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?"
They who pay for the film and own the rights can do what they want with it. Everyone else involved were just employees.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
So does this mean they'll take on Blockbuster for only renting the censored version of a film?
I was a bit surprised to notice that the chain Blockbuster Video wasn't mentioned in that article; I seem to recall they've been bowdlerizing their videos for years. But OTOH, they're owned by one of the studios, aren't they?
IMO, there's a substantial difference between selling edited copies of a tape and using a system to overlay your own "edits" onto a full version you've bought. The former is an unauthorized motification, but the latter is within your personal rights for fair use, and not any different from simply hitting the mute or the fast forward button.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
The DGA is probably the only film industry body more fascist than the MPAA. They attempted to FORCE George Lucas to put his name at the beginning of Star Wars in 1978. He refused, they fined him, and he left the organization.
On the current issue, who do they think they're fooling? "Edited for television" has been around at least since I've been allowed to stay up that late. Studios chop scenes out against directors' wishes all the time. What's next, a fight against chapter menus because everybody skips to the Good Parts?
If people are willing to edit your movie to supply the demand for such a thing (ala The Phantom Edit) then why don't movie makers pick up on the demand themselves, and re-release the movies in the way that the audience wants to see them? I know that I'd glady pay another $20 for an official Phantom Menace DVD that had the bright yellow "New and improved! No Jar Jar!" sticker on it...
"Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
What I've seen a lot of people do for movies is to buy it as is, and then either have someone personally edit out portions they don't like or just have some sort of electronic filter that has a set of edit points stored in memory. I frankly don't see how content providers are going to be able to stop this.
industry to see people making money and try to control the technology and sue the people, instead of releasing special edition releases.
sheesh.
Of course, if DVD technology was left to engineers, we would probably have the ability to do this on the fly with dvds.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think what the article is getting at is that the director may have something called "Moral Rights" over the work. Essentially this means that the item is a work of art that was produced for a fee and that the author of the work has the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work (i.e. censoring scenes).
The idea being that once a piece of art has been created the author has his/her name attached to it, and thus any treatments of the work done later that do not fit the artist's vision taints the artist's reputation.
I don't know how this works with film, because there are limitations to this when an artists produces work for an employer.. so it may be that the studio owns the moral rights, and I'm also not sure how this works in the US, but the UK and Canada both have moral rights. I'm not entirely sure as IANAL.
But.. here is a link for my karma-whore points... Moral Rights .
Puh-lease. The travesty in all this isn't that directors are fighting our ability to buy edited copies of movies, it's that any idiot would try to take the swear words out of a film in the first place. Don't watch the goddam movie if it offends you so much. While we're at it let's erase all the footage of Elvis Presley's "obscene" hip gyrations and file the tits off the Statue of Liberty. Some people just have no sense...
Film alternate scenes/dialog that conforms to the different levels of viewership.
That was one of the promises of DVD, we were supposed to have multiple ratings at our fingertips so the kids could see the PG version, the teens could see PG-13 and after the children were tucked in, the adults could see the R version.
That hasn't happened. They apparently don't see a market for it. Well if they don't and some consumers do, why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to pursue it?
All these whiney directors need to do is release an editted version themselves. Or are they going to prevent parents from fast-forwarding that one "bad scene" or muting an expletive-laden tirade?
I don't care how "important" the message in Schindler's List is. The scene where there is a nude woman in the German officer's bed is stimulating and sexual. If I had kids, I would want to skip that scene.
Here's what makes me want to puke on these directors...there are a lot of good good movies out there that had to add a single vile scene so they would be able to get the R rating their marketting folks said would sell better. Wasn't that compromising your artistic integrity?
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Legal issues aside, I understand the Directors feelings. Certainly when you get a competent director who make thoughtful stuff, like Stanley Kubrik or Dave Fincher or Quentin T., it's an insult to have people watching your movies under some sanitary cut. This isn't a plane or TV, where the audience will like the movie and then go to view the real thing. This is either really pathetic people not wanting to be offended, or parent's trying to show your art to children in a butchered manner. I think there is a difference, and I'd be damn pissed off if I took the time to create A Clockwork Orange, Se7en, or Fight Club, or Pulp Fiction, only to have people stipping it's essense out and changing the experience.
Again, it's not the same as the TV or plane version, because the goal here is not to open the movie for a wider audience (who can then go and see the real thing), it's a viewer asking someone else to protect them permenatly from the scenes that often make the movie.
But I guess I am sort of a sadist when it comes to these things, and prefer movies that make me uncomfortable and show raw humanity at it's best and worst. Also, note that if you think Stanley's, David's, or Quentin's work sucks, pick another director - the point still stands.
_sig_ is away
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
When Ted Turner colorized all those movie classics. Or the choice to release a movie in a foreign market dubbed (I'm talking about foreign films brought to the US and only released dubbed by the distributor).
The owner of the rights to the film can do with it what he choses. Simple.
Turner owned those reels of movies and he did what he wanted. Of course the public backlash stopped it in the end.
Similarly local distributors in a country count as the owner's proxy in those states. But the general dislike of dubbing has stopped them from releasing dubbed versions of Crouching Tiger and Life is Beautiful. Of course it has also limited the distribution of foreign movies (the assumption being people don't like dubbing but only film critics like to read subtitles so you can only release it in art houses).
Like an earlier poster said, anyone who doesn't own rights to a movie but works on it is just an employee.
A good example is Fox owning the original Star Wars. Lucas had to buy it back from them. Of course when he did he added in "Greedo shooting first."
Originally Fox could have stopped him from adding it. Later they couldn't. Neither could the LucasFilm employees or Harrison Ford.
Control of the final product is one of the benefits of being a big time director.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Interesing topic, but I would think it is moot. The DGA fought the same battle through the courts when the studios started colorizing and rereleasing black & white movies in the 80s. They lost the battle 100%. Hard to see how this is much different.
sPh
There is a large enough market here to justify the additional cost. There are a variety of companies in Utah that have sprung up to fill this need. The company in question has found people all over the country that want to see cleaned up movies. If Hollywood would simply provide the toned down versions that they have already made of these movies on DVD they could realize additional revenue.
This is not censorship. Censorship is when someone else decides what you get to watch. This is consumers deciding for themselves that they don't want to view particular content. I doubt that many /.ers can respect that, but they should be able to see the difference.
Certainly if I buy a book I am free to rip out any pages that I want. The magic of DVDs allows you to "rip out pages" without doing so permanently. Why hasn't this technology been supported by Hollywood?
Lasers Controlled Games!
Who the hell is this guy to determine what should and should not be in a particular movie? I'd hate to see his version of Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut -- it'd be about half an hour long.
It's bad enough already that anything anyone could possibly consider objectionable gets cut out for TV broadcast. I'm sure this guy would love it if Walmart decided to start selling only his censored versions of movies in their stores, to avoid the inevitable objections of several random parents.
you bought a print of the original, unedited version.
If you bought 10,000 prints of the Mona Lisa, drew a mustache on all of them, and then resold them, The Louvre (or whoever owns the image rights to the Mona Lisa) would have a cease and desist in your face ASAP.
If you secured rights to edit the Mona Lisa and then sell it before you sold it, then you would be legal.
Same thing with movies. I can edit my own tape of Fight Club, but someone can't sell me an edited tape without Fincher's (or Fincher's production company's) permission.
Slashdot ought to be called News For Copyright Law Geeks. Stuff That Used To Matter.
Well, the library owns the books, not the person who checks them out, so of course it is destruction of property. But that is not a good example. Now ... what if a person BUYS a book from a bookstore and edits it, and then redistributes it. That certainly isn't censorship!
Oh, and I never said anything about copyright law, I believe you are right in that regard.
Fault loves the past, worry loves the future, but content enjoys the present.
3. They're afraid that multiple versions of a tape may cause consumer confusion that weakens demand for videos in general.
This general principle is why so few people are using US quarters these days. It's also why the Pokemon game was so unpopular. It's also why no one went to see the 20th anniversary version of Star Wars, and why no one bought the video version. It's why the sales of DVDs are approximately zero (all those scenes! all those options! too confusing!)
Be who you are...and be it in style!
You mean the way Stanley Kubrick did with Eyes Wide Shut? There is a long orgy scene in EWS, that American censors said would have to go, because it was too explicit. In the version shown in American obstructions were digitally drawn in to hide the, um, "action".
But as to the deeper question, "why don't artists just give people what they want?" I am going to translate that to "why don't artists just give people what they are comfortable with, what won't challenge them?"
Well, many film-makers, writers, musicians, entertainers do exactly that. But there are great artists, like Kubrick, who feel they have a point of view that it is important to express. They think that they have an idea that it is important to present to the public even if it isn't completely comfortable at first.
Is this a good thing? It depends how you feel about cultural and social change. American writer Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a book called Uncle Tom's Cabin. I believe the term "Uncle Tom" has a cultural meaning nowadays that it acquired in the last couple of generations. I believe that scholars such as those whose article you can read in the link I have pointed to, contend that UTC was an uncomfortable read for many, when it was published, because it put a human face on the effects of slavery for white American readers. So, yeah, I believe being open to letting artist's challenge our accepted views of things is worthwhile.
So let's say you want to see the unedited version of "Requiem for a Dream". If you live in one of those beige cube suburban sprawl trackhomes, then you only have one choice: Blockbuster, the monopoly. However, they only carry the edited version.
So who is getting fucked?
The corporation (Blockbuster) has decided to impose it's own moral code of ethics, but since they are the only game in town (unless you want to drive an hour to the nearest city), you don't have a choice but live under their ethical standards.
Do you get fucked because you have less choice?
Or does the corporation get fucked because they are being told they can't alter a movie?
So it's a lose-lose for the consumer: either Blockbuster wins or the MPAA wins.
What a fun time to be alive! 1/3 of the planet's population is starving and we're worried about our rights to see softcore porn. Not that I think we should have to do something about those billions of starving people -- I just think it is fascinating.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Now, I know this will be hard, but I want everyone to take a deep breath and think about the issue for a second.
Third-parties are editing creative works that are not their own to meet their particular standards. They want to screen out tits, Jar-Jar, whatever. The argument that seems to be pretty popular here is that "we bought, we can do what we want with it." This is true, to a point. If I want to watch my own 30-minute version of Eyes Wide Shut that's my own business.
Where it gets complicated is that people are making that edit and then selling it. Even if it's marked, under what right are they doing this? They didn't create it. Like it or not, a film is a work of art. The entire film is an expression of the artistic vision of the creator. To alter it is to alter the message, which does a gross disservice to the creator.
What would Lolita be without a 14-year old girl (never mind that she was 12 in the book)? Clockwork Orange sans violence. Armageddon with no asteroid?
A film is not just some montage of scenes pieced together for you viewing. It has a point, maybe a moral--it's going somewhere. At the very least it is telling a story that has certain nuances.
My point is simple: the art is being altered and then being sold. Even if it's marked as edited, it's being sold under the original title. Let's say that Titanic is edited to remove the lovemaking between Winslet and DiCaprio? Is it still a James Cameron film? Hard to say, really, because you aren't seeing what he intended. Think about that, for a second. Consumer rights this, consumer rights that--what about artistic rights?
~Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
The point here is that they're not passing it off as the same movie. No one is being tricked into thinking they bought the original version - these versions are being specifically requested by the consumer.
Exactly. This just needs to be posted a few more times so that more people can see it.
These aren't derivative works, in that the other companies are claiming IP rights to the modified versions and selling them as "their own" movies. People (bashful, or maybe with wussie kids) seek out these companies who will modify the media they've already bought, or pay the companies specifically for the service of providing them with an edited version that does not contain the content they find objectionable. This is NOT censorship. Censorship would be one of these companies or the government blocking out the content in question without the knowledge/consent of the customers, and trying to pass it off as though this is the actual unmodified work. Nowhere does it say anything about people doing this. The movies are marked as edited, and are edited in specific ways as requested directly by the customer who is buying them.
This is just an even more absurd attempt to exercise power over the masses by the MPAA. And why don't they get it through their thick skulls that all these stupid things they're trying to do will only HURT their sales?? They actually fucking argued that "the films are the creative property of the filmmakers and cannot be altered without permission. A person who is troubled by the content of a film should simply not watch it. Censoring it even temporarily is not an option. ... Parents can control what their child sees by not allowing it in the house."
So they're basically telling people that, "instead of paying us full price for a product we made, and then paying somebody else to make it more convenient for you to skip past the parts you don't want to see, you should simply not pay us any money at all and not view any of the movie whatsoever." ...and thereby missing out on the all important 'artistic message' entirely. They're actually telling people to not buy their movies, instead of making simple modifications that would make them acceptable! But of course it's Napster's fault that movie sales are down...
And where the fuck are these people getting Blockbuster from?? It's not mentioned in the article at all! Nobody said Blockbuster was editing movies and renting them under the guise of being the original movies. Stop filling in the blanks with whatever pops up in your head people, and read the fuckin article!
Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
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.