Edited movies

[Killyp]

Just out of curiosity, why were the natives too scary, but Kong getting shot up by machine guns was okay? One part is scary, one part violent - how do you make the decision?

A giant monkey lumbering around on screen isn't scary or violent. Young children tend to play about that kind of stuff. I wasn't one of those kids when I was younger, but my dad says when he was younger, he used to run around in the back garden with a friend pretending to shoot each other. That was before movies as violent as some around now (Saving Private Ryan springs to mind) were out....

An ape being shot at by planes is obviously fake, even to a young (very young!) child.

 

[Mr. Durden]

Just out of curiosity, why were the natives too scary, but Kong getting shot up by machine guns was okay? One part is scary, one part violent - how do you make the decision?

Kong Getting shot up didnt seem as graphic or nearly as scarey as those friggin natives. And hammering someones head on a rock seems a little more graphic than an unrealistic monkey falling off a building. I guess its just a matter of opinion, but I've heard a lot of people talk about how scarey and maybe even out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie those native scenes were. And even though Kong getting shot up was violent, it wasnt gratuitous violence, unlike the natives.

 

[nbs2]

I should probably point out in the article, there wasn't a whole lot of mention of CleanFlicks's primary business model - NetFlix (how did NF not go after them for the name....actually, I kind oof have to applaud their non-litigiousness).

I have some friends that used to subscribe to CF about 3 years ago - they would rent movies through them that they wouldn't have watched otherwise (sound familiar to pirates ), so they really didn't focus on selling the movies. On a side note, what is the difference between me editing movies for my kid directly vs. asking someone I trust to do the editing (I wouldn't even use CF if I hadn't tested them first)...

I guess for me the question is - what happens to the original disc/license - is it destroyed or do they put it in the used market. I mean, do they sell copies like pirates from the trunk, or are they just swapping purchased discs with edits (the former is bad, latter is fine by me).

 

[LethalWolfe]

OK. Let me clarify. Selling a physically altered version of the film, would be wrong in my opinion.

Then we agree that CleanFlicks is in the wrong.

However, my point remains that if people want to skip a portion of a movie because it is offensive to them for whatever reason, I think they should be able to.

No one is saying you can't.

And its exactly my point about King Kong. I screened it ahead of time and felt that the only thing my son shouldnt see is the island natives scenes. The rest of the film seems relatively harmless to me. So I dont mind him seeing the other portions, and trust that he isnt getting the "wrong message" from the movie because he missed that 5 minutes.

There's a difference through between pre-screening something and deciding what you think is/isn't appropriate for your kid (things that will vary from movie to movie and as your kid grows up) and someone recutting movies to be "non-offensive" (how much more subjective can that be) and commercially distributing them. And even though skipping the natives part in King Kong may not effect the movie as a whole (I haven't seen it so I don't know) skipping over the segment in American Beauty where Thora Birch's character exposes herself to Wes Bentley's character would mean losing a pivotal point in the story for the development of those characters. It only lasts a few seconds but it's an important part of the film. For another example, I think making a "non-offensive" version of Sheindler's List would detract from the movie as a whole because there are moments that are meant to be the shocking and uncomfortable.

Either way, I guess its the studio and directors art, so they should have a say in how its handled. And I still feel its mainly a money matter.

Of course money has something to do w/it. People spent 10's (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars and years of their lives and they don't want free loaders capitalizing on all of their hard work and financial risk. There is a personal side too. I mean, if someone recut something I'd worked on and resold it I'd be pissed. That's my work w/my name on it. Why would someone think they have the right to take things out that I put there for a reason and resell it w/o my permission?

I should probably point out in the article, there wasn't a whole lot of mention of CleanFlicks's primary business model - NetFlix (how did NF not go after them for the name....actually, I kind oof have to applaud their non-litigiousness).

NF slapped Blockbuster w/a patent infringement suit so maybe they only want to sue one company at at time?

I have some friends that used to subscribe to CF about 3 years ago - they would rent movies through them that they wouldn't have watched otherwise (sound familiar to pirates ), so they really didn't focus on selling the movies. On a side note, what is the difference between me editing movies for my kid directly vs. asking someone I trust to do the editing (I wouldn't even use CF if I hadn't tested them first)...

Pretty much the same difference between making a mix CD for personal use and making mix CDs to be sold commercially. When it changes from "personal use in the privacy of your own home" to "cottage industry" is when it changes from legal to not legal.

I guess for me the question is - what happens to the original disc/license - is it destroyed or do they put it in the used market. I mean, do they sell copies like pirates from the trunk, or are they just swapping purchased discs with edits (the former is bad, latter is fine by me).

IIRC they kept the original discs as a failed attempt to cover their asses. For whatever reason they thought if they sold the original and recut movies together then they could legally recut and commercially distribute copyrighted material w/o permission...


Lethal

 

[clykins90]

I'm just curious: Why the heck would the studios care if the movies are edited? Some of the depictions add or change the movie? Possibly, at least in some cases. Say I want to see a movie, but I am offended by the needless number of F-words or useless addition of nudity. I won't bother seeing the movie unedited. If they take that away from me, I won't bother seeing the movie at all. How is this good for the studios?

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm just curious: Why the heck would the studios care if the movies are edited? Some of the depictions add or change the movie? Possibly, at least in some cases. Say I want to see a movie, but I am offended by the needless number of F-words or useless addition of nudity. I won't bother seeing the movie unedited. If they take that away from me, I won't bother seeing the movie at all. How is this good for the studios?

If the studio chooses to put out an edited version of the movie, that's one matter, because the movie is their property to do with as they wish. If others take upon themselves to do it, that's quite another, because it's not their property to do with as they wish.

 

[nbs2]

If the studio chooses to put out an edited version of the movie, that's one matter, because the movie is their property to do with as they wish. If others take upon themselves to do it, that's quite another, because it's not their property to do with as they wish.

But that still beings me back to the idea of outsourcing "parental editing responsibilities" as legit. Put another way - if A goes out and buys a given movie, but would like to have swearing/sex/violence removed, can he, using his own equipment, make the edits for a movie that will be used for private viewing only? If so, then what exactly is the problem with A going to B and saying "you have equipment they will let me edit this movie. I don't have the money for the equipment, but I will pay you to edit out swearing/sex/violence for me (in essence, I would like to rent your equipment and pay for your skill in using the equipment)."

Going to Lethal's comparison to the mix tape, if I create a cottage industry of taking CDs that people own, making mix tapes for them from their CDs and then returning everything, what exactly is the problem? If I make the mix tape and keep the originals, I could see the RIAA getting upset (I can already feel their anger from just the thought of doing that); if everything is returned, am I not just outsourcing work that I could do myself?

 

[erickkoch]

I guess it's just a matter of permission. The studios put out edited versions of their movies all the time when they air them on public TV.

I find it amusing to see an actor clearly mouthing profanity and hear, "heck" or "shoot" come out of his mouth.

I remember when "The Shining" aired on TV. In the scene where a naked woman comes out of a bathtub they had added a misty smoke around her body to cover her up.

 

[cycocelica]

Why have this? If you are old enough to decided for yourself, you probably wouldn't buy a movie that you deemed to inappropriate. And if you were buying for your kid, why buy the movie at all? This idea is all around dumb.

 

[OutThere]

Edited movies are wrong on so many levels...

Copyright-wise...it's been stated above. Do they really think they can get away hacking up someone else's material and selling it at profit?

Artistically...what are you really watching if you're watching an edited movie? Are you getting the same message that the director put in there?

Parenting-wise...If you think that some movies can be bad for kids just based on their visual and auditory content, then something isn't quite right. Far worse than the naked people (OH MY GOD NAKED PEOPLE!? ), swearwords and things blowing up, the plot itself can be extremely disturbing or problematic, with or without the offensive scenes.

I can see, almost, the violence and swearwords being edited out, but what's the deal with this country's prudishness. Sex is borderline, but do people think that kids don't realize that everyone in the world has boobs and a vagina or a wanker? Are those somehow evil, dirty things that must be covered up? I mean, I look down..bam! a penis! I look at my girlfriend...OMG BOOBS! Does the fact that they're on a screen somehow make them evil?

 

[MongoTheGeek]

I see nothing wrong with selling the edited down version as long as there is a legitimate copy purchased to go with it. The people who are doing this are not freeloading off of the artistic work of others, they are creating their own artistic work. It is a derivative one but it is still art.

When Andy Warhol copied someone else's art it was viewed as art in its own right. How is this different? Is Whats Up Tiger Lilly any different?

I understand that people have a sense of ownership of their material and may object to how it is used, but at the same time they do sell some of their rights to it. Is "Springtime for Hitler" an homage to a great leader or a piece of satire?

 

[stonyc]

Why have this? If you are old enough to decided for yourself, you probably wouldn't buy a movie that you deemed to inappropriate. And if you were buying for your kid, why buy the movie at all? This idea is all around dumb.

Agreed. If you as a parent deem Full Metal Jacket objectionable... Why would one feel the need to show your kid a movie like that in the first place, much less an edited version?

There are already tools in place that can help parents choose/manipulate what films their children see... film rating guides are a start, though not always accurate (see recent flare-ups with ESRB ratings) they can help parents easily screen out the most objectionable films. Screening films shown in theatres prior to allowing children (or relying on trusted friends or family who have already seen the film) to see them is another. Chapter selections on most DVDs can allow parents to just skip over parts as they deem necessary. And finally, if you read the second page of the article, there are companies like ClearPlay that offer software filtering... still legal by act of Congress at this time.

I think this section of the article is especially relevant with regards to this decision against companies like ClearFlicks selling altered versions of films:

Because ClearPlay's technology does not involve making an altered DVD copy, it has been shielded from the copyright infringement claims. The debate over movie content filtering activities made its way into Congress, which passed the 2005 Family Movie Act that protects ClearPlay and other software-based filtering companies. Matsch noted that Congress at that time had the opportunity to also carve out legal protections for CleanFlicks and its ilk, but chose not to.

The article does note that the DGA is concerned about software filtering, but that's beyond the scope of this decision.

 

[stonyc]

I understand that people have a sense of ownership of their material and may object to how it is used, but at the same time they do sell some of their rights to it.

It is not a sense of ownership... it is ownership.

And when you buy a DVD, CD, or track from iTunes... you are buying the right to listen/view it. Not the right to copy it for your friends. Not the right to alter it and distribute it. The key is distribute. If you want to rip all of your CDs to play on your iPod, by all means, go ahead. If you want to rip all of your CDs, bleep out all of the swear words, and play them on your iPod, again, by all means feel free to do so. If you want to rip all of your CDs, bleep out all of the swear words yourself, then sell/share those altered tracks... you're in big trouble.

 

[Black&Tan]

I guess the question that needs to be asked is "What makes a movie?"

Why do kids want to see a specific movie? When I was a kid, I wanted to see Animal House. My mom looked into it and said no. What was objectionable? The drinking, the sex, the attempted killing of a horse, the sexual innuendo. But that is the essence of Animal House. Without it, you have a shallow shell of a movie. And as a kid, you want to see EVERYTHING. How can you talk about it to your friends if they've seen parts you haven't. If anything, I would want to see the edited parts MORE.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

It is not a sense of ownership... it is ownership.

And when you buy a DVD, CD, or track from iTunes... you are buying the right to listen/view it. Not the right to copy it for your friends. Not the right to alter it and distribute it. The key is distribute. If you want to rip all of your CDs to play on your iPod, by all means, go ahead. If you want to rip all of your CDs, bleep out all of the swear words, and play them on your iPod, again, by all means feel free to do so. If you want to rip all of your CDs, bleep out all of the swear words yourself, then sell/share those altered tracks... you're in big trouble.

Yes but you sell some of the ownership when you sell me a copy. You sell me a book, am I allowed to resell the book? Can I mark up that book and then sell my marked up copy? Can I take a knife and cut out all the letter e's and sell that?

For every copy they sold, they bought one. I really think that the studios should just sit down on their pile of money and shut up.

If it really is an artistic thing and they no longer want their name on the edited project, I am sure that the CleanFlix will happily redact the credits as well.

 

[IJ Reilly]

But that still beings me back to the idea of outsourcing "parental editing responsibilities" as legit. Put another way - if A goes out and buys a given movie, but would like to have swearing/sex/violence removed, can he, using his own equipment, make the edits for a movie that will be used for private viewing only? If so, then what exactly is the problem with A going to B and saying "you have equipment they will let me edit this movie. I don't have the money for the equipment, but I will pay you to edit out swearing/sex/violence for me (in essence, I would like to rent your equipment and pay for your skill in using the equipment)."

Going to Lethal's comparison to the mix tape, if I create a cottage industry of taking CDs that people own, making mix tapes for them from their CDs and then returning everything, what exactly is the problem? If I make the mix tape and keep the originals, I could see the RIAA getting upset (I can already feel their anger from just the thought of doing that); if everything is returned, am I not just outsourcing work that I could do myself?

If you're doing it entirely yourself for your own purposes, then an argument for fair use could be made. If you're doing it for resale, then you're trading on someone else's intellectual property rights.

I wonder how those who'd defend this process would feel if the defendant in this case was "NastyFlix," a company that added sex, violence and foul language into G-rated films, to accommodate those who find family movies to be dull.

 

[stonyc]

Yes but you sell some of the ownership when you sell me a copy. You sell me a book, am I allowed to resell the book?

Uh, yes?

Can I mark up that book and then sell my marked up copy?

Yes, but you won't get as much had you treated your book nicely.

Can I take a knife and cut out all the letter e's and sell that?

If you want to go to the effort, and someone actually wants to read an unintelligble book...fine, go ahead. The difference, is that you aren't a large company that bought 200,000 copies of the last Harry Potter book and changed the ending so that Harry Potter doesn't die, dances with Ewoks in celebration of killing Lord Voldemort and ends up marrying Princess Peach.

For every copy they sold, they bought one. I really think that the studios should just sit down on their pile of money and shut up.

You're missing the point of the judge's ruling...

"Their business is illegitimate," the judge wrote in his 16-page ruling. "The right to control the content of the copyrighted work ... is the essence of the law of copyright."

I'm guessing that either a) those companies like ClearFlicks didn't ask for permission, or b) asked for permission to alter the films but were denied. The bottom line is that the studio's should be able to decide to distribute an altered version of their work. Someone earlier brought up edited films on TV, if the studios want their movie to be seen by a wider audience but because of sex/violence/etc. it won't appeal to that wider audience, they should be able to make that decision to make a less offensive version or not... in terms of public distribution. If someone owns a movie and wants to edit out a few objectionable scense so that their children could see it, like IJ said, you could make an argument of fair use.

If it really is an artistic thing and they no longer want their name on the edited project, I am sure that the CleanFlix will happily redact the credits as well.

And if a movie is that offensive, why let your children even watch a "clean" version. When the Ed Sullivan Show (?) censored Elvis' dancing it ended up being even more controversial because all the people knew what he was doing down there anyway.

 

[atszyman]

I guess for me the question is - what happens to the original disc/license - is it destroyed or do they put it in the used market. I mean, do they sell copies like pirates from the trunk, or are they just swapping purchased discs with edits (the former is bad, latter is fine by me).

I believe it was mentioned in the article that the original, unedited, movie was sold along with the edited copy. Which is where this quickly becomes an interesting case.

Under fair use I could take any of my purchased DVDs and edit out anything I didn't like, much like I can make a mix CD. I could also get a friend who is better at editing to do it for me, and possibly buy them a beer for the effort. However I can see how making a business of editing the works is not quite "right."

I guess if I were to look at it I would probably have the most issue with them mass producing. If they wanted to do custom work by having people send in DVDs and editing out what that particular individual requests for a fee I don't necessarily think anything would be wrong with that. The fact that they would do a movie once then all they had to do was buy a copy, burn their edited version, and sell it for a markup doesn't sit well with me. I'm not entirely sure why...

 

[IJ Reilly]

I believe it was mentioned in the article that the original, unedited, movie was sold along with the edited copy. Which is where this quickly becomes an interesting case.

Under fair use I could take any of my purchased DVDs and edit out anything I didn't like, much like I can make a mix CD. I could also get a friend who is better at editing to do it for me, and possibly buy them a beer for the effort. However I can see how making a business of editing the works is not quite "right."

I guess if I were to look at it I would probably have the most issue with them mass producing. If they wanted to do custom work by having people send in DVDs and editing out what that particular individual requests for a fee I don't necessarily think anything would be wrong with that. The fact that they would do a movie once then all they had to do was buy a copy, burn their edited version, and sell it for a markup doesn't sit well with me. I'm not entirely sure why...

However... intellectual property rights are not about sales. You could write a book and decide to give it away -- but this doesn't mean you still don't own the copyright. I think the court decided wisely that CleanFlix argument that they weren't stealing sales from the movie industry was not a defense.

I heard this morning that the industry is considering going after ClearPlay next. I think their argument against this technology is more problematic, so we'll see.

 

[nbs2]

If you're doing it entirely yourself for your own purposes, then an argument for fair use could be made. If you're doing it for resale, then you're trading on someone else's intellectual property rights.

I wonder how those who'd defend this process would feel if the defendant in this case was "NastyFlix," a company that added sex, violence and foul language into G-rated films, to accommodate those who find family movies to be dull.

I just feel like they are simply providing a service to a mass audience. To me there is no difference between this and colorware - they both are altering somebody's IP (the studio's or Apple/Ives's) and making their markup on streamlining the process. I'm sure that if you send them a specific movie to edit, they would have done it. In fact I know that their competitors did - there was one down the street from me.

As for the NastyFlix, I wouldn't purchase their products, but I imagine that there is a market for it. If there is, I wouldn't have a major issue, except that with CF they are removing images while NF would be creating content of appropriated images. But, beyond that problem, I'd say that it is an acceptable decision to make.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

You're missing the point of the judge's ruling...

I'm guessing that either a) those companies like ClearFlicks didn't ask for permission, or b) asked for permission to alter the films but were denied. The bottom line is that the studio's should be able to decide to distribute an altered version of their work. Someone earlier brought up edited films on TV, if the studios want their movie to be seen by a wider audience but because of sex/violence/etc. it won't appeal to that wider audience, they should be able to make that decision to make a less offensive version or not... in terms of public distribution. If someone owns a movie and wants to edit out a few objectionable scense so that their children could see it, like IJ said, you could make an argument of fair use.

I guess I still have a problem with the ruling, I want to call no harm no foul, here. I know that they have a right to the work for a limited time and can use it to totally bar distribution; (cf CoS and OT3 papers). But I don't think that they have the right to sell a copy and then limit its use. It smacks of the clickwrap liscences which have been struck down in the past.

I also have a problems with the fact that people are perfectly okay to do it to their own copy but can't pay to have it done for them. I guess prostitution is illegal so that argument isn't perfect.

I guess its a good thing I am not a lawyer.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I also have a problems with the fact that people are perfectly okay to do it to their own copy but can't pay to have it done for them. I guess prostitution is illegal so that argument isn't perfect.

It's the difference between fair use and copyright violation. The distinction is really quite simple. The former is for your use only, the latter is trading on someone else's property.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I guess I still have a problem with the ruling, I want to call no harm no foul, here.

But it's not no harm/no foul. If down Universal decides there is a market for "clean movies" (much like there is a market for "clean music" that Wal-Mart sells) and they decide to sell clean version of their films it will be difficult for them because CleanFlicks already has a foothold in that market. Of course a more likely problem is that the international and domestic distributors will start going, "Why are we paying all this money for the right to distribute film X when you are letting CleanFlicks do it for free?" And then the whole things turns nasty when the Sci-Fi just buys a DVD of Chronicles of Riddick, edits it for content/time, dubs it to Beta and b'casts that thus completely avoiding have to pay Universal for the right to air the movie. Or maybe people that are CleanFlicks customers used to wait until movies where shown on TV, but now they just rent/buy the "clean" version. This drops the ratings the movie gets on TV, thus dropping how much the networks can charge for advertising, thus dropping how much the networks will pay for the right to air the movie, thus devaluing the earning potential of the movie, thus costing the people who own the movie money.

Movies, books, and music all make money by selling the distribution rights. If you take that away then the ability to generate enough income to break even or, if you're lucky, turn a profit is nearly impossible.

Like I keep saying, this whole thing is so subjective that if you allow CleanFlicks to sell "non-offensive" (by their standards) recut movies then you have to allow everyone to recut movies and sell them (w/none of the generate revenue going back to the people that actually made the thing in the first place) and the creators of the original work will have lost complete control of it.


nbs2,
Again the difference is one of private, personal use and one of a commercial use. Just like if you wanted to make a home movie and use your favorite Madonna song that's okay. But if you give your footage to a videographer and ask him to edit your home movie and use your favorite Madonna song that's a copyright violation. Private/personal vs commercial/public. Or like you can listen to the CDs you've purchased all you want in your house/car, but if you own a business you need to properly license the music to play it in your business otherwise it's violation of copyright.


Lethal

 

[carylisa]

Why not????????????

I agree that editing a copy written product and reselling it for profit is wrong but....

I have children. I would love to be able to share with them DVD's of good movies. There is a lot to learn and enjoy. The language in MOST PG-13 films is offensive to most educated adults. Foul language adds nothing to the plot, nothing to the movie. Its cool so it written into the script. If I used foul language in this post I would be flagged but if I swear up a storm in a movie?

Its COOL. What idiot needs foul language to make a point? Only uneducated low life scum who can't think of anything creative to say so they swear.
Get over it, grow up. Hollywood sucks. If it does not have sex ans swears the think its not CREATIVE.

Give me a break.

 

[yg17]

Wow....this is an old thread.

I agree that editing a copy written product and reselling it for profit is wrong but....

I have children. I would love to be able to share with them DVD's of good movies. There is a lot to learn and enjoy. The language in MOST PG-13 films is offensive to most educated adults. Foul language adds nothing to the plot, nothing to the movie. Its cool so it written into the script. If I used foul language in this post I would be flagged but if I swear up a storm in a movie?

Its COOL. What idiot needs foul language to make a point? Only uneducated low life scum who can't think of anything creative to say so they swear.
Get over it, grow up. Hollywood sucks. If it does not have sex ans swears the think its not CREATIVE.

Give me a break.

Most educated adults either swear up a storm themselves, or realize that they're just words and don't let it bother them. Just about everyone I know is educated, and none of them get offended by swearing used in movies.

And I think in a lot of movies, swearing is necessary. You have to be able to convey the emotions of the character, and sometimes, the good 'ol f-bomb is the best way to achieve that