What if this Happened to IF?
Al
An article on a company that takes films and cleans them up.
what if some one was able to DisInform Curses and then
"re-arrange" the parts that he/she didn't like and post hte
edited copy to the archive.
There clearly is a 1st Amendment issue here. For you people
in Roger Firths and Graham Nelson's part of the world
i.e outside the US the First Amendment does NOT apply.
(BUT COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE INTERNATIONAL!!!)
Time for a good hard roughhouse discussion on this;
I don' think Short, Plotkin, Nelson etal want anyone
messing with their intellectual property. Maybe that's
why Graham won't post the soruce code to Curses
Jigsaw, Meteor etc on the archive and Princess Emily
of the Land of Short wont' do the same with S-F.
I already wrote Mike Gentry about getting the code
to Anchorhead but haven't heard from him yet.
All I want is the code for study Nothing More
All thoughts, flames etc are welcomed
S
E
E
B
E
L
O
W
Cleaned-up' movies raise directors' ire
Colo. stores' cleaned-up movies spur 1st Amendment fight
By Louis Aguilar
Denver Post Business Writer
Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - Rent "Saving Private Ryan"
from the CleanFlicks video store in Centennial and the
opening battle scene will be 4 minutes shorter.
"The Godfather" has scenes with actors' lips moving but no
sound - the profanity has been erased. Even the PG-rated
computer-animated movie "Shrek" has about 30 seconds of
foul language and sexual innuendo cut.
This is why Francine Booth and other customers became
members of CleanFlicks, a Utah-based business with three
stores in Colorado.
"I have kids. I don't want my kids to repeat words they heard
in a movie," Booth, 28, said, as she rented "The Patriot,"
starring Mel Gibson. Several battle scenes, including a
beheading, are not included.
"Movies ... often go too far in gore and sex scenes. I'm just
trying to control what my kids watch in their own home," she
said.
But late Friday, the Directors Guild of America made it clear
in a federal lawsuit filed in Denver that it wants the practice to
stop.
The case is actually a countersuit to a pre-emptive claim filed
in late August by CleanFlicks of Colorado LLC and Robert
Huntsman, an Idaho lawyer. The initial suit sought a "judicial
determination" on the right to alter Hollywood films.
Companies such as CleanFlicks say families have a First
Amendment right to clean up Hollywood movies before they
get watched in living rooms.
Hollywood contends CleanFlicks and other companies violate
copyright laws and ruin artistic freedom.
"There is a rating system. That's how you determine what is
suitable for children," said Howard Levy, spokesman for the
Directors' Guild of America in Hollywood.
In the countersuit, filed in U.S. District Court, the film
directors decided to take on companies that rent and sell
Hollywood films stripped of violence, sex and profanity. The
trial could get underway early next year.
The case may determine whether the "e-rating" industry will
be allowed to exist. E-rating means edited without the
filmmaker's permission.
The filmmakers' countersuit names all 14 companies that do
"e-rating," including Greeley-based Family Shield
Technologies, a software firm.
"It is wrong to cut scenes from a film - just as it is to rip pages
from a book," said Martha Coolidge, president of the directors'
guild. "What these companies are doing is wrong, plain and
simple."
Countered Scott Mikulecky, the Colorado Springs attorney for
CleanFlicks and Huntsman: "We just think people have the
right to watch a movie in the manner that reflects their
sensibilities.
"The choice shouldn't have to be take it or leave it. It is clearly
labeled on the box that the film has been edited. We are not
trying to fool anyone."
The "e-rating" industry is barely 3 years old, and much of it is
based in Utah. Many of the key people behind the companies
involved in the suit are members of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. They say it's their moral beliefs that have
led them to create the budding industry.
A year ago, CleanFlicks, founded in Pleasant Grove, Utah, had
fewer than 20 stores. Now it has more than 70 stores in 18
states and 440 movie titles.
The CleanFlicks store in Colorado Springs has 1,200
members, according to Pete Webb, a Denver public relations
expert hired by CleanFlicks.
The Albertsons grocery chain rents CleanFlicks videos in its
Utah stores and is considering offering them in other states.
Hollywood has long allowed movies to be cleaned up for
television and airlines. But that editing is controlled by
Hollywood studios and filmmakers.
Companies such as CleanFlicks cut scenes from films without
asking. Recent computer technology has made such editing
possible on a large-scale basis.
Family Shield Technologies Inc., the Greeley company named
in the suit, markets software blocking potentially offensive
material.
"The edits are being done in a basement apartment, with a
couple of computers and DVDs and some TV screens,"
company sales and marketing director Richard Schmer said in
an earlier interview. "The research and development is done in
a garage."
Several lawyers and academics said copyright laws make it
clear that "e-raters" are law breakers.
"That's a hard case to defend," said Tom Pollich, an intellectual
property rights lawyer in Denver. "There are exceptions in
copyright laws for freedom of speech. But this is a
commercial enterprise that is not a parody of the original
work. And it sounds like the industry is still marketing the
material as the essentially the same product."
And that is not allowed under copyright law, Pollich and
others said.
The concept of editing objectionable material isn't unique.
The Dove Foundation of Michigan, a media watchdog group
with ties to Christian publishing, announced an agreement in
August with New Line Cinema, a division of Warner Bros., to
endorse videotape versions of the studio's films with graphic
content edited out.
The edited versions are marketed in Target and Wal-Mart
stores with a Dove Foundation "family edited" label.
Hollywood can be persuaded to change content of films, with
the permission of studios and filmmakers, if they understand
money can be made, director's guild spokesman Levy said.
"If there is a market for editing PG-, PG-13- and R-rated films
for a broader audience that includes children, I believe studios
and filmmakers would be open to that idea," Levy said. "But
this is not the way to go about it."
David Welbourn
> Time for a good hard roughhouse discussion on this;
er, let's not. Or at least postpone it until January? The Comp is almost
here.
-- David Welbourn
Al
David Welbourn wrote:
> Al wrote:
> > Time for a good hard roughhouse discussion on this;
>
> er, let's not. Or at least postpone it until January? The Comp is almost
> here.
>
The Comp has nothign to do with this. Those who are finishing t heire
games probably aren't reading the groups at all right now since they
are too busy with their efforts. The rest of us who are NOT writing
should have full latititude to discuss or not discuss any topic if they
so choose.
Peter Seebach
>The Comp has nothign to do with this. Those who are finishing t heire
>games probably aren't reading the groups at all right now since they
>are too busy with their efforts. The rest of us who are NOT writing
>should have full latititude to discuss or not discuss any topic if they
>so choose.
FWIW, I'm a writer, but my game (thanks to heroic beta testers) is pretty
much ready; I will not be surprised if I don't need to upload a newer version
ever again.
-s
--
Copyright 2002, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Jonathan Penton
news:3D906244...@qadas.com...
> From the Denver Post:
>
> An article on a company that takes films and cleans them up.
> what if some one was able to DisInform Curses and then
> "re-arrange" the parts that he/she didn't like and post hte
> edited copy to the archive.
>
> There clearly is a 1st Amendment issue here. For you people
> in Roger Firths and Graham Nelson's part of the world
> i.e outside the US the First Amendment does NOT apply.
>
> (BUT COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE INTERNATIONAL!!!)
>
> Time for a good hard roughhouse discussion on this;
>
> I don' think Short, Plotkin, Nelson etal want anyone
> messing with their intellectual property. Maybe that's
> why Graham won't post the soruce code to Curses
> Jigsaw, Meteor etc on the archive and Princess Emily
> of the Land of Short wont' do the same with S-F.
> I already wrote Mike Gentry about getting the code
> to Anchorhead but haven't heard from him yet.
>
> All I want is the code for study Nothing More
>
> All thoughts, flames etc are welcomed
<snip article on CleanFlicks for the sake of brevity>
To answer the question in the subject line: I'd be fuckin' flabbergasted.
I've known about CleanFlicks for a while. It will be a long, long time (read
never) before they take on micro-filmmakers, let alone more obscure artists.
And now they're butting heads with the best lawyers in the world. You don't
have to worry about them. Censorship from below rarely effects art. It's the
censorship from above that kills us.
--
Jonathan Penton
http://www.unlikelystories.org
P.S. Can I be Queen Jonathan of the land of Penton?
Al
Jonathan Penton wrote:
> To answer the question in the subject line: I'd be fuckin' flabbergasted.
>
> I've known about CleanFlicks for a while. It will be a long, long time (read
> never) before they take on micro-filmmakers, let alone more obscure artists.
> And now they're butting heads with the best lawyers in the world. You don't
> have to worry about them. Censorship from below rarely effects art. It's the
> censorship from above that kills us.
>
> --
This will be an interesting one to say the least. My advice to the "prudes"
is if you don't like it then stay the hell away from it. No one's twisting your
arms to make you watch anything.
>
>
> P.S. Can I be Queen Jonathan of the land of Penton?
You are a female "Joe Nathan"?
My my ! ! !
No you can be Sir Jonathan of the conquered territory of Penton
formerly the Untied States of Nazi Amerika
he said sarkas tik cull lee ! ! ! !!
Tarage
Some background is necessary, here. Why do you suppose 1) someone came
up with the idea to sell filters for movies or to sell filtered movies
and 2) someone decided to sell it and 3) the field became so successful
that methods multiplied and people made money from it? Why, whatever
could cause such a thing?
I have a theory -- public dissatisfaction with the language used in most
Hollywood films.
I really can't see this happening to IF because most IF games are not in
the same league as even a PG-13 Hollywood film.
~Tarage
Al
Tarage wrote:
>
>
> I have a theory -- public dissatisfaction with the language used in most
> Hollywood films.
>
> I really can't see this happening to IF because most IF games are not in
> the same league as even a PG-13 Hollywood film.
>
>
The point of the exercise is 1st Amendment issue of expression.
No one h as the right to take some else's intellectual manteral
and do with it as they please. That's what copyright and patent
laws are about protecting the inventor NOT the public.
Adam Thornton
Tarage <tar...@nospam.net> wrote:
>I really can't see this happening to IF because most IF games are not in
>the same league as even a PG-13 Hollywood film.
Space Moose cries!
Adam
D. Jacob Wildstrom
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>FWIW, I'm a writer, but my game (thanks to heroic beta testers) is pretty
>much ready; I will not be surprised if I don't need to upload a newer version
>ever again.
Ha ha ha ha ho ho hee hee hee muhaa haa haa (gasp) heh!
Sorry about that. But I can almost guarantee you're wrong. There's
always one little thing which needs tweaking, no matter how heavily
you've had it betatested.
+------Archbishop, First Church of Mystical Agnosticism------+
| A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into |
| theorems. -Alfred Renyi |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jake Wildstrom |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
D. Jacob Wildstrom
>The point of the exercise is 1st Amendment issue of expression.
No, it's not. You clearly do not comprehend what the first amendment
actually says. All that is prohibited is government interference in
the process of expression: note that the "right to freedom of
expression" makes no guarantees that one will have the means to
disseminate said expression (e.g. nobody is compelled to finance a
movie for you), nor that private companies and individuals can choose
not to take part in it (e.g. any given cinema is free to not run your
movie). Also, the first amendment has no bearing on private
modification of work (government modification could be seen as
interference in the process of expression).
>No one h as the right to take some else's intellectual manteral
>and do with it as they please. That's what copyright and patent
>laws are about protecting the inventor NOT the public.
Well, you're closer to the make here -- IP law _does_ protect works,
in very specific ways, from unauthorized reproduction and
modification. I'm not sure how expurgation is handled under various IP
laws, and truth be told am not overwhelmingly interested.
Jonathan Penton
>
>
> Jonathan Penton wrote:
>
> > To answer the question in the subject line: I'd be fuckin'
flabbergasted.
> >
> > I've known about CleanFlicks for a while. It will be a long, long time
(read
> > never) before they take on micro-filmmakers, let alone more obscure
artists.
> > And now they're butting heads with the best lawyers in the world. You
don't
> > have to worry about them. Censorship from below rarely effects art. It's
the
> > censorship from above that kills us.
> >
> > --
>
> This will be an interesting one to say the least. My advice to the
"prudes"
> is if you don't like it then stay the hell away from it. No one's
twisting your
>
> arms to make you watch anything.
It will be interesting; though I think the conclusion is foregone,
CleanFlicks has been in business long enough that they must have a team of
lawyers with a ready stragedy. I'm curious to see what that will be.
> >
> >
> > P.S. Can I be Queen Jonathan of the land of Penton?
>
> You are a female "Joe Nathan"?
Only at parties, and never, sadly, for pay.
> My my ! ! !
>
> No you can be Sir Jonathan of the conquered territory of Penton
> formerly the Untied States of Nazi Amerika
>
> he said sarkas tik cull lee ! ! ! !!
Oh! I've always wanted to be a conquerer.
Jonathan Penton
news:xb6k9.22842$5M3.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> Al wrote:
> >
> > David Welbourn wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Al wrote:
> >>
> >>>Time for a good hard roughhouse discussion on this;
> >>
> >>er, let's not. Or at least postpone it until January? The Comp is almost
> >>here.
> >>
> >
> > The Comp has nothign to do with this. Those who are finishing t heire
> > games probably aren't reading the groups at all right now since they
> > are too busy with their efforts. The rest of us who are NOT writing
> > should have full latititude to discuss or not discuss any topic if they
> > so choose.
>
> Some background is necessary, here. Why do you suppose 1) someone came
> up with the idea to sell filters for movies or to sell filtered movies
> and 2) someone decided to sell it and 3) the field became so successful
> that methods multiplied and people made money from it? Why, whatever
> could cause such a thing?
>
> I have a theory -- public dissatisfaction with the language used in most
> Hollywood films.
While this is true, it is not the whole story. Many people are dissatisfied
with Hollywood, and simply stop watching Hollywood movies. CleanFlicks sells
its wares to people who are dissatisfied with the language used in most
Hollywood films, but who nonetheless have an inner imperative to watch these
same films. In some cases, people with a moral distaste for pop culture
instead turn to literature and self-education, becoming our society's most
educated people. CleanFlicks caters to those who want to be rescued from the
trappings of modern society, but don't want to seek out, let alone implement
themselves, any alternative modes of thought.
While Hollywood certainly embodies our society's problems, I would suggest
that our society's current problems are not the result of acceptance of the
F-word, but instead the widespread beliefs that physical beauty is the most
important characteristic a person can possess, all problems can be solved in
a two-hour span, and most of our problems can be solved with violence. No
amount of editing will remove these ideas from Hollywood films.
> I really can't see this happening to IF because most IF games are not in
> the same league as even a PG-13 Hollywood film.
On the other hand, there is no standard for warning an IF player about
profanity or graphic violence. While most games with adult content carry
disclaimers, not all do, and the wording of disclaimers is not standardized.
I'd like to say that IF is safe from people like CleanFlicks because IF
requires work, and work is antithetical to CleanFlick's target audience. But
really, IF slips under most people's radar. I consider this a blessing.
In any case, thanks for letting us know about your dislike of profanity
(which I assume is your point). You are, after all, the target audience of
much IF.
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
> From the Denver Post:
>
> Companies such as CleanFlicks say families have a First
> Amendment right to clean up Hollywood movies before they
> get watched in living rooms.
The First Amendment provides the right of Freedom of Speech, not freedom to
alter someone else's speech. Unfortunately for this company, altering a
movie is called "creating a derivative work" which is black-letter
copyright infringement. There is no first amendment issue here.
(IANAL)
> Countered Scott Mikulecky, the Colorado Springs attorney for
> CleanFlicks and Huntsman: "We just think people have the
> right to watch a movie in the manner that reflects their
> sensibilities.
They do:
a) Watch the movie
b) Don't watch the movie
> "The choice shouldn't have to be take it or leave it. It is clearly
> labeled on the box that the film has been edited. We are not
> trying to fool anyone."
So get a licensing agreement. No more argument.
> The Albertsons grocery chain rents CleanFlicks videos in its
> Utah stores and is considering offering them in other states.
>
> Hollywood has long allowed movies to be cleaned up for
> television and airlines. But that editing is controlled by
> Hollywood studios and filmmakers.
>
> Companies such as CleanFlicks cut scenes from films without
> asking. Recent computer technology has made such editing
> possible on a large-scale basis.
>
> Family Shield Technologies Inc., the Greeley company named
> in the suit, markets software blocking potentially offensive
> material.
>
> "The edits are being done in a basement apartment, with a
> couple of computers and DVDs and some TV screens,"
> company sales and marketing director Richard Schmer said in
> an earlier interview. "The research and development is done in
> a garage."
>
> Several lawyers and academics said copyright laws make it
> clear that "e-raters" are law breakers.
"Law breakers" is a little over the top.
> Hollywood can be persuaded to change content of films, with
> the permission of studios and filmmakers, if they understand
> money can be made, director's guild spokesman Levy said.
>
> "If there is a market for editing PG-, PG-13- and R-rated films
> for a broader audience that includes children, I believe studios
> and filmmakers would be open to that idea," Levy said. "But
> this is not the way to go about it."
Agreed.
--
"You did a great job. Take the rest of the week off."
"It's Friday, Adam."
"So it is. See you on Monday."
Scott
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
http://www.ladystar.net - Your Magical and Mysterious Adventure Awaits...
http://www.ladystar.net/goodies/ - New Official LadyStar Merchandise
Matthew Russotto
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd. <in...@NOSPAM.heavycatweb.com> wrote:
>Al wrote:
>
>> From the Denver Post:
>
>>
>> Companies such as CleanFlicks say families have a First
>> Amendment right to clean up Hollywood movies before they
>> get watched in living rooms.
>
>The First Amendment provides the right of Freedom of Speech, not freedom to
>alter someone else's speech. Unfortunately for this company, altering a
>movie is called "creating a derivative work" which is black-letter
>copyright infringement. There is no first amendment issue here.
>(IANAL)
It's no more creating a derivative work than marking up a book is. It's
modifying a copy of an existing work, which is specifically permitted
under first-sale rights.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Every time you buy a CD, a programmer is kicked in the teeth.
Every time you buy or rent a DVD, a programmer is kicked where it counts.
Every time they kick a programmer, 1000 users are kicked too, and harder.
A proposed US law called the CBDTPA would ban the PC as we know it.
This is not a joke, not an exaggeration. This is real.
http://www.cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm
Peter Seebach
D. Jacob Wildstrom <wil...@mit.edu> wrote:
>Sorry about that. But I can almost guarantee you're wrong. There's
>always one little thing which needs tweaking, no matter how heavily
>you've had it betatested.
I know. Basically, I don't think I'll be embarassed by what I've got done
right now, but I do plan to run through the game at least one more time
just in case.
Al
Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
> It's no more creating a derivative work than marking up a book is. It's
> modifying a copy of an existing work, which is specifically permitted
> under first-sale rights.
Matt needs to explain here. An author supposedly who copyrights
his work has full control over it. What is this first-sale rights crap?
The author I believe can tell whoever has licensed his work what they
can and can not do with it. Otherwise licencees of Star Trek could be
putting out porn or whatever now couldn't they?
If you or I got hold of Curses or Jigsaw Source then modified it to
make Graham look like the proverbiall horses ass, he'd be pretty
pissed now wouldn't he?
If I'm off on the wrong track or a tangent please 'splain it to me
as the late Desi Arnaz said to Lucy.
Al
Peter Seebach wrote:
>
> I know. Basically, I don't think I'll be embarassed by what I've got done
> right now, but I do plan to run through the game at least one more time
> just in case.
>
Pete needs to read Stephens little essay entitled
The Player Will Get It Wrong. This has nothing to do with
debugging or errors in released games.
Walter Sandsquish
<< That's what copyright and patent laws are about protecting
the inventor NOT the public. >>
Intellectual property laws are meant to protect both the creator
(or sponsor) of an intangible work and the general public. And
their interests do conflict in some ways.
The public has an interest in, and a right to, the free flow of
ideas and information. Complete control over the distribution of
a work interferes with this.
However, the creator or sponsor of a work that is a particular
expression of some information or ideas may have an interest in,
and a right to, control that work so that he may earn money from
it. Not being able to control the distribution of a work
interferes with this.
That's why copyrights and patents are temporary. They give an
author an opportunity to profit from his work. Once a "reasonable"
amount of time has passed, the general public's interest
overrides the author's interest and the work goes into the
public domain.
Pissing Bandit
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> It's no more creating a derivative work than marking up a book is. It's
>> modifying a copy of an existing work, which is specifically permitted
>> under first-sale rights.
>
>Matt needs to explain here. An author supposedly who copyrights
>his work has full control over it. What is this first-sale rights crap?
>The author I believe can tell whoever has licensed his work what they
>can and can not do with it. Otherwise licencees of Star Trek could be
>putting out porn or whatever now couldn't they?
Ha-HA!
At Last! A Thread--Yea Verily, a *Copyright* Thread--that Does Not
Threaten to Degenerate into Copenhagen Interpretations, Half-Dead Cats
In Boxes, and Sharpened Spinors!
Good Folk of the Newsgroup, before this Proceeds Any Farther, Let me
Simply Announce to All and Sundry that I am, Indeed, Monitoring This
Conversation, and that I Stand Ever-Ready to Micturate Upon any
Cheerios or Breakfast Products that I deem Necessary.
Gentlemen, Proceed with Caution.
Yrs.,
The Pissing Bandit
Al
Walter Sandsquish wrote:
> That's why copyrights and patents are temporary. They give an
> author an opportunity to profit from his work. Once a "reasonable"
> amount of time has passed, the general public's interest
> overrides the author's interest and the work goes into the
> public domain.
What is a "reasonable" amount of time?
My understandng is that copyrights expire
somewhere between 50-75 years after the
death of the creator.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Jon Ingold
> much ready; I will not be surprised if I don't need to upload a newer
version
> ever again.
I've never seen a single game that's ever been so well beta-tested that you
can't find one bug, one flat response, or one tiny tweak worthy of reload.
Well, maybe "Annoyotron".
Jon
Peter Seebach
And, sure enough, we realized that part of the win condition message was not
as well-considered as it should be, and fixed it.
Peter Seebach
> Pete needs to read Stephens little essay entitled
>The Player Will Get It Wrong. This has nothing to do with
>debugging or errors in released games.
Heh. :) Yeah, I know what that's like.
Peter Seebach
>his work has full control over it. What is this first-sale rights crap?
It's the law that says "once you've sold a book, you have sold that
book, and the book is the property of the person who bought it". It means
that, having bought a book, I may resell it, mutilate it, or offer it
to The Pissing Bandit if he's run out of Cheerios. The feeling is that,
having been duly reimbursed for the book, you've *had* your egg.
Matthew Russotto
>
>>
>>
>> It's no more creating a derivative work than marking up a book is. It's
>> modifying a copy of an existing work, which is specifically permitted
>> under first-sale rights.
>
>Matt needs to explain here.
Actually, I'm under no such obligation.
>An author supposedly who copyrights his work has full control over it.
This is not the case. He has certain limited rights.
>What is this first-sale rights crap?
Look it up.
>The author I believe can tell whoever has licensed his work what they
>can and can not do with it. Otherwise licencees of Star Trek could be
>putting out porn or whatever now couldn't they?
I can sell Princess Leia/Luke Skywalker action figures glued into any
position I like.
>If you or I got hold of Curses or Jigsaw Source then modified it to
>make Graham look like the proverbiall horses ass, he'd be pretty
>pissed now wouldn't he?
I doubt it... for Graham to get pissed, he'd have to drink alcoholic
beverages.
Charlton Wilbur
Al> From the Denver Post: An article on a company that takes films
Al> and cleans them up. what if some one was able to DisInform
Al> Curses and then "re-arrange" the parts that he/she didn't like
Al> and post hte edited copy to the archive.
Al> There clearly is a 1st Amendment issue here. For you people
Al> in Roger Firths and Graham Nelson's part of the world i.e
Al> outside the US the First Amendment does NOT apply.
This has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It has entirely to
do with derivative works, which require the permission of the
copyright holder, unless they fall into a limited number of categories
(criticism/review and parody are the only ones I can think off
offhand). Since this isn't being done for either, it's a violation of
copyright law.
If CleanFlicks sees fit to pay appropriate license fees to the authors
of their movies, that's one thing. Doing it without their knowledge
or consent is both wrong and illegal.
Charlton
Al
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> I can sell Princess Leia/Luke Skywalker action figures glued into any
> position I like.
>
George Lucas would like you to tell him that in person and see where
that gets you ! ! ! !
Al
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>
> If CleanFlicks sees fit to pay appropriate license fees to the authors
> of their movies, that's one thing. Doing it without their knowledge
> or consent is both wrong and illegal.
>
>
Looks like Chuck is the ONLY one of the responders who's gotten
it right so far ! ! ! !
However if Matt wants to take action figures that he's bought
and repositioned per se.then I don't have any problem with that.
Its Matt CREATING his OWN figures and selling them in whatever
the hell position he wants is where the problem comes into being.
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
> In article <up34uj1...@news.supernews.com>,
> Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd. <in...@NOSPAM.heavycatweb.com> wrote:
>>Al wrote:
>>
>>> From the Denver Post:
>>
>>>
>>> Companies such as CleanFlicks say families have a First
>>> Amendment right to clean up Hollywood movies before they
>>> get watched in living rooms.
>>
>>The First Amendment provides the right of Freedom of Speech, not freedom
>>to
>>alter someone else's speech. Unfortunately for this company, altering a
>>movie is called "creating a derivative work" which is black-letter
>>copyright infringement. There is no first amendment issue here.
>>(IANAL)
>
> It's no more creating a derivative work than marking up a book is. It's
> modifying a copy of an existing work, which is specifically permitted
> under first-sale rights.
Sure, provided a copy of the book is purchased for each copy modified, and
*even then* it is infringement to distribute the modified book in any
manner that resembles publication. First sale only applies to specifically
allow private re-sale of an already purchased copy of a
(book/movie/whatever) without permission from the copyright holder.
Buying 1000 books, modifying them all in the same way and re-selling them
could theoretically be proposed as fair use, or as a very loose
interpretation of first sale, but it isn't going to fly. Distributing a
derivative work as an ongoing commercial enterprise is going to be seen as
infringement. (Not to mention the fact that buying 1000 books at retail
and re-selling them is going to limit profits quite a bit).
--
"So, do you want a phone for your office?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because it would ring."
Scott
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
http://www.ladystar.net - Your Magical and Mysterious Adventure Awaits...
Custom Anime Mascots and Avatars:
http://www.heavycatweb.com/developers/graphicsgallery.html
Craig Thomson
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>It's no more creating a derivative work than marking up a book is. It's
>modifying a copy of an existing work, which is specifically permitted
>under first-sale rights.
Yes, I am allowed to whatever I want with things that I own, but that
does not mean that I can then make copies of that altered work and
sell it.
E.g. I could scan the photos from coffee-table style books and make my
own coffee-table book for my own use, but I could not sell copies of
my coffee-table book.
Craig
JJK
I buy a book. I go through it with a magic marker and cross out all the
swear words and sex scenes. Any legal problems there?
I give the book to a friend, or my teenage child. Any legal problems yet?
Rather than cross the scenes out myself, I hire someone to do it for me.
How about now?
The person I hire says, hey, I have a lot of other books I legally
purchased myself and have already crossed out the naughty bits. What
say you buy one from me, for the cost of the original purchase price I
paid, plus my normal charge for crossing things out. Any legal problems
with that?
I may think what they are doing is... odd, and I have no idea if it is
legal, but I don't think it should be illegal.
-Jim
JJK
ORIGINAL, paid-for copy, altered and marked up (if you read any of the
articles on this the company is very clear that they buy a legal copy
for everyone they sell). Is this still a derivative work as a judge
would understand the term?
-Jim
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd.
> It's not a derivative work as I understand the term. It is the
> ORIGINAL, paid-for copy, altered and marked up (if you read any of the
> articles on this the company is very clear that they buy a legal copy
> for everyone they sell).
That puts them on more solid ground, but it is very likely the Directors
will prevail in their infringement claim.
If Acme Studios takes Spiderman, changes his outfit to green and changes
the name of the main character to Joe Smith, slaps a label on it and
re-releases it as "Greenman," they will lose the subsequent lawsuit because
it is a derivative work: taking a story, changing it (or adapting it) and
publishing it, especially because it fails at least three of the tests for
fair use (amount of the work, nature of the work and commercial vs.
non-commercial).
Copyrights are meant for original works of authorship. Starting with a
finished story and altering it is not an original work.
> Is this still a derivative work as a judge
> would understand the term?
Probably. 85% chance, although IANAL. If not, it will seriously alter
(pun intended) copyright laws. :)
--
All programs have at least one bug.
All programs can be simplified by at least one instruction.
Therefore, all programs can be reduced to one instruction...
...that doesn't work.
Travis Casey
>> It's not a derivative work as I understand the term. It is the
>> ORIGINAL, paid-for copy, altered and marked up (if you read any of the
>> articles on this the company is very clear that they buy a legal copy
>> for everyone they sell).
>
> That puts them on more solid ground, but it is very likely the Directors
> will prevail in their infringement claim.
>
> If Acme Studios takes Spiderman, changes his outfit to green and changes
> the name of the main character to Joe Smith, slaps a label on it and
> re-releases it as "Greenman," they will lose the subsequent lawsuit
> because
> it is a derivative work: taking a story, changing it (or adapting it) and
> publishing it, especially because it fails at least three of the tests for
> fair use (amount of the work, nature of the work and commercial vs.
> non-commercial).
Fair Use applies to creating a copy of part of a work, however -- it
doesn't cover altering an existing work. I can buy a book, rip out pages,
cross out words, make marginal notes, and then sell that book to someone
else, and it's all perfectly legal.
> Copyrights are meant for original works of authorship. Starting with a
> finished story and altering it is not an original work.
Umm... actually, it can be, under the law. For example, a translation of a
work into another language is considered a new work. Thus, while The Iliad
is long, long out of any possible copyright, a new translation of The Iliad
can be copyrighted.
Further, altering a text can create a new copyright -- e.g., when Reader's
Digest makes an "abridged version" of a work, that's considered to carry
enough original authorship to be copyrighted. New editions of existing
books -- where the only change is in the editing -- have been given new
copyrights.
Films have been given new copyrights because they've been colorized, and
"Director's Cuts" of films have been given new copyrights.
>> Is this still a derivative work as a judge
>> would understand the term?
>
> Probably. 85% chance, although IANAL. If not, it will seriously alter
> (pun intended) copyright laws. :)
IANAL too, but I don't think it would be, any more than if I offered to
sell someone a copy of a book that I'd bought and ripped some pages out of.
What I think could cause them problems is trademark infringement or fraud
-- if, for example, "The Godfather" is a trademark of whatever studio owns
the film, then selling an altered version as "The Godfather" without their
permission could get you in trouble for trademark infringement. And, of
course, advertising an edited version as the original could also be
considered fraud.
--
ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@earthlink.net>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
David Thornley
Travis Casey <efi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Copyrights are meant for original works of authorship. Starting with a
>> finished story and altering it is not an original work.
>
>Umm... actually, it can be, under the law. For example, a translation of a
>work into another language is considered a new work. Thus, while The Iliad
>is long, long out of any possible copyright, a new translation of The Iliad
>can be copyrighted.
>
create and distribute a translation of a copyrighted work without
permission from the copyright holder, but you hold the copyright to
the translation. Nobody can legally make copies of the translation
without permission from both you and the original copyright holder.
>Films have been given new copyrights because they've been colorized, and
>"Director's Cuts" of films have been given new copyrights.
>
Yup. After all, there is new creative work in those versions, and
that work deserves protection. These are of course made with permission,
or from films already in the public domain. I imagine the original
copyright holders see this as a way of selling the film yet again
(I own the two-DVD copy of Fellowship of the Ring, and will be buying
the expanded version when it comes out in November).
>> Probably. 85% chance, although IANAL. If not, it will seriously alter
>> (pun intended) copyright laws. :)
>
>IANAL too, but I don't think it would be, any more than if I offered to
>sell someone a copy of a book that I'd bought and ripped some pages out of.
>
Well, that's normally OK. However, if you offer to do this to the
public on a commercial basis, essentially publishing the censored book,
the courts might take a dim view of it. Before doing this, consult
a real lawyer who deals with intellectual property.
>What I think could cause them problems is trademark infringement or fraud
>-- if, for example, "The Godfather" is a trademark of whatever studio owns
>the film, then selling an altered version as "The Godfather" without their
>permission could get you in trouble for trademark infringement. And, of
>course, advertising an edited version as the original could also be
>considered fraud.
>
Yup. I'd be really, really surprised to find that studios didn't
commonly trademark movie names. After all, if Star Wars were not
trademarked, there'd be nothing to prevent me from making my own
Star Wars action figures and selling them publicly. (I probably
couldn't make my own Leia figure, but I could produce a Senator
Edith figure or something like that, as long as she looked different.)
In that case, anybody offering altered versions of the movies for
sale had better be darn sure about trademark status.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
David Brain
wrote:
> In article <xb6k9.22842$5M3.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>,
> Tarage <tar...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >I really can't see this happening to IF because most IF games are
> not in
> the same league as even a PG-13 Hollywood film.
>
> Space Moose cries!
>
Cheer up Moose - Tarage did say "most".
--
David Brain
(whose comp entry contains [snipped because I'm not allowed to talk
about it])
Al
what the hell does the anacronmyu IANAL
stand for?
L. Ross Raszewski
I am not a lawyer.
Matthew Russotto
Why don't you set up a meeting?
Uli Kusterer
> Pete needs to read Stephens little essay entitled
> The Player Will Get It Wrong. This has nothing to do with
> debugging or errors in released games.
Would you happen to have a URL to that one at hand?
Cheers,
-- Uli
http://www.zathras.de
Matthew Russotto
>
>However if Matt wants to take action figures that he's bought
>and repositioned per se.then I don't have any problem with that.
>Its Matt CREATING his OWN figures and selling them in whatever
>the hell position he wants is where the problem comes into being.
Yep, I can take a good old store bought Luke and Leia, arrange them into
positions suggesting they were born in West Virginia rather than
Tatooine, and sell the result, and there's not a damn thing LucasFilm
can do about it, at least not in terms of copyright.
Similarly, I can buy a videotape of _Star Wars_, tape over anything I
think is unacceptable to prudes, and rent the result, and there's still
not a thing Lucasfilm can do about it.
Matthew Russotto
Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd. <in...@NOSPAM.heavycatweb.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article <up34uj1...@news.supernews.com>,
>> Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd. <in...@NOSPAM.heavycatweb.com> wrote:
>>>Al wrote:
>>>
>>>> From the Denver Post:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Companies such as CleanFlicks say families have a First
>>>> Amendment right to clean up Hollywood movies before they
>>>> get watched in living rooms.
>>>
>>>The First Amendment provides the right of Freedom of Speech, not freedom
>>>to
>>>alter someone else's speech. Unfortunately for this company, altering a
>>>movie is called "creating a derivative work" which is black-letter
>>>copyright infringement. There is no first amendment issue here.
>>>(IANAL)
>>
>> It's no more creating a derivative work than marking up a book is. It's
>> modifying a copy of an existing work, which is specifically permitted
>> under first-sale rights.
>
>Sure, provided a copy of the book is purchased for each copy modified, and
>*even then* it is infringement to distribute the modified book in any
>manner that resembles publication. First sale only applies to specifically
>allow private re-sale of an already purchased copy of a
>(book/movie/whatever) without permission from the copyright holder.
There's no limitation to private resale. Commercial resale is also
authorized by first sale, as is rental (except in computer programs).
>Buying 1000 books, modifying them all in the same way and re-selling them
>could theoretically be proposed as fair use, or as a very loose
>interpretation of first sale, but it isn't going to fly.
It has flown. For instance, there have been cases involving the
transfer of the ink on paper posters of art to canvas and then sold. The
original artist objected, but lost.
Uli Kusterer
> book, and the book is the property of the person who bought it". It means
> that, having bought a book, I may resell it, mutilate it, or offer it
> to The Pissing Bandit if he's run out of Cheerios. The feeling is that,
> having been duly reimbursed for the book, you've *had* your egg.
Note that this applies to _used items_. If you make it clear that these
are used items and you're selling them in a mutilated form, that's true.
But this doesn't mean you're allowed to glue in new pages that you wrote
yourself and which make the original author look like an asshole,
without making it clear to the person who buys it, that this is a
modified copy. If you don't make that clear, the prospective buyer can
sue you for mis-representation of the sold item, and your no better than
a car salesman who offers you a "new car" without making clear it's been
in a crash.
I'm not sure how CleanFlicks comes into this, as they are very much in
the grey area between these two distinctions. As they make it clear that
they sell modified copies, I wouldn't be surprised if they were allowed
to do their thing.
But IANAL. I'm even not a US citizen, so maybe that's different over there.
Al
"L. Ross Raszewski" wrote:
> I am not a lawyer.
Thanks Ross
Al
Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
> Why don't you set up a meeting?
I'll mail him and tell him what you're planning ! ! ! !
Al
Uli Kusterer wrote:
>
>
> Would you happen to have a URL to that one at hand?
>
and scroll down the page to get to the article.
Uli Kusterer
>>Why don't you set up a meeting?
>
> I'll mail him and tell him what you're planning ! ! ! !
I don't see why George Lucas would have any problem with you taking two
Star Wars action figures and glueing Han Solo's feet to Leia's head. ;-)
Uli Kusterer
Thanks! Great article! The others are neat, too :-)
Uli Kusterer
> Similarly, I can buy a videotape of _Star Wars_, tape over anything I
> think is unacceptable to prudes, and rent the result, and there's still
> not a thing Lucasfilm can do about it.
Only if you do that to a video tape for which you bought the rental
rights, of course.
John W. Kennedy
> What is a "reasonable" amount of time?
> My understandng is that copyrights expire
> somewhere between 50-75 years after the
> death of the creator.
> Correct me if I'm wrong.
Copyrights expire >= n years after the death of the author where n
is the number of years from the release of "Steamboat Willie" to
the current year.
--
John W. Kennedy
Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!
-- Kazuo Koike, "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
Josh
> >> modifying a copy of an existing work, which is specifically permitted
> >> under first-sale rights.
> >
> >his work has full control over it. What is this first-sale rights crap?
> >The author I believe can tell whoever has licensed his work what they
> >can and can not do with it. Otherwise licencees of Star Trek could be
> >putting out porn or whatever now couldn't they?
>
> Ha-HA!
>
> At Last! A Thread--Yea Verily, a *Copyright* Thread--that Does Not
> Threaten to Degenerate into Copenhagen Interpretations, Half-Dead Cats
> In Boxes, and Sharpened Spinors!
I wouldn't pick on poor Magnus if I were you. His would-be-wisdom and
Mr. A.P. Hills Flying Circuss are among the few things that make this
group a good laugh.
> Good Folk of the Newsgroup, before this Proceeds Any Farther, Let me
> Simply Announce to All and Sundry that I am, Indeed, Monitoring This
> Conversation, and that I Stand Ever-Ready to Micturate Upon any
> Cheerios or Breakfast Products that I deem Necessary.
>
> Gentlemen, Proceed with Caution.
>
> Yrs.,
> The Pissing Bandit
Those copyright threads tend to be sort of boring. What about starting
a gang-rape-in-Pakistan thread?
Matthew Russotto
There are no separate rental rights for videotape in the US.