thing should be something for established users, admins or whoever else to sort out. I'm just trying to help out, and not go through ten million hoops in the effort to do so.

I also try to inject some humour when I can.

To be met with "cannot do this because you didn't use the magic word" is kinda patronising tbh.

So if I've got it wrong again, please fix it. -- (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyway.. here I go again...

Edit request part deux

We might want to mention which country this company was set up in and belongs to.

You know, for those of us who don't believe that the United States of 'Merukka is the only country in the world!

(While you're at it, if you could change that whole .gov thing to maybe or something? I mean at least until the US does actually take over the world!) -- (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
To IP editor, can you be a little more clear about what you want changed? The article already starts off by saying, "United Artists (UA) is an American film and television entertainment studio." (Emphasis added.) Under categories, the article is already listed as a "1919 establishment in California." What else do you want to include--for example, do you mean you want more information about where the company was incorporated in the history section? If you can draft out a rough draft and tell us where in the article you want to include it, I'll be happy to insert in the article for you if it looks good. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah - fair enough! I didn't actually notice that. Which leads me to my suggestion: I think it's fair to say that, typically, the relevant country in the lede is wikilinked. Also, the country of origin or operation of companies are often put into the boxout on the right.
Those changes, I think, would make things more clear.
.. and then you guys can maybe do something about the top-level domain names the USA uses! ;) :P
Thanks muchly, by the way guys. Sincerely. :) (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi — per your request, I added in the location of foundation in the article's infobox. However, I didn't wikilink the "American" description in the article lead because MOS:OVERLINK discourages adding wikilinking to to geographic terms unless it's contextually important. I checked other film studio articles (Universal, Warner Bros., MGM, Village Roadshow Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and New Line Cinema) and none of them linked the word "American" in the article lead. Hope this helps and thanks for your suggestion. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. -- (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

United Artists Digital Studios

On April 26, 2018, MGM relaunched the United Artists brand as a digital production and distribution company aimed at creating original motion pictures, television programs, short-form content and digital series as well as building upon MGM's existing IP for distribution across digital platforms. Known as United Artists Digital Studios, the company's projects include mid-form original series Stargate Origins, interactive digital series #WarGames, and scripted series The Baxters (which is also the first for LightWorkers Media) and Weekend at Bernie's. (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

They're not just doing TV, they're also doing digital short-to-long-form content and planning to do motion pictures in the future, according to this page. Can you add that in the infobox please? And it launched in April, not August. The Facebook page and the Q1 and Q2 2018 financial reports from the MGM website said so. (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

check Partially implemented Done. The trademark registration listing may just be a cover their "bases" type statement so they don't have to amend it or some other additional filing in the future. We list what the company is doing not what they might be. The Facebook page is not making sense in saying that they were acquired and they changed their name to UADS in April not that they were formed in April. The quarterly reports just say that UADS was just recently formed (unless I missed another mention of the unit) thus could have been last quarter 2017 or in the first quarter 2018. Also, the Hollywood Reporter indicates that it had produced Stargate Origins, which started production back in August 2017. And I am not saying that it was formed "in August" but "by August", that means before or during August. The Justia Trademark database would indicated that it started in June (Filing Date 2018-06-15; Status Date 2018-06-21). Spshu (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)