Posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled.
Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights, said U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch in a decision released Thursday in Denver.
"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."
Matsch ordered the companies named in the suit, including CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms, to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" and renting edited movies. The businesses also must turn over their inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling.
"We're disappointed," CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines said. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."
CleanFlicks produces and distributes sanitized copies of Hollywood films on DVD by burning edited versions of movies onto blank discs. The scrubbed films are sold over the Internet and to video stores.
As many as 90 video stores nationwide -- about half of them in Utah -- purchase movies from CleanFlicks, Lines said. It's unclear how the ruling may effect those stores.
The controversy began in 1998 when the owners of Sunrise Family Video began deleting scenes from "Titanic" that showed a naked Kate Winselt.
The scrubbing caused an uproar in Hollywood, resulting in several lawsuits and countersuits.
Directors can feel vindicated by the ruling, said Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America.
"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor," he said.
In fact they were filling a need because there was a demand for their services. Obviously, they were breaking the law -- but that has nothing to do with the demand.
The film companies, in their typical business wisdom, only saw the copyright issue and not the business opportunity that was handed to them.
If a director wants to sell a neutered version of his work, then its OK, but its his decision, its his property.
Its funny how everyone here is for property rights when the government takes land, but no one is outraged that this company went in and stole property from the film directors?
That's not a radio station selling anything; it's a record label that belongs to the same company as a radio network. And the crucial point is that, presumably, they are doing so with the permission of the copyright holder.
I'm not sure if all director owns the copyright or not. It's probably different for each project.
Directors sell neutered versions of their work all the time under the "director's cut" rubic. But these films tend to be extreme, such as Natural Born Killers, etc.
Figure a borderline movie for a lot of people -- Chicago --in which there is one graphic implied sex scene at the beginning would be the ideal candidate.
Also, the director would have more control over the way in which the "offending" material was cut.
Becaue if you provide them with that option, you trick the market, encouraging further works by the author rather then the market financially forcing the author back to the drawing board.
I'm sorry, I meant to say, directors sell neutered versions of their projects all the time and then a full length "director's cut." I didn't mean to imply the director's cut was neutered.
Yeah, but they sell the versions for airing on TV and airlines not for sale. Many directors won't allow their films to be altered for airlines.
Wow, a lot of people on this thread have pretty out-there views on copyright law. You can't alter someone else's creative work and sell it. I can't believe that's such a controversial proposition.
It's no longer their property after they have sold it. If I buy a book, then that book is my property and I can take a Sharpie and mark out any words I don't like. I can draw Hitler mustaches on Hillary Clinton's photo on the dust cover. Where in the law does it say I can't do that? Shouldn't I be able to pay someone to do that for me?
but no one is outraged
I AM!
Becaue if you provide them with that option, you trick the market, encouraging further works by the author rather then the market financially forcing the author back to the drawing board.
Huh? Nobody is tricking anyone. They are simply providing folks what they want albeit through new technology.
If by "these companies" you mean the ones who sell sanitized versions, the answer is "no". Not without permission of the owner of the copyright. If the owner chose to sell a "TV" version of the DVD, then people could buy it. Third parties can't sell it for you without permission. Nor could they copy it off TV and then sell it, sanitized or unsanitized.
Apples and oranges, you can deface a book, but what you can't do is take a copyrighted work like a book and make changes to it and then sell it.
Its pretty simple.
Yeah, but they sell the versions for airing on TV and airlines not for sale. Many directors won't allow their films to be altered for airlines.
Same thing, except the consumer gets to choose.
Now you are being weaselly. The entire point is that they are selling edited versions as heard on the radio. That one simple fact negates the whole "they aren't selling them" argument. They are selling them.
And besides you are just wrong. They companies are the same. You can even purchase the CDs from the radio stations' web site.
You can burn you book, tear it up, use it for a placemat and eat off of it. It's your book. You can hand YOUR book to someone to do it for you. But you can't buy one already butchered unless the author ok's it.
What was stolen? For every edited version sold the companies purchased a retail DVD. Are you telling me that if I draw a Hitler mustache on my copy of Hillary Clinton's book I am somehow "stealing" from her because I didn't get permission?
Hello....anybody home???? That is copywrite infringement.
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.