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?"

Comments

In the original release

[wiredog]

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.

Re:No mention of Blockbuster?

[alphaseven]

I seem to recall they've been bowdlerizing their videos for years.

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.

Re:If I buy it's mine

[StevenMaurer]

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.

Re:Moral Rights

[jamie]

"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."

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:

Sec. 106A. - Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. -

Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art -

[...]

(3)

subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right -

(A)

to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

(B)

to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

(Boldface added.)

Moral Rights, weak in US.

[Animats]

The section quoted doesn't apply to movies. "Visual art" is very narrowly defined in U.S. copyright law.

• A work of visual art does not include - any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication; any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container... any work made for hire ...

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.