| Show a i f What hat a The e Bleeping i Bleep ee are ire You on Talking a J in ine About on By Hyrum Siqueira r Staff Writer With a handful of companies bursting onto the home video market offering friendly family-friendly versions of Hollywood movies scenes like this may soon be common place Business is booming for editing companies that cut out offensive movie scenes A recent Worldwide poll found 58 percent of Americans are interested in watching popular Hollywood movies that have been edited of all graphic violence nudity and profanity But should consumers consumers consumers con con- sumers be allowed to rent and t buy edited films As editing companies venture into the gray areas of copyright law the legal and ethical issues of motion picture picture pic plc- ture editing have found their way into the spotlight Four years ago Ray Lines a Brigham Young University graduate graduate graduate grad grad- began deleting the offensive offensive offen ofTen sive nude scene from the popular popular popular lar film Titanic Inspired by bythe bythe the large demand for his services f- f fes J es he founded which G buys videos in bulk edits them a and d the then sells monthly subscriptions subscriptions hons to members who belong to the cooperate agreement y f r x Members of the op co claim fJ t that shared ownership circumvents circumvents circumvents circum circum- vents legal issues regarding copyright law Unlike most video rental businesses businesses businesses busi busi- nesses which only charge clients for videos rented charges all cl clients a fixed monthly month month- ly price for membership Patrons belong to one of four membership membership membership member member- ship levels which determines how many videos the member is allowed to check out per month billing system might be advantageous to clients who are accustomed to renting several several several sever sever- al videos however to clients who dont don't regularly rent videos it proves to be more expensive than the traditional rental system In a recent press release dedication to provide provide provide pro pro- vide members with clean entertainment entertainment entertainment enter enter- became apparent is a oriented family-oriented company based in Pleasant Grove Utah Our mission is to provide access to Hollywood entertainment free from objectionable objectionable objectionable elements thus helping maintain high moral values We love movies but prefer to watch them without the sex nudity profanity or extreme violence Because we recognize others may have a similar desire we provide this editing service to you With editing companies experiencing experiencing experiencing a growing market for their services consumers are showing that they do have similar similar similar simi simi- lar preferences movie editing has led to a complicated and unprecedented lawsuit that could ultimately redefine the way motion pictures are viewed on both VHS and DVD The lawsuit lawsuit lawsuit law law- suit filed August 29 in the US U.S. District Court in Denver asks for forthe forthe forthe the courts court's opinion on the legality of movie ty editing The lawsuit was jointly filed b y of Colorado and Robert Huntsman an Idaho lawyer seeking seeking seeking seek seek- ing a patent on electronic electron electron- ic home- home editing tech tech- The six sixteen t e e tl directors named as defendants in the lawsuit lawsuit lawsuit law law- suit all of whom are represented by the Directors Guild of America include Robert Redford and Steven Spielberg Scott the attorney representing and Huntsman said that his clients are not seeking a monetary award but a judicial determination determination determination tion indicating which editing methods are legally permissible The suit was filed in anticipation of legal action from the against the editing companies The case will most likely be settled by determining whether or not editing films legally falls under the What difference does it make if the viewer personally personally personally per per- changes the film or has someone else do if for him der derivative w o 0 r k right of copyright holders to control the making of related works Also relevant relevant relevant rele rele- vant to the case is the fair use doctrine which allows consumers possessing copyrighted copyright copyright- ed works to use them for their own purposes For example example example exam exam- the fair use doctrine allows one to record a television show on a VHS tape and watch it later To complicate the issue many of the movie editing companies have organized themselves into ops co-ops so that renters become legally classified as official members of the store who technically own the movies on the shelves Using to its advantage advantage advantage tage the derivative work right fair use doctrine and op co-op classification classification classification clas clas- has assembled an impressive law law- suit A counterclaim filed by the director plaintiffs and the Directors Guild of America which represents more than members asks the court to grant a permanent injunction to stop and similar companies from distributing distributing distributing dis dis- dis- dis unauthorized versions versions versions ver ver- ver- ver of feature films In addition the counterclaim asks the Court 1 To allow the Guild to intervene intervene intervene inter vene thereby enabling the to represent the interests of its entire membership 2 To allow the Guild to expand counterclaims to include other companies that engage or contribute contribute contribute con con- tribute to the practice of editing or altering videocassettes and or in commerce 3 To allow the Guild to the motion picture studios as necessary parties citing their role as the copyright holders of films The major focus of the counterclaim counterclaim counterclaim coun coun- is centered around the allegation that companies which edit movies and then rent or sell them for profit are violat violat- ing that Lanham Act a federal statute that prohibits false advertising advertising advertising adver adver- trademark infringement and unfair competition This act protects a persons person's right not to be associated with an unauthorized or edited version of his or her work According to consultant Lon Sobel the Lanham Act limits limits limits lim lim- its an outside party from editing or creating a new version of someone's work without sion These companies are either editing or creating software software software soft soft- ware that reflects the editing made by the company not by an individual says Sobel So when you see one of their videos the editing is so seamless that if you dont don't understand the narrative narrative narrative narra narra- tive logic of the film you have no idea whether the editing was done by their program or by the original filmmaker From a copyright infringement standpoint could have a hard time proving that movie editing is illegal The Copyright Act of 1976 has a section section section sec sec- tion known as the first sale provision provision provision pro pro- vision which states once a studio studio studio stu stu- stu- stu dio sells a video to someone whether to Blockbuster Video or oran oran oran an individual consumer they give up control of that copy of the movie That means the new owner could turn around and sell the video again or rent it to someone for a fee According to Lee Hollaar who was a member of the intellectual property unit of the US U.S. Senate copyright law prevents anyone from drastically changing a piece of art For example someone cannot make a movie from a book or translate a movie into different languages without the copyright holders holder's consent Its not clear that if you simply skip over or edit out sections of a movie that you are creating a derivative work Hollaar said Does that mean I violate the copyright law if I hit the fast forward forward for for- forward ward button on my remote consultant Lon Sobel who teaches entertainment law at atthe atthe atthe the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology says it He claims copyright law allows individuals to forward fast-forward skip or mute scenes but companies cant can't sell software that does it for them But doesn't Sony sell remote controls that offer fast- fast forward and muting options Yes Sobel responds but its it's still the consumer who's doing the forwarding fast-forwarding not Sony doing it for us defends its position position position tion by arguing it is only doing the same thing the studios do dowhen dowhen dowhen when they sanitize movies for use on commercial airplanes and network television But the See BLEEP on page 11 1 L 4 BLEEPS BLEEP S T c. c continued from 10 contends the practice is in violation of filmmakers' filmmakers copyrights copyrights copyrights copy copy- rights because it is done without their permission This case really presents some fascinating legal and artistic issues said Scott the attorney representing and Huntsman On one side is the argument I bought this film I can take it out of the box and tear it up in little pieces if I want to but I 1 cant can't give it to someone to edit and then view it in the privacy of my myown myown myown own home Unfortunately when it comes to edited works current copyright legislation is not clear Once a consumer purchases purchases purchases pur pur- chases a copy of a film or a book basically he can do whatever he wants with it as long as the creator creator creator cre cre- cre- cre ator has been compensated Butin Butin But Butin in this case is creating creating creating creat creat- ing an abridgement of the original original original nal work and that is an important difference It appears until the courts determine whether or not film editing violates copyright law both sides will continue to affirm they are legally correct Aside from the legal predicament predicament predicament ment movie editing has sparked an intense ethical debate What these companies are doing is wrong plain and simple says Martha Coolidge president of the It is wrong to cuts scenes from a film just as it is to rip pages from a book simply because we dont don't like the way something was portrayed or said then resell it with the original title and the creators creator's name still on it She continues It is wrong to circumvent circumvent circumvent cir cir- cir cir- the studios who are the copyright holders and the director director director tor who is the films film's creator all allin allin allin in the name of turning a prof prof- it It is unethical it is shameful and the will aggressively pursue these claims But with an original copy purchased for each movie edited and an edited for content disclaimer printed on each video does this argument really stand up Scott believes the issue has less to do with artistic integrity and more to do with free speech I understand that directors directors directors tors are calling this censorship But from a speech free-speech point of view why cant can't I 1 view this film an n nV V wa v T I w want nt to toy Artistic n and Ull uJ Y J J Y YO u. u legal issues aside it comes down downto to a matter of choice We just think people have the right to watch a movie edited to reflect their sensibilities I dont don't think the choice is take it or leave it It Itis Itis Itis is labeled on the box that it is edited We are not fooling any any- one And what about the editing already done by the studios Clean Flicks spokesman Pete Webb said Editing to major motion pictures especially removing foul language and nudity is done for network television television television tele tele- vision for use on airlines and in inmany inmany many other settings The directors directors directors tors allow those edits but they've raised objections in the rental area We think a jury will win want to toY t. t rY Y agree with us that you shouldn't be required to watch what you find objectionable We just dont don't think families should have to see movies with the F word Webb may have a point When a film receives an R rating often filmmakers willingly change endings shoot re-shoot scenes tone down sex and violence cut cutout cutout out entire characters and subplots subplots subplots sub sub- plots and even change the whole tone of a film so it may receive a lower rating making it more commercially suitable They seem willing to edit offensive scenes when the bottom line is at stake but are completely opposed to editing companies who seek to promote personal choice and values Implications of the courts court's decision decision decision deci deci- sion on movie editing could be befar befar befar far reaching Already the success of has encouraged the rise of similar services that allow concerned users to safely play movies on DVD Companies such as Clean Cut Family Safe and Family Flix offer software that masks or skips over offensive film sequences The family safe phenomenon is not just limited to the film indus indus- try When stores refused to sell the new video game Sony agreed to edit out the extreme nudity and profanity Even music lovers are questioning question question- ing whether or not hit songs could be edited for content Clearly the entertainment industry's industry's industry's indus indus- try's exploitation of moral values values's is s 's challenging consumers' consumers toler toler- ance It is hard to sympathize with filmmakers who seem to care litle little little lit lit- tle le about moral values If studios would provide clean versions of their major motion picture films they wouldn't be faced with the current legal dilemma One wonders why instead of going to court the studios dont don't simply cut out these new companies companies companies com com- by making rated G-rated versions versions versions ver ver- of their videos available to the public After all they already do it for movies shown on network network net net- network work television and on airplanes Using a VCR anyone may copy copyan an edited Ino motion ion picture shown on television Why shouldn't these edited versions be available to buy or rent in video stores Thanks to anyone can watch a movie in an entirely different different different dif dif- dif dif- ferent order than the artist intend intend- ed One skip scenes change may J languages and listen to the ne directors director's tors tor's commentary instead of the original dialogue What difference difference difference differ differ- ence does it make if the viewer personally changes the film or has someone else do if for him Let the filmmakers cry foul It doesn't change the fact that the derivative work right fair use doctrine and op co-op classification are providing editing companies with legal exemption from copyright copyright copyright copy copy- right holders' holders claims After considering considering considering con con- the legal and ethical issues of motion picture editing it becomes clear that if edited films are clearly marked and the copyright owners have been rightly compensated companies should be allowed to edit C PAGE 11 G GLy L- L BE B E J 1 I I I t 1 4 l 1 1 i s. s 1 r 01 |
