Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

Federal judge rules against "sanitized" DVDs such as CleanFlicks

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

Federal judge rules against "sanitized" DVDs such as CleanFlicks

Old 07-10-06, 05:10 PM
  #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.
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."

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.
Old 07-10-06, 05:17 PM
  #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.
I understand what you're saying, and maybe if a movie was nothing but a manufactured object, I might agree.

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
Old 07-10-06, 05:19 PM
  #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)
Absolutely. Editing anything is the most difficult part of filmmaking IMHO. Directors especially (and writers as well) LOVE their shots and scenes. Generally, when you shoot a 5 minute short (professionally, not one-takes) you end up with at least an hour of material to cut. I had a problem with my last student film. We had a 10 minute comedy, and it was a 5-minute short requirement. The editor is no one's friend when editing, and my last job (working for a shorts student film festival), our pro editor had a saying "Take an axe to it." Just chop away at anything that isn't funny enough or plot-related enough. I watched at least 600 5-minute shorts from students, and the one's that won were the ones that were edited the best. End of story.

But ya, I agree with your point 100%.

Last edited by lordwow; 07-10-06 at 05:22 PM.
Old 07-10-06, 05:25 PM
  #54  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,249
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
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."
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).
Old 07-10-06, 05:42 PM
  #55  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: teXXXas
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Fuck CleanFlicks.
Old 07-10-06, 05:50 PM
  #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).
That makes more sense. I wonder if there is a ruling or consideration for a movie (here copyrighted Universal) based on a screen play (copyrighted Gilliam & others ?) that alters events in the screenplay, still uses the same title, story and characters, yet is not a parody or editorial. I'm guessing not.
Old 07-10-06, 05:52 PM
  #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?
Old 07-10-06, 05:54 PM
  #58  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 9,687
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I feel like sending CleanFlicks an email with its only contents being "Ha ha!".
Old 07-10-06, 06:08 PM
  #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!
Old 07-10-06, 06:14 PM
  #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!
Well I'd almost rather watch Salo again then read the Bible again in terms of death and sex not to mention the hogwash of things only left to the imagination. Anyway in this case what they were doing boils down to selling copies of films for 10$ a disc. Bootlegging basicly but I guess beacause they are fundamentalist christians(or at least fronting) they can trust each other due to the honor system yeah ok.......
Old 07-10-06, 06:15 PM
  #61  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,191
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Old 07-10-06, 06:27 PM
  #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.
Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with Clearplay either (and now I'm worried.)
Old 07-10-06, 06:53 PM
  #63  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CKMorpheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
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.
Old 07-10-06, 06:59 PM
  #64  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Sub-basement 3b
Posts: 3,740
Received 24 Likes on 16 Posts
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.
South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut? It was one of the worst films according to Capalert (a Christian movie review site...check it out, it's pretty funny).
Old 07-10-06, 07:00 PM
  #65  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Times Square
Posts: 12,135
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
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?
Old 07-10-06, 07:16 PM
  #66  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,191
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Mod-Mod-World
Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with Clearplay either (and now I'm worried.)
Relevant information copied and pasted from CDfreaks:

"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.
Old 07-10-06, 07:18 PM
  #67  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 2,341
Received 418 Likes on 240 Posts
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?
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.

Last edited by Kevin Phillips; 07-10-06 at 08:16 PM.
Old 07-10-06, 07:52 PM
  #68  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Joe Molotov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 8,507
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
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."
And again, if someone in Utah wants to look at David with pants on, it's of no concern to me. Heck, you could probably get a $10,000 grant to do it and have it placed in some modern art museum if you knew how to spin it right.
Old 07-10-06, 07:56 PM
  #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.
The decision also states that selling derivative works is illegal, even if you include a legally-purchased copy of the original work. (Excluding what one of the posters said about CleanFlicks, all of the companies being sued included a copy of the original, unedited DVD along with the edited version.) I'm not sure if this is a new precedent or not, but it's the first I've heard of it -- not that I follow these things professionally.
Old 07-10-06, 08:05 PM
  #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.
Old 07-10-06, 08:56 PM
  #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"
Old 07-10-06, 09:13 PM
  #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.

Last edited by Mod-Mod-World; 07-10-06 at 09:17 PM.
Old 07-10-06, 09:34 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?!?)
Old 07-10-06, 09:48 PM
  #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.
Yea, but this much?
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."
Old 07-10-06, 09:57 PM
  #75  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Times Square
Posts: 12,135
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
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.

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.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.