Austinist: Federal Judge Ruling: Have To Keep The Naughty Parts In

Jonathon

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:04:02 -0600

While the middle ground is elusive, I think what James' is advocating isn't at stake here. When songs are "re-mixed", those artists are creating new work, inspired by, based on, on containing pieces of work that was created by someone else -- but the end product is not the work of those people. When the "re-mix" is too similar to the work it's inspired by (or exactly the same minus swear words and sex references), we call that theft. Additionally, I agree that labelling could be helpful in allowing CleanCuts "expression" -- however all the other circumstances you mentioned ("Director's Cuts", etc) are released and authorized by those who had creative ownership of that product. CleanCuts can release as many different versions as they want of their own films, but if they want to release a "cleaned up" version of anyone else's work, they should get permission, or be stopped.

Jonathon

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:40:52 -0600

Jonathon

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:33:49 -0600

Jonathon

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:29:11 -0600

Jonathon

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:25:10 -0600

Jonathon

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:14:35 -0600

James, I'm with you. I agree that artists should be able to take existing work and use it as a springboard (or even a crutch, if neccessary) in creating a new work. It would be a tragedy if this ruling was used to curtail that expression. However, I don't believe that's the case here. While the issue can be dealt with partially as an excersize in accurate labeling (ala "Director's Cut" -- I won't even speculate on possible labels for CleanCuts versions of movies), all of those labels apply to a version of the film released by someone with creative ownership of that product -- directors, producers, studios, etc. People, in essence, that can been deemed trustworthy in maintaining the professionalism/integrity/focus of the work. (Even though I grant their ability to achieve said professionalism, etc, is occasionally...debatable.) Secondly, when you talk about re-mixes, or any other artform that relies on pre-existing material, you're talking about artists who are, essentially, making new work. When they're not creating new work -- as in, they're "re-mix" amounts to little more then theft -- they're stopped. To sumise, I think you're right, James, if this ruling is interpreted too broadly, then we're all in trouble. But consumers haven't lost any right here. If they don't like the way an artist has created a film/song/painting/book/whatever -- then they still have the power not to buy it (or, in this case, rent it).

rareed

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:03:57 -0600

Again, I can't disagree with you, although we are moving away from the original idea from the post, which is: Do we really want the likes of Dana Carvey's Church Lady from SNL to make decisions about fair use? In a rather backdoor, roundabout method (which is how many of our more twisted laws come about) the film sanitizers were moving toward a legal right to copyright their versions of the films--unless I'm mistaken on what the EFF was arguing on their behalf. The EFF, as the ACLU for the digital world, is in most respects obligated to fight the fight for even the most absurd, micro interest group. Personally, I don't think a blanketing rule for all should arise from what stocks the shelves at 45 video stores in Utah. In addition, the judge deemed it an "illegitimate business," which in my mind says, "Stop trying to make money off of other people's efforts." The middle ground is still elusive.

James Baldwin

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:27:20 -0600

Yes, preserving brand identification is important, but less important, in my mind, than fair use. As I said, being "assured that films... are the vision of the flimakers who made them" is a labeling issue not a distributive one. Hollywood has already embraced this multi-versioned release mentality with "Director's Cuts", "Extended Cuts", "Platinum Editions", and of course the Star Wars debacle. Obviously, its not a matter of presenting a single, consistent "vision". Moreover, I find it difficult to believe that from screen writers, to directors, to producers, that everyone involved in the creation of a film (at least big budget blockbusters, Titantic is called to mind), share a consistent "vision". Adaptations and rereleases are another great example of how this original "vision" mentality doesn't hold true. The owners, not the creators, of stories are approving remakes that stand outside the "vision", in some cases, of the original author. Lastly, the nature of copyright was to ensure financial success of an author. To encourage a person to give to the community an idea, a story, a "vision", with the idea that it would eventually become property of the community after allowing the author a reasonable amount of time to profit. The spirit of the law is that communal property enables ideas and benefits both the author and the public good. Restricting reinterpretation and revision, when it does not reduce or dilute the value of a persons "vision", only serves to hamper public ownership and creativity directly in opposition to the spirit of copyright.

rareed

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:08:06 -0600

Touche! I believe you (James) and I are both correct, depending on how you look at it. I would agree Tyler would want the liberty of splicing porn flash frames into animated children's films. Also, at his lowest common denominator, he'd feel vindicated for putting "the naughty parts in," which was my intended meaning. I appreciate your arguments, and admit that I have enjoyed the fruits of fair use. On the contrary, I am old enough to remember the hashed-up versions of films that used to air on network TV before cable. Imagine the original "The Omen," "Looking For Mr. Goodbar," or "The Godfather," minus the scenes that made them cutting edge and signature films for a generation. In this particular case, dealing with the vision of the director and right-wingers who are using these works of art to make some sort of moral point, Michael Apted, President of the Directors Guild of America said it best after the decision: "Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choice of a third-party editor. ...We have great passion about protecting our work, which is our signature and brand identification, against unauthorized editing." Please keep commenting...my editors, and I, LOVE it. And Jonathon, thank you for your support!

James Baldwin

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:29:55 -0600

Pardon for the double post, a server error showed during the posting process and my original post did not appear until after I had written the second. Mea cupla.

James Baldwin

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:26:49 -0600

Consumers 0, Artists, Media Conglomerates 1 I wish you wouldn't encourage such behavior Jonathon. Fair Use has been under fire recently, when we should be doing everything we can to support it. And while we may all be morally opposed to the very notion of CleanFlicks, I hope we can all agree that letting the government dictate morals is more abhorrent than holding distateful morals. Its repugnant when the government further errodes my rights, and, make no mistake, this decision against CleanFlicks is erroding your rights. We are currently moving through a time of convergence and participatory culture; if you don't believe so, look to the popularity of such wonderful artists as DJ Shadow, Danger Mouse, and Dean Gray. Remixes are the best example of exactly why would should lend CleanFlicks our support even if we can't recommend them as a vendor. Remixes are under fire for both their reinterpretive nature and for a lack of compensation to the original artist for derivative works. Folks of the creative leaning generally disregard the first, as the reinvention is worth more than the original, in our eyes (but who decides worth?). The latter sometimes sends thrills of guilt through us, but it is often supressed beneath of a rationalization that the borrowed segment would have been worthless without the creative additions or that the borrowed segment did not reflect a significant portion of the original work. And we listen on and enjoy. CleanFlicks was not avoiding compensation of the original authors. CleanFlicks required the purchase of an original copy before the member was provided a sanitized copy. Thus the second argument above is made moot, and we're left with the reinterpretive effects of the edit. If we're to support participatory culture, and creative recombinations of original works of art without court oversite, this is a use we should support. Not supporting this on moral grounds that child proofing the world is improper is hypocritical as the same rights which lend us the freedom to reinterpret modern materials are the same rights which provide "right-wing nutjobs" the opportunity to sanitize films. My only qualm with such a use is this: When I purchase a film I want to know that it is original and unaltered. This is a question of packaging, not a question of legality. The same thing bothers me when I accidentally purchae Walmart sanitized CDs at the used music store. I never questioned whether they should exist at all.

Rob

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:19:09 -0600

Hollywood 1, Consumers 0 ? I'm not convinced this is a good thing. Why shouldn't people be able to make altered versions of existing works? Do we really want to outlaw remixes, mashups, documentaries and other works that incorporate re-edited footage? So much for future Phantom Edits, I guess... There is an interesting discussion of this ruling over at Slashdot: http://backslash.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/11/169230

James Baldwin

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:59:41 -0600

I have to respectfully disaggree with your assessment that Tyler Durden would have approved of this court ruling. Tyler, himself, having been an avid video alterting enthusiast, might have sided with the Plaintiffs in order to further the legality of his projector room shennanigans. Something which has been glossed over or omitted through much discussion of this case is that the members of CleanFlick were purchasing an original, unaltered and legal copy of the films and paying a fee on top of that for the altered version. This seems like something we should be encouraging under any sort of Fair Use model that works, and in a world where FU is under increasing fire it seems counter productive to let our tastes (as anything child proof tastes bad) dictate our reaction rather than our reason. The artist and supporting apparatus are being compensated, and if the buyer would not have purchased the film otherwise, it's driving sales. While I despise the use CleanFlicks has chosen to pursue, a right to reuse, edit, or otherwise make derivative works of art of copywrit material when fairly compensating the original author is something we should all hope for. Increasing consumer choice is rarely a bad idea, and while sanitized versions of anything may not be an item we would purchase, or encourage a friend to purchase, if the same legal support would lend me the option of releasing copies of the Wizard of Oz to the tunes of Pink Floyd (while fairly compensating both the movie producers and the band), I'll be more than happy to stand in support. "I hate what you say, but I support your right to say it."

Jonathon

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:00:56 -0600

Bravo! Artists 1, Right-wing Nutjobs 0! (I obviously haven't been keeping a running tally until just now)