These are called "possessory credits" and are above the title rather than part of the title...for the most part.  (Agree with Dan on reading the fine print in the title block looking for parenthesis...)

DGA Article on "A Film by" Credit

DGA Timeline on Possessory Credits battle wtih WGA

DGA Article on WGA Proposals which includes this quote from Alfred Hitchcock:

Quote:
"I consider the possessory use of my name above the title of a film as of extraordinary value to the producing company as well as to myself. Every producing company has informed me that my name has 'box office value' and part of the benefit received by such producing company is the right to use, advertise and exploit my name."

- Alfred Hitchcock

Bolding is mine.

EDIT: Oh, and I got all of the Hitchcock questions right and I own all of his stuff, many in duplicates, except for Champagne.

Quoting Krikarian:

Quote:
okay, unicus, i feel guilty and retract sneaky...

this discussion does somewhat baffle me. i thought this issue had been settle before with the john carpenter's and the stephen king's and the alfred's...i was just trying to follow those past decisions and the rules (please, don't let me get smacked for that one...)

i'm really not tied to either way. i just want something concrete in a the way of a decision that doesn't require all this back and forth everytime someone new put in a different perspective.

that is all, my carpeted tunnels hurt.

krik

No worries Krik. 

You are correct on this having been settled with the examples you gave.  The difference between those and this one was the inclusion of the possesive on the same screen as the title.  I believe that is why mdnitoil only included the single screen cap.  Prior to this, that was the standard.  It looks like we are going to need another standard. 

Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:

I was in no way trying to be disingenuous.  I flat out stated multiple times that the possessive portion of the so-called titles were on their own screen.  I was always of the understanding that a film's title can be gleaned from one screenshot at some point during the credits.  My purpose was to illustrate the fact that at no point can these longer titles be derived from one screenshot.  I didn't give equal time to the possessive screenshots because they didn't seem germaine to the subject, i.e. whole title displayed at once.  Frankly, I wouldn't have bothered using any screenshots, but it was suggested that I somehow couldn't read the credits on my own screen and if I would but open my eyes the truth would be revealed. 

I suppose in hindsight I can see where someone would think I was trying to get away with something.  Who am I kidding?  There are folks out there right now that are convinced that I just got away with something.  Oh well.

You are not alone in that 'understanding'.  Quite a few of us understood it the same way.  I never thought you were being disingenuous. 

I see the light!!! I've been saved!!! Glory be!!!

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
I see the light!!! I've been saved!!! Glory be!!!

Hallelujah

Can I get a witness?

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Or are you saying there screen shot that would be before the one posted is also part of the title?

That is what they are saying.  My understanding is there is a screen shot that says 'Alfred Hitchcock's' which disolves into another screen shot that says 'The Birds'.

Skip, and those that agree with him, is saying both screen shots make up the entire title.  Like I said, back on page 4, they are trying to redefine what constitutes a 'title credit'. 

And those who are trying to say that the screen shot that says "Afred Hitchcock's" and fades into "The Birds" is somehow separate and NOT part of the title, are denying reality.  What OTHER possible purpose could there be but to identify the director of the film.  You can't cut out the first part and have it make any logical sense whatsoever for being UNLESS it is connected to the title.

Some of you people are acting as if a possessive in the title is some sort of sacrilege; like your horrified that anyone could consider having such a thing in there.  Well, I couldn't care less if it is or isn't.  It is what it is -- if you are watching the title and it shows "Alfred Hitchcock's" which does a fade out/fade in to "The Birds" then it is patently obvious that it should be included.  Film costs money, and so does editing time to include that little bit in the movie.  Multiply that times thousands of copies to send out to all the theaters on opening day and you're talking big bucks.  They don't include stuff unless there's a reason, unless they feel it should be there.  That ought to be reason enough to include the possessives.

Rifter,

I think it's being used as marketing and not actually part of the title. The quote in an earlier post in Hitchcock's own words says as much.

I would agree that any attempt to separate Alfred Hitchcock from the film is ludicrous. I would also say that of any of his films though.

For our purposes in DVDProfiler, I would suggest we define when to include possessives a little differently though. My post above is, in my view, probably the best approach.

Here it is.
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:
My thinking is that without an indicator such as an opening quote before the possessive and an end quote at the end of the full title, the possessive should not be included as part of the title.

Example:
"Bram Stoker's Dracula"
and
"Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"

Those possessives are part of the titles.


This is not:
Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds"

I don't think we have to rest this on nothing but quotes and it could be any similar indicator. Without an indicator, the possessive should not be included as part of the title because it's just somebody bragging.


We would look for these indicators or "qualifiers" on the title screen or in the copyright or in the credits section on the back cover. Official websites would also be an acceptable source.

The director himself wouldn't refer to the titles of his own films as "Alfred Hitchcock's (fill in the blank)" in any interview you might care to read or listen to.  Nobody in the world that I'm aware of stacks all his films under "A" when sorting them alphabetically by title.  Yet somehow, through the decades, we here at DVD Profiler have divined the true titles to all his films that have eluded film scholars all these years.  That's just...wow.  Somebody better tell Universal they copyrighted the wrong films, according to an earlier post regarding the U.S. copyright database.  Perhaps we can make a case for his library actually being in the public domain?  Good god.