Artistic Integrity and Hollywood Stupidity

So, this means the opposite must be true, too? If I don't like that the newest "left-behind" movie has an overtly hostile message towards non-christians I should be able to resell it with added violence towards the protagonists. I also really like cursing in my movies. Can I add a bunch of that? And then I want to sell it without changing the title. My version will still be called "Left Behind" and it will still claim to be directed by (whoever directed the movie) and produced by (whatever studio release it).

A valid argument must now be made that people who produce Christian (and/or family oriented) movies ought to capitalize on a market that doesn't like those by producing a version for people who enjoy movies with nudity and violence and language. Because -- artistic expression is all about satisfying every market that you can -- even if it violates the point you're trying to make.

Hey, that's an interesting point, but it's not the same - if I add something to a film, then I am adding something the director never intended, but if I take something out then we're still left with what the director or film studio intended. But what's to say you can't do that so long as you don't misrepresent the film as being unmodified. You should be able to open up an entire chain of video stores renting out films that are even more vulgar violent and pornographic than the originals. I don't think that that store would profit, but you should be free to do so.

Wrong!

Taking something away from a creative effort is just as bad as adding something. It can change the final product (and it's meaning) as much as anything else you will do to it.

Sure it can change the meaning, but not nearly as much as adding something that was NEVER meant to be in the film. When someone censors the film or when the film studio censors a film or when a director censors their own film, they end up with a product that is close to the original product.

In all 3 cases they end up with the same overall message. There are films, however, that can not be edited however because their overall message is offensive. My understanding of cleanflicks and others like them is that they don't edit such films.

Editing a film changes the tone of the film, but seldom changes the meaning. It is almost impossible to completely change the meaning of a film simply by taking out a few objectionable scenes and language.

By taking something -out- you are adding something -- your own thoughts on how the artist in question should express him or herself.

And you "can" change a film completely through editing portions out.

As a PJ fan who is familiar with "why" they do this I think your decision to use them as an example undermines your argument:

They did it because people were releasing material that misrepresented the band in quality. They did it so that -they- could control the output and take control out of the hands of bootleggers.

Hollywood "does" do this when they have to -- when movies are on TV and/or when they're on airplanes, etc.

And I also promise you that if people were releasing bootleg albums of PJ songs with certain curse words and/or lyrics cut out and selling them (for profit or not) PJ would (rightly) stamp out the offenders through legal action.

Hollywood "does" do this when they have to -- when movies are on TV and/or when they're on airplanes, etc.

WRONG!

Hollywood does not "have" to air movies on TV or airplanes. Where's their artistic entegrity? I guess artistic entegreity doesn't apply if someone pays enough money.

They can simply refuse to show their film, but they don't. Perhaps what they don't like is someone else making money or they just don't like cleanflicks and others.

Perhaps what they don't like is someone else making money or they just don't like cleanflicks and others.

That seems reasonable to me. Why "should" someone make money off of something I created -- especially when there are laws intended to prevent that from happening.

The fact that "I" created it means that I can sell it in any form I want to.

Just because you think you've found a hypocrisy in their actions doesn't mean you've negated the fact that what cleanflix is doing is a violation of current laws.

Why don't the Hollywood Studios respond to the request for clean version of movies, much like they do for TV, Airlines, etc.

Do you think Pearl jam would respond to a request for "clean" versions of their songs?

I'm merely saying that the analogy you make isn't the same because releasing bootlegs of "intact" songs is not the same as "other people" releasing versions of your intellectual property with modifications that you did not approve and then selling it for profit.

When someone sells something they lose control of that. They have received something they valued more than the movie or control over that movie in exchange for it. They have received my money.

If you sell a car, you can not tell the buyer that they can not paint their car, change the tires, etc. etc. The buyer can then rent the car to others or turn around and sell it. The same is true with a copy of a movie. The director or movie studios have no business telling me what I can do with my property. If they don't like it then they should keep their movies and I'll keep my money!

If Cleanflix was violating current law, we need to change the laws, but what we have here is a bad decision that will hopefully be over-turned soon.

When someone sells something they lose control of that.

No, they don't. That's what you would "like" to have happen. It's not what copyright laws say will happen, though.

The same is true with a copy of a movie.

No. The same is true with the "original version" of the movie and any "duplicate" copies of it you may have backed up under the guidelines of fair use.

If they don't like it then they should keep their movies and I'll keep my money!

No -- if "you" don't like it you should keep your money. I happen to be fine with it and will continue to spend my money on movies that I like and "not" spend my money on movies I don't.

When someone sells something they lose control of that.

No, they don't. That's what you would "like" to have happen. It's not what copyright laws say will happen, though.

I'd like to read what the copyright law actaully says about this. I don't think you're using facts but rather your opinion of what you'd like copyright law to be.

Also you're missing the point here. They are selling a "copy" of a movie, not the original. You could argue that there is a public interest even if the original were sold to keep it in tact, but we're not talkign about that here. It's like a book - I am able to tear pages out of a book that I buy and then resell it as "improved" if I choose. If the "improved" book sells, this should send a message to the author that they could do something different that would increase their audience instead of taking offense.

I have a lot of experience with copyright law and if there is no contract signed when something is sold then they give away control of that copy. A contract can specifiy usage, but that's not the case here.

They have sold control of that particular copy of that particuar movie. If the movie is not misrepresented as the original version then the movie makers don't have any case when it is re-sold.

I am able to tear pages out of a book that I buy and then resell it as "improved" if I choose.

That's news to me. And probably also news to a lot of authors.

Where do you draw the line.

You draw the line as soon as one company decides to take the process into their own hands without having the legal right to do so.

Just because it's a new way of delivering the media does not mean that people should now have the right to alter intellectual property and profit by those alterations.

Here here.

That's a moot point since they allow their work to be censored for TV or airlines. Besides if their artistic endeavor is so sacred then why is there a theatrical version and also a director's cut or a uncensored/unrated version? If their artistic integrity is so important then why the need to release 2 versions of the film? It seems rather 2 faced.

I'm done discussing this in this forum. Look for an article that lays down the law on why this is wrong at my column in the near future.

I look forward to it. I'd love to take the time to dig up exactly how wrong several people in this discussion are regarding IP and copyright law, but I haven't the time.

Regarding whether Hollywood *could* make more money be selling self-censored versions of their films, of course they might, but since they own the rights to their own works, it is completely legal, and given the artistic nature of (some) films, a perfectly logical choice to *not* sell censored versions of their films.

Done and done.

I think the idea is that elements of "Hollywood" (as though it's one monolithic entity, which is absurd) don't want their films altered by others who then profit off of the work. There's no indication they'll never offer something similar themselves.