Federal judge rules against "sanitized" DVDs such as CleanFlicks
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Groucho
Incorrect. Final cut is part of the contract on any film. So, Gilliam would have only had a legal case if he had final cut in his contract (he didn't). On the other hand, neither Gilliam nor Universal have given CleanFlicks permission to edit the film in any way.
As I said, I don't necessarily agree with what this company does, but I question whether it should be illegal. I understand creators of these works would not like them to be altered, but do these alterations actually impugn their reputation? If someone said that after they watched one of these films, not knowing it had been sanitized, and stated "I will never again watch a film from _____ because its lack of depictions of sex and violence was unrealistic," then I would see it the judges way. As I see it, because this company is upfront that it has removed these types of scenes, no one in their right mind could make such a claim as above.
However, this company could have saved a whole lot of trouble by just inserting some note with a general description of what was cut (e.g. 3 sex scenes, 1 fight, 2 murders) why it detracts from a family experience and calling these editorials or parodies.
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sracer
Consumer rights are constantly being eroded.
But your position completely ignores the rights of the people whose work (and often whose art) the movie is. The court ruled that a company doesn't have the right to alter the copyright holder's work without their permission, particularly in order to profit from the altered version.
Your rights as a consumer end where someone else's rights as the owner of an intellectual property begin. The court's job is to determine where that line is. I think in this case they got it right.
RichC
#53
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 9,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Groucho
Which is one reason why a lot of first-time films are so bad. The filmmaker is so much in love with everyframe that he or she can't let anything go. The best amateur/student films I've seen are often those where the filmmaker brings in an impartial, merciless editor.
(sorry for the sidebar)
(sorry for the sidebar)
But ya, I agree with your point 100%.
Last edited by lordwow; 07-10-06 at 05:22 PM.
#54
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by i86time
We seem to be interpreting this ruling differently. The judge stated this editing does "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies." Regardless of whether Gilliam had it in his contract that he got final cut, he did not approve the cuts to the 'Love Conquers All' version, and thus suffered similar "injury."
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jericho
Here's the problem in your statement. Gilliam owns no copyright in his films. The studios do. If you have no rights, no rights can be infringed. What you're talking about is basically refered to as "moral rights" and are largely non-existant in the U.S. (although not completely absent in all cases).
#57
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know some people take the view that the free market should decide and what's the harm if the original is still available, but I hate censorship of any kind. Stick to disney films for the children. If you are so uptight that even those are too "dirty", then turn off the tv and read books. Who started Clean Flicks? Ned Flanders?
#59
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I admit, I had never heard of CleanFlicks (or the concept), until I read this thread. I think I'm still in shock. I went to their website and I just cannot believe this has been going on. Why not just get a lobotomy and keep pretending it's the 1950s?
Their website actually says this:
We edit out:
Profanity
This includes the B-words, H-word when not referring to the place, D-word, S-
word, F-word, etc. It also includes references to deity (G-word and JC-words
etc.), only when these words are used in a non-religious context.
Graphic Violence
This does not mean all violence, only the graphic depictions of decapitation,
impalements, dismemberment, excessive blood, gore etc.
Nudity
This refers to male and female front and back nudity.
Sexual Content
This includes language which refers to sexual activity or has sexual
connotation. It also includes visual content of a graphic or stimulating
nature.
The B-Word!!?? Morons.
Thank you Judge Matsch!
Their website actually says this:
We edit out:
Profanity
This includes the B-words, H-word when not referring to the place, D-word, S-
word, F-word, etc. It also includes references to deity (G-word and JC-words
etc.), only when these words are used in a non-religious context.
Graphic Violence
This does not mean all violence, only the graphic depictions of decapitation,
impalements, dismemberment, excessive blood, gore etc.
Nudity
This refers to male and female front and back nudity.
Sexual Content
This includes language which refers to sexual activity or has sexual
connotation. It also includes visual content of a graphic or stimulating
nature.
The B-Word!!?? Morons.
Thank you Judge Matsch!
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Doom Town
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mod-Mod-World
I admit, I had never heard of CleanFlicks (or the concept), until I read this thread. I think I'm still in shock. I went to their website and I just cannot believe this has been going on. Why not just get a lobotomy and keep pretending it's the 1950s?
Their website actually says this:
We edit out:
Profanity
This includes the B-words, H-word when not referring to the place, D-word, S-
word, F-word, etc. It also includes references to deity (G-word and JC-words
etc.), only when these words are used in a non-religious context.
Graphic Violence
This does not mean all violence, only the graphic depictions of decapitation,
impalements, dismemberment, excessive blood, gore etc.
Nudity
This refers to male and female front and back nudity.
Sexual Content
This includes language which refers to sexual activity or has sexual
connotation. It also includes visual content of a graphic or stimulating
nature.
The B-Word!!?? Morons.
Thank you Judge Matsch!
Their website actually says this:
We edit out:
Profanity
This includes the B-words, H-word when not referring to the place, D-word, S-
word, F-word, etc. It also includes references to deity (G-word and JC-words
etc.), only when these words are used in a non-religious context.
Graphic Violence
This does not mean all violence, only the graphic depictions of decapitation,
impalements, dismemberment, excessive blood, gore etc.
Nudity
This refers to male and female front and back nudity.
Sexual Content
This includes language which refers to sexual activity or has sexual
connotation. It also includes visual content of a graphic or stimulating
nature.
The B-Word!!?? Morons.
Thank you Judge Matsch!
#61
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
As far as I can tell, this case was not decided on First Amendment grounds. It does not hold that the Family Movie Act is unconstitutional. All it seems to hold is that selling edited copies of films violates copyright law, which we already knew. So rather than use the Cleanflix model, companies will just use the Clearplay model authorized by the Family Movie Act. This solves nothing. Not sure what all the rejoicing is about unless I missed something.
#62
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by illennium
.....companies will just use the Clearplay model authorized by the Family Movie Act. This solves nothing.
#63
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I would love it if someone would actually make a purchase of a CleanFlick's version of the worst film availible on their store and let us all know how bad it actually is.
#64
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by CKMorpheus
I would love it if someone would actually make a purchase of a CleanFlick's version of the worst film availible on their store and let us all know how bad it actually is.
#65
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
For those who have expressed the opinion that what CleanFlicks was doing is ok .... a question:
Do you then think it would be ok for a company to reprint some best-selling novel (without the author or publisher's approval) to eliminate any cursing and sex scenes?
Do you then think it would be ok for a company to reprint some best-selling novel (without the author or publisher's approval) to eliminate any cursing and sex scenes?
#66
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by Mod-Mod-World
Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with Clearplay either (and now I'm worried.)
"The Family Movie Act makes it legal to alter a motion picture to edit out content that may not suit minors. However, this bill does not allow one to sell an edited version of a movie, such as what CleanFilms and Family Mix are doing. While these two companies buy in an original film for every edited version they sell, they are still selling an unofficial version not approved by the studios. Hollywood is looking forward to this bill as it also allows for harsher penalties for bootleggers, which includes file sharing.
The company ClearPlay apparently will be covered by this new legislation. Rather than sell edited discs, ClearPlay's solution is to offer filter templates that allows a ClearPlay compatible DVD player to filter out content based on the template and the options the customer chooses to filter out. As they are only selling a template and not an unauthorised copy, this bill effectively protects them from copyright liability."
I will read the full decision when I get a chance, but it seems to have nothing to do with First Amendment expression (as some posters seem to be interpreting it). Rather, it just affirms that if you sell an unofficial DVD, you are violating the copyright act. Nothing new there. The Family Movie Act is a statutory exception to the copyright act that says that ClearPlay's filtration scheme (detailed above) does not result in creation of a derivative work and is therefore not a violation of copyright. The Act was passed more or less specifically to keep companies like ClearPlay in business.
Bottom line is that this decision does not seem to break any new ground unless, like I said before, I'm missing something. I will read the decision tonight or tomorrow.
#67
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Originally Posted by marty888
Do you then think it would be ok for a company to reprint some best-selling novel (without the author or publisher's approval) to eliminate any cursing and sex scenes?
1) The buyer of the edited version knows what they're buying.
2) The publisher/author gets the same $$$ for each sale.
Last edited by Kevin Phillips; 07-10-06 at 08:16 PM.
#68
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by FilmFanSea
Allowing some (capitalist) moralist censor--no matter how well-intentioned--to scrub "objectionable" content from a film without the filmmaker's input or consent is just one step away from putting pants on Michelangelo's "David."
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by illennium
Rather, it just affirms that if you sell an unofficial DVD, you are violating the copyright act. Nothing new there.
#70
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for explaining the diffs between CleanFlicks and ClearPlay, illennium.
I see that CleanFlicks modifies the actual disk content, but with ClearPlay, you need to buy their DVD player, but use a regular unmodified DVD.
It's seems with the latter, all it does, really, is fast-forward or skip through the "dirty" parts (But they are still on the disk). I hate censorship, but this doesn't bother me nearly as much as the CleanFlicks concept.
I see that CleanFlicks modifies the actual disk content, but with ClearPlay, you need to buy their DVD player, but use a regular unmodified DVD.
It's seems with the latter, all it does, really, is fast-forward or skip through the "dirty" parts (But they are still on the disk). I hate censorship, but this doesn't bother me nearly as much as the CleanFlicks concept.
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe because I'm just sick like that, but I'm thinking about buying a copy of Eternal Sunshine from these guys and do a podcast about this whole thing. It's very interesting.
Edit: Ok, not for $14 shipped, but I might give the 30-day trial a shot, just for "fun"
Edit: Ok, not for $14 shipped, but I might give the 30-day trial a shot, just for "fun"
#72
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, the websites of those in the lawsuit are still up. I was a click away from owning a $10 burned DVD-R of an edited movie, simply becasue I clicked a box in which I claimed to already own that movie.
They required no proof at all, just my Fundamentalist Christian honor was enough.
On another site (cleanfilms), it actually says this:
Is it legal to edit movies?
Yes. CleanFilms is a Co-operative rental club. All subscribers to our service become members of the Co-op. The Co-op collectively purchases original, unedited DVD movies then has them edited - always maintaining a 1 to 1 ratio of edited and non-edited originals.
As owners of the original, unedited movies, the Co-op has the right to edit out content that is objectionable to its members - similar to how you might press mute to avoid hearing objectionable language today. Accordingly, you must subscribe as a member of the rental club before you can rent edited movies.
I don't understand how they've gotten away with this for so long.
They required no proof at all, just my Fundamentalist Christian honor was enough.
On another site (cleanfilms), it actually says this:
Is it legal to edit movies?
Yes. CleanFilms is a Co-operative rental club. All subscribers to our service become members of the Co-op. The Co-op collectively purchases original, unedited DVD movies then has them edited - always maintaining a 1 to 1 ratio of edited and non-edited originals.
As owners of the original, unedited movies, the Co-op has the right to edit out content that is objectionable to its members - similar to how you might press mute to avoid hearing objectionable language today. Accordingly, you must subscribe as a member of the rental club before you can rent edited movies.
I don't understand how they've gotten away with this for so long.
Last edited by Mod-Mod-World; 07-10-06 at 09:17 PM.
#73
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CleanFlicks, operating as a "Christian" business, is profiting by chopping up movies. Plain and simple. Yes, apparently there is a market for these--in Utah and elsewhere. They are providing a "service" to people who don't want to have cursing, excessive violence, nudity, etc. in the films that they own. But the key word is PROFIT.
I applaud the ruling.
(As a silly side note: they carry an edited version of Back to the Future! Back to the Future! What had to be edited out of that?!?)
I applaud the ruling.
(As a silly side note: they carry an edited version of Back to the Future! Back to the Future! What had to be edited out of that?!?)
#74
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DVDude!
Yes, apparently there is a market for these--in Utah and elsewhere.
ClearPlay Chief Executive Bill Aho cites a recent Wirthlin Worldwide poll that found 58% of all Americans were interested in "watching popular Hollywood movies that have been edited of all graphic violence, nudity and profanity."
#75
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Kevin Phillips
I have no problem as long as two conditions are met:
1) The buyer of the edited version knows what they're buying.
2) The publisher/author gets the same $$$ for each sale.
1) The buyer of the edited version knows what they're buying.
2) The publisher/author gets the same $$$ for each sale.
So $$$ is the answer? I'd be concerned with respecting the author's integrity, and the author's intent. It's not always about $$$, you know.