Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films

[7/4]

July 8, 2006

Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 9:52 p.m. ET

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled.

Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an ''illegitimate business'' that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights, said U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch in a decision released Thursday in Denver.

''Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies,'' the judge wrote. ''There is a public interest in providing such protection.''

Matsch ordered the companies named in the suit, including CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms, to stop ''producing, manufacturing, creating'' and renting edited movies. The businesses also must turn over their inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling.

''We're disappointed,'' CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines said. ''This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight.''

CleanFlicks produces and distributes sanitized copies of Hollywood films on DVD by burning edited versions of movies onto blank discs. The scrubbed films are sold over the Internet and to video stores.

As many as 90 video stores nationwide -- about half of them in Utah -- purchase movies from CleanFlicks, Lines said. It's unclear how the ruling may effect those stores.

The controversy began in 1998 when the owners of Sunrise Family Video began deleting scenes from ''Titanic'' that showed a naked Kate Winselt.

The scrubbing caused an uproar in Hollywood, resulting in several lawsuits and countersuits.

Directors can feel vindicated by the ruling, said Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America.

''Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor,'' he said.

[Jim Alfredson]

''We're disappointed,'' CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines said. ''This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight.''

No, this is a case of you messing with copyrighted material. Pretty "clean" cut, if you ask me.

[MartyJazz]

It's difficult to see how these companies argued that what they were doing was legal. The first question is whether they had a contractual relationship with the film companies when they initially acquired authorized DVDs of the films. Even assuming that to be the case, each DVD expressly warns the user not to make unauthorized copies for distribution and is encrypted to deter the user from making such copies (easily overcome, to be sure). Obviously, unauthorized dubs were not only made, but the companies also had the audacity to edit them and then to distribute them. And they thought that was legal?!!

[Big Al]

Man, I really must be tired: I thought the thread title said "satanizing" flims.....

[vibes]

CleanFlicks and the other companies may have violated copyright laws, but this definitely isn't a win for consumers who would like more opportunities to see films with some of the content to which they object edited from the films. It's too bad these companies and Hollywood can't come to some kind of agreement.

Several members of my family used CleanFlicks on a regular basis. It was the only way they'd watch R-rated movies. Oh well...

[paul secor]

Simple solution for all these "Clean" companies - make your own damn films if you don't like what's out there.

[Dan Gould]

Not only is this a great victory in favor of copyrights but anything that pisses the hell out of the Christian Fascists gets a big from me.

And as far as those who only watch R-rated films that have been "sanitized", one of my closest college friends is an extremely conservative Christian, and he and his wife manage to rent the R-rated films they are interested in. His wife covers her eyes, or they use the scene menu to skip ahead. No biggie.

And there's another way to watch those movies: Cable TV. All the naughty bits will be deleted if you wait for FX to broadcast them.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Several members of my family used CleanFlicks on a regular basis. It was the only way they'd watch R-rated movies. Oh well...

They probably have sex with their eyes closed too.

[ejp626]

I'm confused, since I clearly remember this case coming up previously and that time around the CleanFilm groups won. Maybe there are different rulings in different jurisdictions. Or now that I am remembering it a bit more clearly, the other case involved a device sort of like a Tivo that filtered out offensive material (based on codes the company provided) and maybe it falls under some kind of personal use exemption. In any case, I think the other approach is still legal but I can't be bothered to look it up.

[Jim Alfredson]

And there's another way to watch those movies: Cable TV. All the naughty bits will be deleted if you wait for FX to broadcast them.

Seems like the logical solution. However, if there is a big enough market for this type of thing, the movie industry will cater to it, director's wishes be damned. That's a guarantee!

[Big Wheel]

This decision may be correct according to the law. However, that doesn't mean the law is a good one. If CleanFlix legally pays for the content they are bowdlerizing, they should be able to do whatever they want with it so long as they make it clear that it's a bowdlerized version. This ruling has seriously undesirable implications for how IP is handled.

See here and especially here for progressive takes on this. From the latter:

Instinctive hostility to middlebrow "family values" groups shouldn't compel one to fall into the trap of advocating terrible copyrights laws.

Edit: so it turns out that CleanFlix wasn't obtaining permission to copy the movies, which makes things a good bit murkier. I had inititally assumed that they were essentially functioning like a used bookstore, purchasing multiple copies of movies, then reselling the edited versions in a number equal to what they had purchased.

Edited July 10, 2006 by Big Wheel

[BERIGAN]

Wish these companies would get half as upset about the end credits taken off(or sped up) of Movies and TV credits. (Or showing up during the show)Nothing like watching a simpsons gag during the credits ruined by an add for another show.....( I know, money talks)

Edited July 10, 2006 by BERIGAN