Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Passion of the Splice: Gibson sues CleanFlicks
relapsedcatholic.blogspot.com ^ | 11/18/2005 | Kathy

Posted on 11/18/2005 6:38:17 PM PST by solitas

Christian vs Christian in pop culture smackdown:

"Mel Gibson's film production company has filed a lawsuit against a Utah firm for editing his movie The Passion of the Christ. The suit targets Ray Lines and his company CleanFlicks, which edits the nudity, violence and foul language out of films.

(...)

"The lawsuit is not asking for compensation, KUTV reports, but rather seeks to shut down CleanFlicks for good."


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: christianmedia; cleanflicks; gibson; lawsuit; melgibson; moron; movies; passionofthechrist; snufflick; sue; thepassion
A link in the article:

http://view.e.newsmax.com/?ffcb10-fe8616767c60027573-fe1a15797d600d7c721377-ff2c1d70746d

1 posted on 11/18/2005 6:38:17 PM PST by solitas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: solitas
Wonder if CleanFlicks really do violate copyright - the way I understand it, they buy a tape and resell it to you with the problematic parts cut out. they don't actually copy it. with a dvd you might have to copy - I'm not sure - but they're not ripping the makers off - they buy one copy for each copy they sell.

It seems pretty much the same as if I bought books and resold them with the steamy pages razored out.

I wish I could get custom movies - I'd like that one PG on the violence, PG-13 on sex and language please. There's a lot of highly praised movies I've skipped because I knew they'd be too violent for me - The Patriot for instance, or Braveheart.

Artistic integrity, I suppose. Like putting a bathrobe on the Venus de Milo.

Mrs VS

2 posted on 11/18/2005 6:58:05 PM PST by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Coleus; narses; Salvation; sinkspur

Catholic ping


3 posted on 11/18/2005 7:01:23 PM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; onyx; Clemenza; Petronski; GummyIII; SevenofNine; martin_fierro; EggsAckley; Xenalyte; ...

FYI


4 posted on 11/18/2005 7:10:36 PM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor

Yeah, with a tape you can actually cut things out of it and re-sell the remainder. I don't know about a DVD though - would they have to rip it, edit it, burn it, and destroy the original?

T'would make more sense to rip/edit/save once to burn many times WHILE paying the distributor for copies they've so cloned.

I could imagine gibson's so full of himself that he doesn't want his snuff-flick edited and doesn't _care_ that people don't want to see gratuitous violence.


5 posted on 11/18/2005 7:37:20 PM PST by solitas (So what if I support an OS that has fewer flaws than yours? 'Mystic' dual 500 G4's, OSX.4.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; ...


6 posted on 11/18/2005 9:32:31 PM PST by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: solitas

gratuitous violence? snuff-flick?? what are you babbling about?? it showed what My Lord and Savior went through in order to save my unworthy soul. I had never really understood the extent of his suffering, and his love. i thought it was the most accurate passion movie i have ever seen.

as far as gibson being full of himself, if that was the case he would be suing for monetary loss.

if someone wants to see the edited version, wait for it to come onto a network channel (abc, cbs, nbc).


7 posted on 11/18/2005 11:18:52 PM PST by cas7boys (we all choose who we sleep with...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
Wonder if CleanFlicks really do violate copyright - the way I understand it, they buy a tape and resell it to you with the problematic parts cut out. they don't actually copy it. with a dvd you might have to copy - I'm not sure - but they're not ripping the makers off - they buy one copy for each copy they sell.

Unfortunately, I don't think that Cleanflicks has a leg to stand on since their actions, even though they ensure that the owners of the films get properly paid, nonetheless do not fall under legally-recognized concept of "fair use", and I don't think even the new laws explicitly allowing for auto-editing players allow for what Cleanflicks is doing (producing edited copies of films).

I am somewhat curious, though, what would have been the legal implications--prior to video taking over everything--of a company which purchased 16mm film prints, edited them, and then sold the edited films? Having to edit the film prints individually would probably be more trouble than it was worth, though with the right sort of equipment it wouldn't be too bad. Anyone know if anyone ever did that? Note that this is a very different situation from editing a film and then selling duplicates of the edited film (as companies like Castle Films very frequently did in 8mm); for that, copyright permission would obviously be required as for any mass-duplication effort.

8 posted on 11/18/2005 11:44:06 PM PST by supercat (Sony delinda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: solitas; Coleus

Should have the film in it's unedited form. Should show the most crucial part of history warts and all.


9 posted on 11/19/2005 4:41:15 AM PST by Irish_Thatcherite (~~~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: solitas

I watched the movie and had no problem with the "violence." It's no different from what Catholics have been portraying in the Stations of the Cross and innumerable paintings of the Passion and Crucifixion for two thousand years. It's no different from reading the Gospel accounts. None of it is gratuitous, and there has not been a single incident of anyone being driven to violence by seeing this film.

Sure, the scourging is tough to watch, and the nailing. But that's what the Passion is about.


10 posted on 11/19/2005 8:25:10 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: solitas

There's more to this than the first ten posts touch on.

Mel is against nudity and obscenity.

Clean Flicks is run by non-Catholics and I'll bet you their edits maybe perceived and interpreted by Gibson as anti-Catholic.

I'll bet this comes out later on.

Mel would not want to shutdown a place that cleans up movies unless there is something else going on.


11 posted on 11/19/2005 9:43:18 AM PST by George from New England
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
I suppose that it's a copyright violation in that their using someone else's title for a similar, yet different work. It would be like starting your own newspaper and calling it the New York Times. You're deceiving people who purchase your paper thinking that it's really the NY Times. This would harm the NY Times' copyright. In the same way, they are harming Mel Gibson's property by producing not just a similar product, but one that purports to be the same as what he offers.

And, of course, what they're doing in terms of artistic works is an obscenity.

12 posted on 11/19/2005 9:54:04 AM PST by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

What would you edit out of the film to make it less Catholic? (and more Protestant)? They're clearly editing out the violence. And Gibson has been nude in quite a few films himself.


13 posted on 11/19/2005 4:47:56 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Redcloak
There is a point here that everyone seems to be missing. Companies that edit films are not editing them and then trying to fool people into buying those instead of the real version. In fact the truth behind the edit is to provide a service so that people who have the original can watch it in their home the way they feel comfortable watching it. It's really kind of funny because people come away from watching the movie saying "Wow that was an awsome movie,Mel Gibson (or who-ever produced it) did a great job." I've never heard anyone say Oh way to go editors or anything like that.
It's simply a way to allow people to enjoy the genius of Hollywood without the "Oh it was a great movie BUT ..."
15 posted on 11/22/2005 1:23:29 PM PST by questions_everything (Misunderstood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Borges

For example: the scene were Claudia gives the towels to Our Lady and Mary Magdalene, which they use to soak up the Precious Blood.


16 posted on 11/22/2005 1:26:57 PM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PoplarWill
You are very right!! Why don't the producers edit their own and then release them to the public?? Well actually they do. Many times they have to edit them and then they sell the edits to a company that completes the edits then passes it to the airlines and cruise ships. So why are those not available to the public. ONE WORD, Money!! So instead the directors release the original and then the directors cut which at times is more graphic and then they release the unrated version which is still worse. But to go the other way, Don't even think about it.
Anyway, until the day that Hollywood releases it's own edits - why not let people enjoy these producers talents without having to hold the remote ready to fast forward or mute it. Let the praise go to the producers, the story and feeling is still there.
17 posted on 11/22/2005 1:32:30 PM PST by questions_everything
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: questions_everything

But you're not enjoying "the genius Hollywood" when you see an edited movie. You're seeing someone else's work. Thus when you see Mel Gibson's name scrolling across the screen in this version, you're being lied to. It's not Gibson's movie; it's the work of some hack in Orem, Utah. You're being robbed as a consumer and Gibson is being robbed as an artist.

If you do not like the material in Gibson's movies, then you shouldn't watch them. Your desire to be "comfortable" while watching a movie doesn't give someone else the right to steal from Gibson or any other artist. Encouraging theft isn't the sort of thing a Christian should do.


18 posted on 11/22/2005 5:00:32 PM PST by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: questions_everything
Why don't the producers edit their own and then release them to the public?? Well actually they do. Many times they have to edit them and then they sell the edits to a company that completes the edits then passes it to the airlines and cruise ships.

But in those versions, the artist is able to maintain artistic control. And if the director and the editors can't come to an agreement, the director is able to have his name removed from the new version. (Ever wonder how Alan Smithee could have a directing career that spans 5 decades?) I doubt that the CleanFlicks version calls itself "Alan Smithee's Passion of the Christ".

19 posted on 11/22/2005 5:09:05 PM PST by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
I agree that if you don't like the movie then you shouldn't watch it, and you shouldn't justify the action and say "Well let's change it so that we will like it." But the point is that's my personal opinion. And there are thousands of people who do say, "I want ever Mel Gibson movie because I love his work, but I don't want to watch the gore, blood, sex, etc" so to them it's ok to get the original and cut out those parts. Again the issue is giving people what they want so that they can watch it in their own homes the way they want it. That is their prerogative. And cleanflicks and any other business editing movies is just providing the service.

I will say that editing movies came about not from someone wanting to make a huge payload. It came about because someone edited his own movies for his family, and then people found out that he had the technology so they brought him Titanic to edit for their home use. He charged the person for using his equipment and providing a service. That's corporate America, we use what we have to provide a service for others and we hopefully get paid for it.
20 posted on 11/23/2005 8:42:54 AM PST by questions_everything (I hope this doesn't sound like a soap box)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: VeritatisSplendor
There's a lot of highly praised movies I've skipped because I knew they'd be too violent for me - The Patriot for instance, or Braveheart.

Take away the violence in either, and you have taken away the story as well.

21 posted on 11/23/2005 8:48:20 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

Again I couldn't agree with you more. It would be so wonderful for the directors to release those edited versions to the public. That way people would be getting the movies they want any way they wanted (original, directors cut, unrated, and edited) Almost like a KFC(original , crispy, extra spicy, and skinless) That way the actors and producers would have control, and there wouldn't have to be a third party trying to keep the feeling of the movie while taking out the explitives. But until that happens we go back to the same old story. Right or Wrong people want the edited movies, they know exactly what they are getting, so give the people what they want. Maybe these lawsuit will give enough public attention that Hollywood will clue in that there really are a lot of people that love movies but don't like the "BUT..." that comes with them.


22 posted on 11/23/2005 8:52:48 AM PST by questions_everything (I hope this doesn't sound like a soap box)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

I will admit that I saw both of those movies, yes I did see them edited. Then to see the difference I saw the original Braveheart. Again I will admit that I like the edited one better.
I didn't feel like I missed the story. They are such powerful movies
I am not going to get on a biased rampage promoting edited movies but I enjoyed them.


23 posted on 11/23/2005 8:59:33 AM PST by questions_everything (I hope this doesn't sound like a soap box)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: questions_everything

There may be a market for edited movies, but there's also a market for kiddie porn. Just because a market exists, that doesn't mean that the market ought to be satisfied.

Movies are intellectual property. The owners of that IP are the ones who have the right to say what will or will not be done with that IP. The hack in Orem doesn't own the rights to Gibson's movie. He owns a license to view his copy. He can trash his copy if he wishes, but that license doesn't give him the right to re-sell the trashed version. It's theft. If Mel Gibson doesn't wish to offer an edited version, then that's his business. The hack from Orem has no right to make that decision for him.


24 posted on 11/23/2005 9:03:58 AM PST by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

That's where the fair use law comes into play, it's a persons constitutional right to view material in the privacy of their own home however they deem appropriate.
You bring up child porn, wow that's left field. We are not exploiting anybody or forcing anybody to do something they don't understand. If someone wants to take out a scene in a movie so they can watch it with their kids, then who are you or me or anybody to tell them that they can't. If they don't have the knowledge or technology to do so, but they still want it done, then give your movie that you purchased to someone that does have the knowledge and technology to take that scene out, and sure pay them for providing that service. That's your right.
Stealing is defined as "To take (the property of another) without right or permission."
We are not taking anything from Gibson or any other producer. These people have bought an original copy of the movie. All the royalties have been paid all the credit has been given. Now all these people have these movies in their home and they want to change them. Go ahead do it.


25 posted on 11/23/2005 9:46:32 AM PST by questions_everything (I hope this doesn't sound like a soap box)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: questions_everything
I brought up child porn because there's a market for it; people desire it. You're justifying CleanFlicks' actions partially on the basis that people desire these edited movies. Desire for a product or service does not translate into a right to have that product or service available. No right exists to purchase a version of someone else's intellectual property. That isn't "fair use".

As I said before, if a movie disturbs you or you think that it's inappropriate for your children, then don't watch it. As an example, I thought that David Lynch's Blue Velvet was brilliant. I never want to see it again; it was too disturbing. My opinion of it, however, doesn't give me the right to expect that a "less disturbing" version be available. I have no right to ask someone to steal from David Lynch to satisfy my desire.
26 posted on 11/23/2005 11:33:19 AM PST by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Surely the violence can be shown less explicitly - someone is shot and dies - I would rather not see his head explode - but the story is still there.


27 posted on 11/23/2005 2:21:19 PM PST by VeritatisSplendor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

I agree that just because you want something, that doesn't mean that you have a right to get it. My mother taught me that very early in life.

But again we are not dealing with us altering someone elses Intelectual property and then selling that version instead of the original. It would be like taking Microsoft Windows (whichever version you choose) chop it up and then put it on the shelves as that original windows operating system.

This is completely different. We are not dealing the the initial exposure and sale of these movies. People see the original or at least purchase that one first, and then decide that they want to customize it to their personal wants and needs.

I feel that you and I are saying the same thing, just in different ways. We both agree whole heartedly that someones someones intelectual property is theirs and it is their right to maintain the integrity of it. For someone to alter and then try to pass it off to the public as the original or try to convince the public to buy the altered version INSTEAD of the original is so wrong.

But again back to the windows example. People buy the orignal version and then customize the setting and so forth to their specific needs. Of course Microsoft is keen enough to offer different options and custimizing features so that people don't have to do it themselves.

Thus we get back to the real point. If Hollywood would just release thier edited version then we wouldn't be having this conversation, but they haven't yet and our society is a society of choices and options. The constitution provides those freedoms so that's the way it will be.

It also allows us to speak freely in forums like this one. It is really great to talk to all of you. I'm glad I stumbled onto this forum.

Happy Thanksgiving weekend


28 posted on 11/25/2005 8:54:56 AM PST by questions_everything (I hope this doesn't sound like a soap box)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson