CleanFlicks Sues For Their Right to Edit Movies

Top 2. May 4, 2005 11:29 PM

» dancooper - Re: Editing Movies to make a good flick family friendly

In response to Editing Movies to make a good flick family friendly posted by Adam51:

“How dare they ruin a perfectly good movie just to meet some Hollywood quota”

Somehow, you fail to see that what you are recommending is the changing of an existing movie, just to meet your own version of some kind of quota: The “good enough to be viewed” movies.

“I think they are on the right track with some refinements needed. It will increase the viewership of some of the movies, which in turn will increase the income generated by a particular movie.”

The last statement invalidates your entire argument. When you refer to the income generated by “a particular movie,” you fail to recognize that what we are dealing with here is not “a particular movie.” Your newer version is in fact a new movie that borrows so heavily from an obvious source, that it is equally obvious to be a copy, with deliberate changes. What you are proposing to offer is NOT the same movie! A lot of people spent a lot of time making that movie the way they wanted it to appear in the first place. Your changing it, for whatever personal reasons you concoct, is a violation of the law, if you offer it for sale to profit from those arbitrary changes or not. Period. CleanFlicks obviously hasn’t a clue what copyright law is all about, so they are going to have to learn this lesson the hard way. The expensive way. The way all people who endeavor to use other people’s work for their own profit must learn.

I am a writer. If anybody used my words to profit for themselves, by changing the parts of my work they didn’t agree with, or found objectionable, or felt were unworthy of their children, or otherwise were incorrect or offensive in any way, they would be guilty of copyright infringement. If you can’t deal with the films that are offered through the hard work of the professionals involved in their production, make your own movies. Don’t steal theirs, and change them, and then sell the changed version for a profit, thinking its all right just because YOU THINK SO!

Can’t you see that if you were permitted to change these films to suit your own whim, it would open up the possibility of anyone changing anything written that they didn’t happen to like, and profit from the changes? Can’t you see that people with viewpoints completely opposed to yours, would seize upon this new opportunity to “change” such things as the works now considered to be classics? Can’t you see that your decision to allow such blatant theft and obliteration of the truth, could be used by any forces in power to change anything whatsoever?

No, I guess you can’t see that, can you? I guess you can’t see that revisionist history, and Fox “news,” and other such blatant attempts to change the (legally protected) facts in the world, are foolish attempts to reform reality to the specifications you personally deem appropriate.

Dan Cooper
CE, Vintage and Classic Cars

-- posted by dancooper

Top 3. May 5, 2005 8:45 AM

» Adam51 - Re: Re: Editing Movies to make a good flick family friendly

In response to Re: Editing Movies to make a good flick family friendly posted by dancooper:

Well I would assume that they would have to cover there expenses and make a living, so yes they should make a profit as well as paying royalties to who ever made the movie in the first place. I have yet to hear anyone exiting a movie theatre(which is what we are talking about here) saying man that would of been a good movie if they just would of put in more nude scene and swearing! If it is not there it is not missed, but if it is there it is noticed. I don't want this for me I all ready know who I am, I want it for all the impressible young individuals who are affected by what they see and hear and yes its the parents job to steer them but most are at work just trying to make ends meet.

-- posted by Adam51

Top 4. May 6, 2005 12:13 AM

» dancooper - Re: Re: Re: Editing Movies to make a good flick family friendly

In response to Re: Re: Editing Movies to make a good flick family friendly posted by Adam51:
No! No! You have completely missed the point!

“…they would have to cover there expenses and make a living, so yes they should make a profit as well as paying royalties to who ever made the movie…”

If they have not gotten the approval to make the changes, that approval coming directly, and in writing, from the original makers of the film, then they have no right to make the changes. Royalties only become an issue when the original work is used. If the new work is not approved by the original makers, then it had darn well better be an entirely new work, based only loosely on the original, or the copiers are liable for considerable damages.

Dan Cooper
CE, Vintage and Classic Cars

-- posted by dancooper

Top 5. May 9, 2005 3:45 PM

» Adam51 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Editing Movies to make a good flick family frien

In response to Re: Re: Re: Editing Movies to make a good flick family friendly posted by dancooper:

Thanks for taking your time to share your opions Dan, I have enjoyed reading them. You do seem better at writing what you are thinking then I. But......

Well maybe it would be easier and a better answer if the unnecessary stuff was left out to begin with as I said before I don't think anyone would miss the language or the overdone graphic scenes if it was not there. I have never believed a good movie needs these things to keep the audience attention, they are usually add to make a meteoric movie more appealing. I guess if it is a movie we really think would add something positive to our evening we could wait until it comes out on TV and then record it as they usually do a good job of editing out the extra. I still hope this company succeeds on some level if nothing else to send a message that not everyone is ok with the current status and surely there are still some decently talent writers out there somewhere with some good stories to tell.

-- posted by Adam51

Top 6. May 10, 2005 11:31 AM

» dancooper - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Editing Movies to make a good flick family f

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Editing Movies to make a good flick family frien posted by Adam51:

“…maybe it would be easier and a better answer if the unnecessary stuff was left out to begin with.”

Yes, actually, I agree with you on this point, at least to some degree. There are too many gratuitous sex scenes, and too many vulgarities in our movies.

But the point that some moviemakers may be trying to make, is that perhaps there is too much of this “unnecessary” stuff in our world. Perhaps the world is more vulgar than it should be. But it is the nature of this world to be sometimes vulgar. It is the truth about our world, that it is vulgar and violent at times. And it is the duty of someone attempting to express the truth about our world to reveal what is actually present.

Some filmmakers may even believe that the best way to check the proliferation of violence is to show it for what it is. Let the public make a choice as to whether to view it or not, but report it as it is. In other words, tell the truth about our world, and if the truth hurts, then change the world for the better. But by all means, tell it like it is. Don’t sugar coat it, and don’t misrepresent it as some sort of ideal, when you are discussing the all too imperfect nature of reality.

One clear fact is that the public has spoken. For better or worse, more people attend movies containing a proliferation of the things we are talking about. If people didn’t buy the tickets, the film industry wouldn’t take long to change its content. The public has spoken with their wallets and purses, and what a majority of people want to see are films that depict reality as it really exists, rather than as we would perhaps like it to be. Since the addition of these elements equates to an increase in ticket sales, the movers and shakers who make the decisions, do so in favor of increased amounts of sex and violence. Sex sells. So does violence.

So, in answer to your point (quoted above), there truly is too much vulgarity in the movies. But it is there because it is the truth. Condemning our film industry for bringing a proliferation of vulgarity to our world is a reversal of that truth, which should be stated: The condition of the world has resulted in too much vulgarity in our movies. And that’s why, in films, it is not “left out to begin with.”

“I don't think anyone would miss the language or the overdone graphic scenes if it was not there.”

You are probably right that in some cases—please remember I am qualifying this to some cases—a word, a phrase, a piece of dialogue, or perhaps even an entire scene, could be removed with no critical loss of important content. Perhaps it was included only for the reasons you are assuming, and perhaps it would not be detrimental to the film if it had never existed in the first place. But this line of reasoning gives nobody beside the director(s) the right or responsibility to make those changes. It certainly fails to give you (or CleanFlicks) the right to think for me, or anyone else, about what I would or would not “miss…if it was not there.”

I think Nicholas said it best in his article, “So if the violence … or the nudity and sexual themes … are too much for you, then maybe you should realize that these films were not intended to be seen by you.”

If the material in question was not a fact in our world, and if the inclusion of it in films was not frequently an honest and sincere representation of reality, and if it never served a purpose to advance the ideas presented in a given film, then I would probably be one of the biggest supporters for CleanFlicks. And if the stuff didn’t increase ticket sales, then directors wouldn’t include so much of it, and writers wouldn’t write so much of it into the scripts. But all of those things do not weigh in on the side of your arguments. In fact, they all weigh in decidedly against your arguments.

There is a rating system in place to inform the public of the content of films in advance of viewing. As you mentioned, there is TV, which does act to change content to a different set of guidelines (approved by the filmmakers) if such change is desired. There are reviewers, who tell their opinions on the quality and overall effectiveness of films. There are enough resources out there to let everybody know ahead of time, what content is present in a given film.

So what are the options for any viewer, including CleanFlicks?

1. View, or don’t view, according to your preferences.
2. Make your own films, from scratch, if there are not already enough of them being made to satisfy your personal requirements.
3. Strike a deal with the film industry to modify their films, with their approval, for sale as a watered down version of the originals.

This last option works for TV only because TV is so big. CleanFlicks has a long way to go before they can claim the kind of audience numbers that would make representatives of the film industry consider such an option. It doesn’t appear that CleanFlicks has that kind of potential. The film industry would rightly ask, “What can you do for me, instead of just to me?” CleanFlicks has no answer to this question except to say they think the filmmakers were errant with their originals, and they, CleanFlicks, “have a better idea.”

Dan Cooper
CE, Vintage and Classic Cars

-- posted by dancooper