Artistic Integrity My Ass

So everyone is all a-twitter over the recent decision by a judge that basically outlawed companies that were “sanitizing” movies from doing so and providing them to their paying customers as cleaned-up versions.

One such person that was all righteously pleased with a raised fist was Charlie over at Gizmodo, who, I’m guessing from his go-getter attitude about the whole thing is a movie-maker or at least a wannabe, had this to say:

Rightfully so. These movies already had one editor. That job was done by a trained professional. As a director, the whole idea of some hack editing my work and then re-selling it makes my skin crawl. If someone doesn’t want to hear certain words or phrases, the movies containing such language are well-marked. They can simply choose not to watch those movies.

Justice is done. The judge said it’s up to the moviemakers to decide what’s in their content. CleanFlicks plans to appeal that ruling. To those who want to censor movies, cleaning them up for their own prudish devices, here’s a choice phrase, specifically edited just for them: fuck you. – Charlie White

2 very important points that Mr. F-Bomb missed.

This back-room third-party editing goes on all the time. That’s right folks. These people aren’t the first people to do it, and they won’t be the last. There is a big-time offender that we’re much more familiar with. We know it as television.

Every single movie that’s shown on television is hacked to death before it’s aired. Hell, just get a listen at any of your favorite movies when they show up as the ABC Movie of the Week. They not only hack it up for content purposes, but sometimes they even cut it for time. They often take creative liberties with movies shown on their channels.

What’s that, you say? They aren’t charging for it? Ya know those things in the middle of the movie? Sure you do. They pop up every couple of minutes and usually go for about 5. They’re commonly known as commercials. Surely you’ve seen ‘em. I know for a fact, I have. They (the companies you see) pay to have their ads put in the middle of movie sections. That’s right folks, the companies that advertise during television movies are paying, and doing it to the tune of millions and millions of dollars, for you to watch that movie that’s all hacked up, edited, and walking around with the words, “monkey flipper” instead of “mother f***er.”

Secondly, there’s such a thing as fair use, and this is a definite example. Editing a movie to remove objectionable content is no more a violation of copyright laws than closing your eyes during the scary parts of a horror movie. Objections to this are more likely based in the hatred for the people doing it than the thing they’re doing. It’s as obvious as the “f*** you” remark Charlie made.

I’m not a prude. In fact, most of the time, I make the inappropriate joke, remark, or comment. It gets me in trouble on a regular basis; it’s who I am. My point in telling you this is that I’m not supporting this because I would go out and buy a movie that’s been cut up and sit at home praising God for such a great re-cut. I think it’s silly and stupid, but I also think people have a right to it if they want it. Seeing as most of the arguments against this service is that it ruins the artistic integrity of the movie, it makes you wonder if ABC, CBS, or NBC were to buy the rights and air a movie cut for time and edited for content if the Charlie Whites of the world would have a word to say about it.

My guess is no. If you throw enough money at artistic integrity, it tends to have very little problem moving into the back-seat.

[tags]movies, sanitizing, charlie white[/tags]

This entry was posted in Rants. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.jasonblogs.com Jason Schramm

    I admit I was one who blogged about the decision. My only aversion to companies that edit movies is when those edited version are forced on consumers. That happens with some services, and due to parental decisions. I think the viewer should be able to decide whether they want a sanitized movie or not, and as long as they still can it’s okay. But I worry about a time when the movie service you signup for mandates sanitized versions of films for the customer’s “safety”.

  • http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

    buy the rights

    That’s the difference between CleanFlicks and television. Television stations purchase the rights to modify and air a movie. Copyright holders (mostly meaning movie studios, not artists) have the opportunity not to sell those rights. CleanFlicks was not purchasing those rights. Sure, for every copy they sold they supposedly bought and stored an official copy of the movie, but that doesn’t matter under the current law. I’m on the fence about editing a movie for content and then selling it.

    Editing a movie for content is fair use. Selling that edited movie is not. Giving it away, well, that’s another oddity. It should be fair use, but it’s not really legally possible because of the DMCA.

    Plus, we can’t get rid of edited for content, otherwise, we’d never see gems like: “This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!”

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Stupid Clinton and his stupid DMCA.

    The main argument, though, is not the selling. People are outraged over the violation of “artistic integrity.” Even in the decision:

    U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch issued his decision Thursday, ending a three-year court battle. In his 16-page ruling, Matsch said cutting language, sex and violence causes “irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies” and referred to the businesses as “illegitimate.”

    Sounds to me like editing was a bigger problem for these folks than copyright.

  • http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

    Well, I can sort of see how they’d be outraged over it. It would suck to have something you worked on edited for content. I’d be outraged as well, but I’d have the sense to know that editing by itself is fair use.

    I need to find a copy of the ruling. That quote may imply something different in proper context. Referring to the business as “illegitimate” sounds right. But was the judge also referring to the business or (like the author implies) the editing when with the causing “irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies” phrase?

  • KaT

    Someone already said it, but TV stations have contracts with movie distributors, to the extent that the production companies will often film the “TV versions” of certain scenes themselves, and the actors are obligated to do the sanitized voiceovers. But its all legal and contracted, and Fair use is a dicey term when it comes to something that has a bloody FBI warning on the first minute and a half of it that warns against reproducing and redistributing copywrited material.

  • http://www.jasonblogs.com/ Jason Schramm

    I admit I was one who blogged about the decision. My only aversion to companies that edit movies is when those edited version are forced on consumers. That happens with some services, and due to parental decisions. I think the viewer should be able to decide whether they want a sanitized movie or not, and as long as they still can it’s okay. But I worry about a time when the movie service you signup for mandates sanitized versions of films for the customer’s “safety”.

  • http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

    buy the rights

    That’s the difference between CleanFlicks and television. Television stations purchase the rights to modify and air a movie. Copyright holders (mostly meaning movie studios, not artists) have the opportunity not to sell those rights. CleanFlicks was not purchasing those rights. Sure, for every copy they sold they supposedly bought and stored an official copy of the movie, but that doesn’t matter under the current law. I’m on the fence about editing a movie for content and then selling it.

    Editing a movie for content is fair use. Selling that edited movie is not. Giving it away, well, that’s another oddity. It should be fair use, but it’s not really legally possible because of the DMCA.

    Plus, we can’t get rid of edited for content, otherwise, we’d never see gems like: “This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!”

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Stupid Clinton and his stupid DMCA.

    The main argument, though, is not the selling. People are outraged over the violation of “artistic integrity.” Even in the decision:

    U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch issued his decision Thursday, ending a three-year court battle. In his 16-page ruling, Matsch said cutting language, sex and violence causes “irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies” and referred to the businesses as “illegitimate.”

    Sounds to me like editing was a bigger problem for these folks than copyright.

  • http://spencer.sokols.us/ Spencer

    Well, I can sort of see how they’d be outraged over it. It would suck to have something you worked on edited for content. I’d be outraged as well, but I’d have the sense to know that editing by itself is fair use.

    I need to find a copy of the ruling. That quote may imply something different in proper context. Referring to the business as “illegitimate” sounds right. But was the judge also referring to the business or (like the author implies) the editing when with the causing “irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies” phrase?

  • KaT

    Someone already said it, but TV stations have contracts with movie distributors, to the extent that the production companies will often film the “TV versions” of certain scenes themselves, and the actors are obligated to do the sanitized voiceovers. But its all legal and contracted, and Fair use is a dicey term when it comes to something that has a bloody FBI warning on the first minute and a half of it that warns against reproducing and redistributing copywrited material.