Slashdot Mirror
Directors Guild of America is Fighting Edited Films
BoyPlankton writes "According to this article in the Salt Lake Tribune, film directors are gearing up to battle companies that are making a name for themselves selling/renting out edited films to consumers. The film directors claim that it's censorship and that it's morally, ethically, and legally wrong. The companies doing it claim that consumer rights trump the artists rights in this case, and that the artists don't have the moral ground to stand on because they already edit their films for T.V. and planes. Is this issue going to further erode our rights as a consumer, or will lawmakers take this opportunity to shore them up?"
Greedo never pulled a gun on Han. In the 'update' Greedo drew first, thus making Han's shooting of Greedo an act of self defense, instead of cold blooded murder.
Best Slashdot Co
Well technically, blockbuster isn't censoring videos, they're just refusing to carry NC-17 rated films (like Crash) so studios sell them edited copies because they still want to make money. (I wonder why competitors don't advertise they carry critically acclaimed films like Crash and Bad Lietenant uncut). I've talked to people who work at blockbuster who mistakenly think they're carrying the regular version of Crash. I think it had something to do with being a family oriented video store (so now the whole family can watch Crash together or something).
What I wish filmmakers would do, instead of seamlessly editing they're films for content, is to just insert squares over the naughty bits like Solondz did for Storytelling, so at least the consumer can easily tell the version they're watching is cut.
Also, you ever notice that now directors insert all the naughty bits into the 'Deleted Scenes' section of the DVD, like the commentary will say "Oh we couldn't include this or we'd get in trouble." Since the film is still an R-Rated film blockbuster has no trouble carrying it.
For your own personal use does not include renting it out to other people. And while setting up specific edit-points may very well pass court scrutiny (because it's adding what effectively amounts to "opinion"), this isn't what the stores are doing.
You people had better be upset about this, because if somehow this altered-redistribution is somehow established as legal - it's bye bye GPL.
I'm pretty darn sure you're backwards on this, Jamie. Once I buy anything, period, I am free to do anything I wish to it...short of distributing copies which would be copyright infringement. Otherwise, by your logic, I'd never be able to throw away old videos, rip up magazines for recycling, write my initials on a CD with a Sharpie or tear down a statue in the yard to make way for a new garden.
When someone buys the copyright itself, then they're allowed to do all of the above, plus distribute copies.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
"They attempted to FORCE George Lucas to put his name at the beginning of Star Wars..."
Off the main topic, but you are incorrect. The dispute was over the director's credit on "Empire Strikes Back," which was not directed by Lucas. It also was not just the DGA.
Both the Directors Guild and the Writers Guild fined Lucas for placing Irvin Kershner's and the writers' credits at the end of the movie while keeping the Lucasfilm Ltd. logo (the producer's credit) up front. Lucas resigned from the Directors Guild, which is why he could not hire an American director for "Jedi."
The two Guilds spend a lot of time looking out for the interests of their members, the people who actually create the content you watch, so I would say that they are within their rights to assert a Eurpoean-style 'moral right' to a work of art as its creator.
I think it's a very important issue, because in the US, only a director with 'final cut' in his or her contract can refuse someone else's edits. If the case holds up in court, it could change the whole "work for hire" concept of US contract law as it pertains to anything that could be a work of art. Of course, the contract could still call for the director/writer to produce an "R" rated movie, since, God forbid, an NC-17 rating might mean that a movie deals with topics unsuitable for kids. I mean seriously, Ferrara said that "Bad Lieutenant" was not a movie for children, nor were any of his other movies.
I think that this is why the studios themselves are not weighing in on this yet, because a) it's not costing them money, and b) they don't want to help the directors and writers get power over the work they produce.
Also, I presume that the companies involved are snipping out scenes for a fee. This makes me think that they have violated the copyright by redistributing an altered copy.
Copyright law is extremely complex. Making blanket statements about it is not recommended. I'm holding its text as of September 1996 and it's a 170-page book.
17 USC 106A:
(Boldface added.)
In other words, if I paint a painting and sell you both the original and its copyright, you can make prints of it and sell them. But you cannot legally destroy or deface my original. I retain that right, and it is not transferred to you as part of an ordinary copyright sale.
This is a weakened version of droit moral as enshrined in most European copyright law. (At least last I heard -- I don't know what's up with the EU recently.) In France, for example, an artist cannot give away the right to deface or destroy an original work of art, even by explicit contract.
European law has broad "moral right", but U.S. law does is much narrower. This is probably good. It gets rid of the argument that removing commercials violates the moral right of the corporate author of the derived work of a TV broadcast.