Clean Flicks

[andrewducker]

I don't know if you've heard about the Clean Flicks debacle, where various film directors are suing a company that will take your copy of Titanic (or Die Hard or Saving Private Ryan) and edit out the swearing, nudity and extreme violence in order to give you a version you can watch with your whole family. It shouldn't surprise you to know that the company started in Utah. It shouldn't surprise you to know that they are being sued by a group of directors, furious at having their films cut up. It probably does surprise you to know that I'm on the side of Clean Flicks.

Not, to be clear, that I'd ever want to buy a film from them. And I'm certainly in favour of free speech. But this, to me, seems like a fairly clear case of freedom to do what you want with your property. Let's use a book analogy, as it's a bit clearer with books, and we're more familiar with the ability to edit books.

Let's say I buy a book with swearing in it. Do I have the right to go through my copy of the book and tippex out the word "fuck" everywhere it appears? I think we can all agree that it's my book and I can paint on it if I so choose. Do I have the right to hand it to my friend Bob and ask him to paint out the word "fuck" wherever it appears. Again, it seems fairly clear that this is perfectly legal. Can I pay Bob to do so? Well, if it's legal, then I can't see why I can't pay Bob to de-fuck my books. Could I ask Bob to buy the book for me, de-fuck it and then give it to me? Well, again, this seems a simple progression from the previous two, so it must be ok, musn't it? Now, if many people are asking Bob to do this, then he's going to find it easier to buy the books in bulk, prepare them ahead of time and then sell them on when people ask for them, isn't he? And this is merely mass producing what we've already agreed is reasonable.

And this is what Clean Flicks are doing, only with movies rather than books. I may not like the fact that people feel the need to whitewash their films. I may never want to avail myself of that service. But I do think that if they want to deface their own property then it's their right to do so.

Of course, I wouldn't want people mistaking these films for the originals, so some kind of warning seems reasonable, but as long as people realise they aren't seeing the film the way the director wanted them to, then I really don't see how it's any of my business. Or the director's.

Comments

[spaj.livejournal.com]

The book bob has de-fucked is called Jon's-book. Jon's-book includes the word fuck, as part of the artist's original vision.

If you own the book, and get bob to de-fuck it, that's reasonable. But if Bob comes round your house, and says "hey, want to buy Jon's-book, without the word fuck" he's in breach of copyright. He's essentially written a new book, one without the word fuck in it. It's not a new book in the sense that it's the same story... but the fact that the subject matter has been altered without the copyright owner's permission....

Think of it this way... Jon wrote the book. It's his vision, his book. He's sharing that book with the world, through copyright...

for someone to change that book in any way, before sale, is illegal.

Adam

[andrewducker]

Hmm, how about:
Bob buys the book - it's now his. He defucks it. Then he sells it. He's certainly allowed to do (a) and (b). Is he then allowed to do (c)?

Personally, I think the copyright laws need a good overhauling, but that's probably a whole other discussion. (But I'd happily live in a world where you could use other people's work as much as you liked, as long as they got their cut of the final proceeds)

[cleodhna.livejournal.com]

With the caveat that the de-fucked book is now no longer what the artist had in mind when they wrote the book, I have less difficulty with the notion of de-fucking a book or a movie. However, I have little faith in people's ability to apply the caveat to their viewing/reading, and I do believe that people are far, far too selfishly sensitive. There is far too much ickiness in the world for anybody to be able to afford squeamishness over a little fuck. If they can't handle fuck, then they should avoid media which might contain it, and let what results be their just reward. A lifetime of The Swiss Family Robinson can't be that bad, can it?

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

I'm also on the side of Clean Flicks. And in fact, some of my family own a few of their products. Because, um, we're Mormon and I guess the industry really is kind of aimed at us.

Anyway.

They are clearly marked as being altered versions.

I don't have a problem with it. I think the issue is that the originators of the films are not getting more money from the resale of the videos. Give them a percentage and they'll shut up.