Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films

Name a couple of films you would like to see this done with?

If you know there's one or two scenes but the rest of the film is good for your kids, then I recommend either making sure you watch it with them and tell them to cover their eyes when the scene is on, or to talk to them first, make them understand that some scenes are mature and why, and then watch the movie with them.

No, I'm not a parent, but the services that these companies had are effectively trying to take over the jobs that parents should be doing in the first place.

And the difference between what these companies did and what they do for TV is that the studios that make the films are usually involved in the TV dissection, instead of a separate company making the money for doing it. This is a pure copyright violation case, definitely exceeding fair use, regardless of the intended benefits that the 'cleaned' films may have.

No, I'm not a parent, but the services that these companies had are effectively trying to take over the jobs that parents should be doing in the first place.

Amen -- God forbid a parent might actually have to "talk" to their kid about something.

Because the studios are involved with the TV edit, own the rights to do the editing, and the networks pay them for the privilege. These folks are butchering the movie and making a profit, without owning the rights to do so. How is this any different from bootlegging movies?

Uh, just for the record, my wife and I both enjoy our RCA Clearplay DVD player, but we're not kids. This isn't just about "parenting."

Editing has been done on airplanes and TV for years and years. "Irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies?" Please. Did the directors sit down with Delta Airlines in order to ensure that their artistic expression wasn't tampered with? "Yes, Delta, that's fine if you pull out the nudity and edit the language. What?! Cleanflicks is doing the same thing? Oh my gosh!"

And even if they do sit down with TV executives...is their editing really going to be much different from what Cleanflicks is doing? They're both eliminating the exact same content. If it's a matter of not getting the money from Cleanflicks, then state that as your reason, Hollywood. From what I understand, Cleanflicks has been paying studios a cut. If not, then yes, there is something wrong, but address the real issue.

Did the directors sit down with Delta Airlines in order to ensure that their artistic expression wasn't tampered with? "Yes, Delta, that's fine if you pull out the nudity and edit the language. What?! Cleanflicks is doing the same thing? Oh my gosh!"

One minor difference...tv networks and airlines PAY for the rights to that editing with co-operation from the owning party of the movie. There's this thing called "copyright infringement", Cleanflicks must have skipped that day of business school.

If you want to rent a DVD from Cleanflicks, you're first charged a membership fee in order to pay Hollywood. If they're not paying, then that's the issue and I can understand concern (actually, only to some degree now that I've read chucks' argument). I just don't want to hear Hollywood crying about altered artistic expression when that's not the reason they're going after Cleanflicks.

I think "Titanic" is actually not a bad example. Take out naked Kate Winslet, and the film is definitely a PG film (scary moments, etc.).

But there's usually not many of these types of films. If there's one objectionable scene, there's bound to be several several more.

I dunno -- that film was far too intense for a PG, especially towards the end.

As for the nudity -- if I recall she was posing naked for a drawing. Maybe they ended up having sex after that but I'm pretty sure the nudity was mainly on display during the sketching portion. (And at that point, do you cut out the sex? They weren't married or anything. And it was in a car. That seems inappropriate enough that they might have wanted to cut it too.) Either way -- it was a pretty vital aspect of the movie which I still say would have required a PG-13 without it -- and maybe even an R.

Titanic was "Rated PG-13 for disaster related peril and violence, nudity, sensuality and brief language." according to imdb. Taking out the Kate Winslet nude pose would still leave most of the content that earned its rating in the first place.

I think the idea of forcibly leaving people to drown or freeze in North Atlantic waters is a bit more disturbing than a couple of breasts. Plus having to explain that what Celine Dion was doing to the soundtrack is actually considered singing, by some people.

Following on Brian's comment on the nudity, the other aspect of just cutting out the posing scene is to imply that the parents otherwise have no problem with the threat of domestic abuse provided by Billy Zane's character.

- - - - - To Brian, I do not think your "cleaned up pornography" idea would work with blank tapes alone, because you still need to dub over the "boo ka shaka" music, after the scene where the pizza delivery guy arrives.

Heheh -- I suppose that's true. The entire movie would consist of a guy delivering a pizza and then ending. (Or cleaning a pool and then ending.)

Though, the only DVD porn I've ever actually "owned" had a pretty involved plot. Couple goes to a bookstore to sheepishly find a book about sex techniques and the owner of the store takes them on a magical trip to some vaguely india-ish area populated mostly by white people dressed up like indians where they all learn the ancient art of group sex and kama-sutra. (Oddly enough, they work in the same sexual acts as every other porno I've ever seen -- just with made up kama-sutra-esque names. (At one point they're reading a mythology book on sex that claims the double-humped camel was created after a magician turned two guys into camels after they have sex with his two daughters. Great stuff.)

So, this one would have probably been hard to cut much out of. There were some scenes of camels chewing on grass... that's pretty much the extent of the acceptable story line.

This is a wonderful point. There are many movies that I saw on TV as a kid (edited) and really enjoyed. Now I rent or buy the movie and am disgusted by the language and lewd scenes that are there because they are not edited. I would love to have those movies in my collection if I could get them edited.

It's actually not all that good of a point because the studios do the editing. Someone that has the "rights" to make the edits does so. The point of the article is that these companies don't have the right to do it and on top of that they're then selling illegal copies of their butchered version of the movie. This means they've essentially stolen a potential sale of the unedited movie and profited off of it without the studio that owns the movie making anything.

So is it wrong for me to skip over that chapter while I am watching it? Is that illegal?

No.

Is it wrong for me to get a TV Guardian that blocks offensive language? Are those illegal?

No.

How far do you take this?

As far as they've taken it. None of the things you mention are similar to what these companies are doing. They're creating clean copies of a movie and selling them for a profit. Which means that they're essentially pirating "clean" versions of someone else's copyrighted materials.

How much will you let Hollywood tell you what you can and cannot do with a movie that you have already paid for?

I dunno, but as it's not an issue in this case I guess it doesn't really matter.

Don't forget that these 'good samaritan' companies make a tidy profit on reselling a movie they don't have the rights to sell in the first place - which is tantamount to bootlegging, which is also quite illegal.

When you see a movie on television, the station that aired it had to acquire and pay the film studio for the rights to rebroadcast it, as well as work with the studio to produce a version that conforms to FCC guidelines. If a movie has the word F*** in it, then the director of that movie very much wanted that word to be in there, and if it were his choice and not illegal, the movie would air the same on television as it did in the theater.

Directors tend not to take it lightly when they see something they worked hard to craft chopped up by someone who had nothing to do with their creation, and then to rub salt in the wound, see it done at a profit. It is their movie that they spent a lot of hard work on, and like it or not it is their right, not ours, to determine how it is seen.

"These are the same people that demand naked statues be covered and throw paint on objectionable works of art."

FALSE!
These are the people that can actually differentiate between art and vulgarity.

No, these are people that apply the same viewpoint as John Ashcroft, who decided it was up to him to cover a benign statue that he personally had issues with, which resulted in more people
noticing the statue than actually would have if he had simply accepted it as a part of the edifice that had been in place long before his contribution to the political scene.

It is not up to them to decide for me what is art or vulgarity. One man's Mapplethorpe is another's Van Gogh.

If Hollywood was smart (which I would seriously doubt could happen), they would simply release 2 or 3 versions of their movies.

You must not be familiar with the Walmart editions of some of their products, because this is exactly what they do in that case. But that is also because Walmart has come to them with a convincing enough argument to believe in a large enough demographic for that type of edit. And the studios still retain the right to refuse to make such an edit if they believe doing so undermines what they are trying to add to the movie, in their opinion.

@ Brian Ford

So is it wrong for me to skip over that chapter while I am watching it? Is that illegal?
No.
Is it wrong for me to get a TV Guardian that blocks offensive language? Are those illegal? No.

Then why did Hollywood go after Clearplay, the equivalent of automatic fast-forwarding with no tampering of the disc's actual content? Taking your own words into consideration, it seems as if we both disagree with Hollywood now.

Also, do any of you actually know how Cleanflicks operates? You might want to investigate before making claims about how their business is run. You'd be surprised.

@ Cary

Directors tend not to take it lightly when they see something they worked hard to craft chopped up by someone who had nothing to do with their creation

So if a car designer finds out that I put a spoiler on the back of my Chevy Astro van and removed the fixed back seat, what's he going to do to me? I recently bought a print of a copyrighted photograph by Ansel Adams and drew two stick figures in a little sailboat. Will I get arrested? Would I even get arrested if everyone was bringing me their Ansel Adams photo and I did the same thing on their prints?

It is their movie that they spent a lot of hard work on, and like it or not it is their right, not ours, to determine how it is seen.

I sure hope they don't find out that I missed that "essential part" when I left to use the restroom. While I was gone, my wife skipped forward a chapter. We're both going to burn.

The court is ruling that if I hire someone to do this for me it is not fair use. I hope this ruling gets overturned on appeal.

I don't think that's what they're ruling. The issue is that they are making money off of the edited versions and that the studios are "not" making money. (It's fair use right up until they attempt to profit off of their tactics.

The studios are making money because the sanitizer paid for the copy of the video that was sanitized. If I buy a book that you want and mark out the words you don't like and sell it to you at a price that includes my fee for marking out the words why should the author or publisher get a cut of my service fee? I completed a transaction with the publisher/author when I bought the book. I exercised my fair use rights to mark out words in my copy of the book. Then I sold the book to you for a profit. If I sell a used book or DVD to someone else the publisher does not get a cut. Why should this be any different?

They're not selling "one" used copy. They're selling hundreds of them. They're making a business by @!$%#ing with someone's copyrighted material and then redistributing it without consent.

If you can't understand why this is wrong I'm afraid you just don't understand copyright law "or" fair use.

If it were true that they were selling hundreds of copies from one copy then they would be guilty of piracy and criminal charges and penalties would apply. Selling hundreds of used copies is no different than selling one used copy. The studio is compensated for each copy in the original transaction. The court ruled against a business model. The business model of providing a service that edits content for the consumer.

I understand the directors concern about creative control, but I also understand that a parent may want to remove some language or scenes from a movie that they want their family to see. I think the latter trumps the former. Technology makes it possible to do so. Technology also makes it possible to add disclaimers that tell the viewer it has been edited from the original. I think a ruling that CleanFlicks and the other sanitizers must modify the packaging and add disclaimers to the packaging and the DVD content that it has been edited without the directors approval would have been a reasonable decision. It protects the directors trademark without interfering with fair use.

These services increase the market for a movie because people who otherwise would not buy or rent it will buy or rent a sanitized version I think the studios should work with these companies and make it easier for consumers to use the products they produce or the studios could listen to the consumers and produce their own sanitized cuts and put the sanitizers out of business.

The technology is out there and will only get easier to use. Take a look at this . In the article I linked the company is selling software that lets parents do their own masking of objectionable content in the DVD's that they purchased. The studios want to ban this as well. That is why I think this is not a good ruling because it limits legitimate fair use rights.

You're forgetting that you don't own the rights to change the movie to suit your sense of morality. If you don't like the movie, feel free to not rent or watch it. Without owning the rights to change it (thus making a derivative work), that is the limit of what you can do.

The studios released a specific version of the film for sale. If you alter it, you're affecting the perception of their work by the public - your clumsy edits will make them look bad, and they don't want that.

Editing the content is a privilege you have to pay for, if the rights holders are willing to sell it, which they aren't.

How come nobody is responding to chucks' example instead of just frustratedly shouting back "If you can't understand why this is wrong I'm afraid you just don't understand copyright law."

I am responding to chucks, Mott. chucks main argument appears to be that people should have the right to sell a form of the movie that doesn't contain material they find objectionable, and that because them being able to do so would potentially make more sales, that it should be okay. This is false - they have the right to not watch it if they find it objectionable. They do not have the right to make edits without the permission of the owner and resell the edited version.

Respond to his specific examples, please. This isn't sarcasm. I really want to hear someone's opposing views.

I did respond - he says

These services increase the market for a movie because people who otherwise would not buy or rent it will buy or rent a sanitized version I think the studios should work with these companies and make it easier for consumers to use the products they produce or the studios could listen to the consumers and produce their own sanitized cuts and put the sanitizers out of business.

Just because people would otherwise not buy or rent the movies if there isn't a version they approve of, doesn't magically grant anyone the right to make changes and resell the edited versions. If they don't like the movies, they're free to not watch them.

I think chucks' example of the service that offers a player with downloadable chapter manuevering to provide a 'cleaner' version of a DVD is much more legal than what the original article of this seed talked about.

It is altering how the movie is shown, but, to see that altered movie, the user needs to first have purchased the original movie. The studio still gets it's money from that sale. What the additional part is doing is altering how the movie is shown in the privacy of a home user. If the user resells the disk, it's still the original movie. I equate that technology to web browser add-ons that alter the look of a page from how the web publisher intended - which last I check did have some legal rumblings in the court but has yet to be upheld as illegal. The studios were right to go after the re-printers, but shouldn't be able to touch this technology.

If I pay someone to buy a book for me and mark out any words I find objectionable there is no copyright violation. How is this different from hiring someone to buy a video and remove scenes from it for me?

If I buy a book that you want and mark out the words you don't like and sell it to you at a price that includes my fee for marking out the words why should the author or publisher get a cut of my service fee? I completed a transaction with the publisher/author when I bought the book. I exercised my fair use rights to mark out words in my copy of the book. Then I sold the book to you for a profit. If I sell a used book or DVD to someone else the publisher does not get a cut. Why should this be any different?

And my own example:

if people are bringing me their Ansel Adams prints and asking me to draw my cute little stick figures on a boat in the lake, and they're paying me for it, is that illegal? (or the opposite...they ask that I use my precision cutting device to slice off a corner they think is ugly).

I would say that many of the arguments miss "a" point. (Though I think plenty of people have argued essentially the same thing that you are now arguing.)

Still - I think the nudity and language point is a valid argument and point of discussion as well.

I think concerns about nudity and language are valid as well. I just think this approach is wrong-headed because it confuses two issues.

I guess I just don't get why the two of you think no one else is arguing that point. Both Corey Spring and I argue it.

And technically -- some people do have the right to alter art -- it depends on your purposes and whether you fall into fair use guidelines. The point I've argued is that this clearly doesn't even come close.

Yeah like.. verbatim =P

Brian, I did see that you made one comment that mentioned art..but for the most part, it looks like you were more involved with copyright law (and I agree with you). I'm talking about something else. Put aside for a moment that film is big business. Long after the box office closes, long after the film is no longer being rented....it is still important as art. This is not just about money, or the "morals" of some people in our society who want/don't want to see certain things on the screen. This is about the writer, the Director, the actors. The film students who dissect these things endlessly in schools all over the world, so that one day they, too, can be artists. This is about artistic integrity and freedom.

But the court cannot based its decision on artistic integrity and freedom. It has to ask where the
exisitng laws do or do not apply, which is why this discussion comes back to copyright law.

The original art is not being tampered with. It's a copy. And if there is a concern for that copy ending up in the wrong hands for future generations, then perhaps they could discuss the possibility of an official disclaimer being required for each edited copy to ensure that the viewer knows it's not in its original form (much like they do on the backs of full-frame DVDs and before TV copies). At any rate, the person acquiring the DVD knows full well that the film will be altered -- that's the whole reason they went to that store in the first place!

I respect and appreciate the artist's efforts. If I were the artist, perhaps I'd even feel a little upset if I knew people were altering my work. But what happens to my art once I sell it is beyond my control. If I could somehow fork out the money, I could buy a great piece of art and alter it however I wanted. A certain sculpture might be created with the intent that it be displayed in bright light. I can place it in a dark corner of my room.

Students still have a the opportunity to acquire the original as initially created. They can enjoy the artistic integrity and freedom. Nobody's stopping them. That original art will still be "important" and "valuable" to the world.

But what happens to my art once I sell it is beyond my control.

No, it's not. That's why we have copyright laws. Sure, if you sell one piece of art and someone decides to take a @!$%# on it after buying it -- there's nothing you can do about it.

Still, they can't put their name on it and sell it as their own creation. Still, discussing digital work is a bit different than discussing paintings.

If I created a digital work of art that featured the phrase "I love to get @!$%#ed in the ass" one could buy it and do whatever they like with it. They own that work of art. But that's all they own.

One could not buy it, clean it up, make 1000 copies of it and sell those copies billing them as the "clean" version of Brian Ford's artwork. (Though one could create an entirely new piece that was similar to mine but said "I love the smell of Daisies" and bill it as a parody.)

Absolutely agree that they cannot put their name on it and sell it as their own work. Who argued for that?

Brian, it is quickly becoming apparent that you have no clue what Cleanflicks does or how their business works. I live about 5 minutes from one of their locations and have been inside several times. I realize that it's easy to make assumptions with half the facts, but you're spreading a lot of false information (and doing so with a lot of passion too hehe). You might want to ask questions before you make ignorant statements.

I think the US District Court has made all the applicable 'assumptions' with all of the facts. And the fact is, as was ruled, that what Cleanflicks does is wrong and illegal - and they aren't going to be doing it anymore.

"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."

By all means -- enlighten me.

Sorry for the double-post:

It's one thing to tell me that I have their business model wrong and that I don't know what I'm talking about -- it's another thing altogether to not provide the information that straightens me out after doing so.

As Corey has said -- I must not have it "all wrong" if they've been told that what they are doing is illegal and an infringement on the rights of the copyright holders.

@Corey
They'll appeal of course. And if the courts rule in Hollywood's favor, of course they'll cease operations. That doesn't mean it's right (nor does it mean we shouldn't discuss it). The biggest threads on Newsvine deal with complaints on government and the law...well, and maybe religion hehe.

@ Brian
Your sarcasm is certainly appreciated. Cleanflicks does not have a master copy of a film that they use to make all their edits. Every single time an edited movie is sold, it is sold with an official, original, paid-for copy of the film. It is one edited copy per original, or a 1-to-1 relationship. This is done over and over again. They're not bootlegging. Read my examples along with chucks' and tell me how the situation is different.

Hehe -- Triple Post time!

It's certainly possible I mislead when I say that they are buying one copy and making multiple copies from that one version.

Still -- even if they are indeed making one purchase for every copy they make -- it's still a violation of copyright law to make a derivative work of someone's intellectual property that will negatively affect their chances of selling the original version.

(Which is clearly happening -- if person A opts for the clean version of a movie rather than the original version - that's one sale lost.)

They then take it a step further by -profiting- off of their illicit use of someone else's intellectual property.

So, while they might not be committing the act that I originally considered -- they're still doing something illegal.

Hrm -- I did the math wrong and I see what you're saying regarding whether or not a studio loses revenue or not.

Still --

The bottom line is that the copyright owner's intellectual property rights are being violated based on current laws in the US -- and the company that is doing so is profiting from the operation.

Yeah, there's no loss of sale. If anything, it increases sales as those who wouldn't have considered the film for content's sake now make the jump and buy it. So that's not the issue, as you saw.

Yes, I agree that they are making a profit for the service they render. Once again, though, if people are bringing me their Ansel Adams prints and asking me to draw my cute little stick figures on a boat in the lake, and they're paying me for it, is that illegal? (or the opposite...they ask that I use my precision cutting device to slice off a corner they think is ugly).

@ Brian

As Corey has said -- I must not have it "all wrong" if they've been told that what they are doing is illegal and an infringement on the rights of the copyright holders.

So every time the court rules for or against something, they're right? I'll remember that in future discussions on Newsvine. [laughs maniacally] See ya around, kid.

Well, as they're merely interpreting copyright law in this case -- I see no reason to think that they're wrong.

The key issue here is profit: While I'm sure it would still be a violation if they weren't making a profit, violations become so much more clear-cut when the agency in question begins to sell their edits for more than they paid for them.

Trevor Higbee, is that you?

Sorry to dissapoint. the H doesn't stand for Higbee.

Bootlegging...I do not think it means what you think it means. What does this have to do with "bootlegging"?

They were modifying and re-selling movies they didn't own the rights to....that would be bootlegging.

Aye, but each alteration required an original, purchased copy with which they could offer the service.

They want to leave the creative control with the people that own the rights to the films....that seems like a decent idea to me.....

I'm say, why don't the people who own the rights do this themselves since there seem to be enough people who would buy "kiddie" versions if they did. That would solve this entire problem.

Because -- in a lot of cases making money isn't as important to them as the integrity of their movie.

As I've said many, many time -- it's not their obligation to make money just because they can.

Besides -- if they -did- do it, people would be all over them for being soulless money-grubbing whores, willing to sell out their artistic vision at the first dollar flashed in their face.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.