mystmarimatt

This is something I've been thinking of addressing for awhile. CleanFlicks, at www.cleanflicks.com. The idea behind CleanFlicks, an LDS-owned online video rental company (I believe so, my Mormon friends told me it was, but I've no way to verify it), is that they take movies, anything above a 'G' rating, and they edit out anything like: Profanity (including "The H word, when not referring to the place" and "references to deity (G-word and JC-words etc.), only when these words are used in a non-religious context.") Graphic Violence, Nudity and Sexual Content. They do this for the clean, good-hearted families who want to watch religiously acceptable material with their children.

Now, I do not begrudge them the right to want to watch movies devoid of anything deviant, like the word 'Hell' (Except when referring to the place, naturally.) But as an artist, my integrity demands that they really shouldn't have the right to do this. Many of these films were a labor of love for the actors, directors and writers and general creators, et al. If there's a sex scene in there, or drug use, there's a good possibility that its inclusion in the film serves a purpose. To me, it's just artistic mutilation. Destroying something you did not create.

Now, they only have 700 titles at the moment, but I'd like to discuss 2 in particular. The first is "Good Will Hunting," a movie which uses the F-word some 150 times. And 2 F-words doth an R-rated movie make. But, the cussing in the film does serve a purpose. That's actually how people in Southie talk. They cuss. A lot. It was an artistic choice to make every other word 'fuck.' But it helps establish character and setting and mood. It's also in the movie enough that editing out each word is impossible without making it painfully obvious you mutilated the movie. And that's annoying.

Second, is "The Ballad of Jack and Rose." I'll put it simply. This film, is, in effect, a film about a father and a daughter with an incestuous relationship. Would anyone like to tell me how to edit that out without completely ruining the point of the film? Because I'd really like to know.

I guess this is what I want to ask everyone. Is what they're doing to these films ethical? Should this be something taken as valid?

For my money, no. The bottom line, for me, is that I can think of only one way to retaliate against CleanFlick's artistic mutilation. I will myself become a film-maker. And I will create a movie so poignant, and beautiful, and touching, that everyone in the US will be raving about it. And CleanFlicks will be stewing in their own juices, just boiling mad, because in every plot vital scene, in every beautiful, heartwrenching scene, I'm going to put in something they'd need to edit out in order to make it acceptable, so that you can't mutilate my movie without absolutely killing it and making it unwatchable.

That's right, in every plot vital scene, I'm just going to put in two hot lesbian chicks going down on each other. Just to fucking spite them.

Your thoughts?

__________________
Words of Wisdom:

If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

Redlemon

I support Cleanflick's actions here, as long as the original version of each film is available from another source. Of course, I also enjoy sampling and especially mashups. I think that art can be created from other art. Sometimes the new art isn't as good as the old art, sometimes it is better.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

micah67

I wouldn't want my film butchered without my input/consent. I don't see how this is allowed. This seems like a cop-out to good parenting: allowing some third party to censor what we allow children to see.

That said, I don't see "Natural Born Killers" on their list - maybe there is a limit to what they can do!

__________________
~micah

Redlemon

Radio stations make "radio edits" out of songs that contain profanity. Do you find that to be acceptable?

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

micah67

Candidly, no. I'll be enjoying a song then hear the "bleep" or blanked-out word and the song crashes and I don't want to listen to it any more: I change stations. I bought XM so I don't have to put up with that.

__________________
~micah

micah67

Further to that, If I see a movie on the DirecTV schedule that I want to see but it's on a commercial channel (TBS, USA, whatever), I'll skip that, too.

__________________
~micah

Redlemon

For an example of art made from a movie, how about The Phantom Edit? Is that as wrong as Cleanflicks?

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Charlatan

There is no difference here.

As long as Cleanflicks is getting their right to distribute these edited version from the film's Distribution company and not just buying them off the shelf, editing them and then releasing their edited versions to the public. All is good.

They would have to have a specific clause in their license agreement allowing them edit the film for specific types of content, otherwise they would be doing something illegal.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

mystmarimatt

That they make money off of the Phantom Edit, yes, I do find that wrong. But I guess in many of these cases "Wrong" isn't a matter of artistic integrity, but of copywright legality.

__________________
Words of Wisdom:

If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

mystmarimatt

The interesting thing is that I don't know if CleanFlicks does have those rights. Apparently they infuriated the MPAA a few years ago. But I'm guessing they do.

__________________
Words of Wisdom:

If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

Yakk

I'd rather Cleanflicks could describe, succinctly, what kind of editing they wanted done, and that DVD players could then do the editing on the fly.

I'd rather buy the "Phantom Re-edit" seperate from the movie than a reedit of the movie directly. It seems nicer and more honest -- and more elegant.

However, absent this ideal, I would propose that reselling edited versions of your creative works is acceptable. So long as they don't misrepresent it. The rights of the creator over the created must not be unlimited, for creativity feeds off the creativity of others. And the rights of the creator to the created exist solely to encourage creativity.

I may not want to watch censored media, but so long as I can get non-censored media others should be able to get the censored media they desire.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Gilda

Cleanflicks does not have a liscense or permission to edit the films they rent, and there has been a long series of lawsuits over their unauthorized editing of these works.

Whether this is legal is still in the courts. The studios and directors do not like the practice at all and are trying to get it stopped.

Ethically, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. They're taking someone else's copyrighted artwork, altering it against their wishes and without their permission and making a profit off of that.

It's about as bad as colorization.

On the other hand, I love Trio's "Good Clean Porn", which features hard core porn edited for tv. They can usually get two full length movies into a half hour show once all the sex is cut out. It's a hoot.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Yakk

Ethically, they bought the tape. They should be allowed to edit it, and do anything with the edit that they could do with the original, so long as they do not try to misrepresent their edited work as the original.

Copyright rights should be narrow, only those that optimally incite creativity. Copyright rights that do not optimally incite creativity have no ethical leg to stand on.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Redlemon

I subscribe to Time Magazine. I read it first, then hand it off to my wife. My wife really doesn't like to see realistic images of violence and death. So, when there's pictures of bloody bodies, I tape over the pictures before I hand it to her. I see Cleanflicks as the same kind of service.

I would assume (but do not know for sure) that Cleanflicks owns an original DVD for each edited copy that they loan out; if not, it would be pretty sleazy. I checked their webpage, and I don't see any statements regarding legal rights issues, which I consider to be a bit suspicious.

(Note that I would not choose to rent from Cleanflicks. I also prefer to purchase the explicit versions of CDs. However, I see this as a useful service to its target audience.)

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Grasshopper Green

I've never understood the rationale of this. Anyone who has ever watched an edited version of anything knows when something is missing, and it makes for a ... not so smooth viewing experience. I mean, if you know that a movie has violence/swearing/sex in it, why spend money on it, even if it is edited? Seems hypocritical to me.

As for ethics, I don't think it is right, but I don't know enough about copyright laws and whatnot to be able to make an argument for it.

__________________
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

Formerly Medusa

spongy

Since edited cds have been brought up, here is a beef with walmart...

They ONLY sell edited albums, but they will sell R rated dvds.

So, you can't hear Eminem say fuck in the 8 Mile soundtrack you buy from walmart, but you can in the actual movie you bought at walmart.

I see this as at least slightly hippocritical.

__________________
The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Stephen King

cyrnel

I wouldn't buy their product but I don't have a problem with them offering the service. The influence is relatively narrow.

I had more of a problem when WalMart was doing similar editing to music, even affecting the song selections and writing. Don't know if they're still up to it these days.

Edit: I'm assuming they obtain license to modify and redistribute. Copyright is too tight with regard to duration and fair use but I do think while it's in effect it should protect the arrangement as much as the content.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

Gilda

I disagree. I think copyright laws should be quite strict, and should be about protecting intellectual property rights so that third parties don't unfairly profit from work they didn't create.

I also think strict intellecutal property rights encourage creativity rather than discourage it. If you can't sample someone elses recording, you have to write your own original music. More crativity. If you can't use someone else's characters, creations, stories, or images, you have to create your own. More creativity. Putting a new frame, figuratively speaking, on someone else's work is, IMHO, less creative than coming up with your own.

One brief example. The best Superman stories of the 90's were written by Alan Moore during his run in Supreme. Superman isn't actually in the stories, just a character who shared some of his basic attributes. This freed Moore and the creators of the restrictions placed on what you can do with Superman in a story and still have it be Superman. By having their own character, they were free to take the stories in whatever direction they chose.

Editing out the parts you find offensive in a work of art isn't creativity, it's simply censorship.

Well, if you wanted to edit out the naughty bits of a movie you had bought for your wife, that would be the same thing. If you charged strangers for the same service, you would be profiting from someone else's work without their consent, which I believe to be unethical, and which may or may not be illegal.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Da Munk

Ethically I think that destroying someone else's artistic vision and profiting off it is sleazy. I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to sell copies of movies that you don't own the rights to, edited or not, so I'm not sure that they have any standing there either. And all that aside, I don't understand why people who don't wish to see the content present in the original would want to see edited versions of the same film. The Godfather wouldn't make very much sense if you took out the violence, swearing, and organized crime.

mrklixx

Ok, why in the world would they even offer Kill Bill, or any Tarantino movie for that matter? I mean the edited versions can't be more than like 5 minutes long. (edited to add: If they remove all references to violence, wouldn't they even have to retitle the film "Be Very Upset Wth Bill" or "Bill Has A Bad Day" )


I was going to make a comment about if they would mind if I took their copyrighted web page and added a bunch of cusswords and nekkid pictures to it if that would be ok. However, I couldn't fond a single mention of "copyrighted by cleanflicks" anywhere, so I'm guessing that they don't believe in copyright law period. Which if it is owned/run by Mormons makes sense because they have a history of having little use for the laws of man (i.e. bigamy).

__________________
This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent.

This is not a link - Do not click here

I hate animated avatars.

spongy

If that were true wiouldn't the studios shut down all dvd and cd sales on ebay?

__________________
The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

Stephen King

Locobot

I don't see how they have a leg to stand on legally. How is this any different from the Jar Jar-free edits of the Phantom Menace that were declared illegal to create and distribute?

Suave

It's their problem if they want to watch utterly destroyed, shrivelled husks of the former movies. Hell (haha), I can't even watch movies on TV sometimes because that's too censored for me to enjoy.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

Yakk

I disagree.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Most of these giants are from so long ago we do not realize that what they created was created, and we are just stealing their ideas. Beat, rhythm, harmony, fuge. The chorus, the rising action, the epilogue. The Epic Cambellian Hero in Star Wars.

Creativity exists, but creativity is just as valuable, and usually more beautiful, when it exists without the obligation of recreating everything from scratch. The ability to draw on others creativity does not diminish mankind, but ennobles it. That is what culture is -- the creative detrius that we swim in.

Alan Moore stole Superman for his comic. I'm pretty certain that the owners of the Superman comic would have loved to have the ability to prevent Alan's comic from existing, and to kill his story stillborn.

Copyright, beyond the minimium required to encourage the act of creation by the owner of the copyright, is an evil. As such, the resale of modified versions of your creation is a good thing. If you can modify someone else's art, and add value to it (proved by selling it for more than you bought it for) in the meanwhile, you deserve the reward of your improvement.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Gilda

Sure, all of the elements of art that are used by artists already exist. This doesn't justify the direct use of someone else's work.

Sure, but merely taking somebody else's work and reediting it isn't creativity.

Supreme was created by Rob Leifeld for Image comics. Alan Moore's work on the title was work for hire, i.e., he wrote stories using that character with the permission of the owner (Image Comics).

Courts ruling on the use of comic characters copyright infringement have consistently ruled that the use of an archetype--such as the flying, tough, strong guy or the street vigilante--don't violate copyrights so long as the particular images, name, history, or stories aren't copied. Image couldn't create a red and blue clad, black-haired, blue-eyed, super strong flying man named Clark Kent who was an alien and reporter, but they were certainly within their rights to create a white clad, white haired, super-strong, super-tough, flying man named Ethan Crane who was an artist and who got his powers from a radioactive meteor.

Using the same basic building blocks is hardly stealing. If clean flicks wants to make their own action movies or romances, using the same basic story types and plot lines as hundreds of movies before them, but without the cursing and blood and sex, I'm all for it.

Evil? Wow, that's going a bit far.

I'd say that copyright laws are far too lax, and allowing other people to use and to profit from my work without my consent or permission is bad.

I think I'd be best qualified to determine what modifications of my creation are good or bad, especially since someone else, not me, is making money off of my creation.

I'd call that theft, not creativity.

By siphoning off profits for yourself, you're actually dimishining the value of my property to me. If you've diminished the work with your changes, you've caused the perception of that work to be harmed. If you've actually produced a product that is percieved in some way to be superior to my original, then you've hurt my ability to profit from my work by stealing my potential customers.

Hence my Supreme/Superman example. There are flying strong guys all over the place. Captain Marvel, Superman, Supreme, Prime, Hyperion, Endymion, Majestic, etc. You're perfectly welcome to create your own flying strong guy in a cape, and by doing so you can tap into the cultural knowledge of the Titan archetype, thus standing upon the shoulders of giants as you (and Newton) say earlier. But by not being able to use Superman specifically, you're forced to come up with your own origin, personality, back story, supporting cast, environment, and so on--you have to be more creative in creating your Titan than you would be if you just used Superman.

That copying someone else's art demonstrates a lack of creativity seems pretty obvious to me. Copying and creating aren't synonyms, they're antonyms.

It isn't creativity, it's theft.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert