Companies out of IMDb law on regional branches and subsidiaries ;-))

I'm not a specialist on companies, but I take it the same rule on Branches should be applied to subsidiaries of an international group:

«Companies that have multiple branches in different locations, but are the same organization should be listed as one company. »

https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/industry-professional/company-name-formatting/G5UFMUM3FLURTBMF?ref_=helpms_helpart_inline#

https://www.imdb.com/find/?s=co&q=united+international+pictures

https://www.imdb.com/find/?s=co&q=warner+bros

https://www.imdb.com/find/?s=co&q=century+fox

I could go all day...

You're right, there are many similar issues, I'm sure.

The reason I requested this, and not others, is because I've said, (1) I came upon this one, and not the other duplicate companies you mention, and (2) I am not particularly interested in companies.

As Wikipedia says, the company group I mention in my post is already dead, after a number of name changes!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Networks_Group

But as you can see, at least for the editors of Wikipedia, Fox Networks Group was a single, international entity, with many branches, channels, and foreign subsidiaries.

I leave it to IMDb to decide if the subsidiary companies of Fox Networks Group are to be merged into the main file, or not.

Additionally, I believe that a clarification of this matter should added to the company name formatting page of IMDb that I quoted in the above response.

@artemis_9​ & @Tonio_Fraga -

To clarify here, we should check with our policy team if we would treat subsidiaries as we do regional branches?

Thanks!

Exactly.

It stands to reason that a subsidiary of a GROUP entity, which only differentiates by a regional or national tag, belongs to it.

Any lawyer will tell you otherwise, as in many cases they are schemes to evade taxation from one place to another...

Thanks.

I myself have successfully merged dozens of companies that were listed separately under 2, 3, 4  slightly different names. But this must be done only on an individual basis.

I mean, I think it would be a terrible mistake to merge, say, all the Walt Disney iterations through the years into a generic "Walt Disney" company. No, companies go through names and iterations like you and me change socks.

To continue with this most prominent example possible, if Disney has called itself "WD Productions," "WD Pictures," "WD Studios Motion Pictures," etc. through they years, all those different names should remain as separate entities on IMDb, reflecting the checkered story of the company.

Inversely, "Warner Bros." is not the same thing as "Warner Bros. Discovery," so both must remain separate as well. And so on and so forth...

Then there's the odd opposite case, like this:

https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?companies=co0014326

It's obvious the company that produced the 1957 American film is not the same that produced the 5 early 2000s European movies. I even doubt the 5 European movies are produced by the same "Alma."

In any event this on should be split into 2 different companies at least.

@artemis_9​ & @Tonio_Fraga -

Thanks to both, we will confirm with our policy team.

Cheers!

I've tried to split the above mentioned company into 2 entities:

https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?companies=co0014326

and I've received the usual boilerplate excuse:

"Our aim is to be the most complete and reliable source of movie, TV, and entertainment information on the web. In order to continue offering our users an accurate and trustworthy service, it is our policy not to alter or delete any kind of correct/factual information from our records."

Now, how can you be "complete and reliable" if you have a company listed that produced a 1957 American film and then 40 years later 5 early 2000s European movies? Makes no sense at all. It's even doubtful the 5 European movies are produced by the same "Alma" company.

Hi @Tonio_Fraga​ -

Just following up here to confirm that the request to merge these listings has been forwarded to the appropriate team for review via ticket (#P161772215).

@Michelle​ Thank you for calling my attention to this mess, rightly smacked by Tonio Fraga.

As I see it from abroad, not living in the big America, that (very long ago) was a republic, there is one and one only, REPUBLIC PICTURES = [co0318435]

Therefore, all titles currently listed in IMDb under [co0020540]and [co0226026] and produced or distributed before 1965, should be moved to REPUBLIC PICTURES.

Wikipedia is helpful to follow the sequence of company acquisitions <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Pictures>, and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republic_Pictures_films>.

Movies between 1957 and 1967, should be listed under REPUBLIC CORPORATION <https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-apr-02-me-carter2-story.html>. But apparently, this legal company name change did not reflect on the trade logo, so that Wikipedia accepts these movies under the same company name as Republic Pictures: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Pictures> (I say "apparently" because I'm not delving deep into this matter.)

Using the "Republic Pictures (I)" differentiating form would be acceptable for the period 1957-1967, since the economic structure of the company was changed, not only shareholders.

Movies between 1968 and 2022 belong to [co0080718], that Wikipedia describes in a poetic or religious language, as the «first reincarnation» of Republic Pictures...

Movies since 2023 belong to the (distribution only) [co0957308], which is not a «second reincarnation» but only a way to ring the bell that makes Pavlov's dog salivate... showing the Eagle logo and claiming what was a good production company's name, Republic Pictures.

Hi @artemis_9​ -

Thanks for providing these additional insights, I have added your comment to the ticket for our staff to review.