RE: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 31 Jan 2003 at 9:18, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
Date sent:      	Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:18:53 -0800
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Interesting.  The summary says outright that the courts
> do not recognize "moral rights" per se but should nonetheless
> attempt to accomodate them if they can find justification
> to do so in the actual legalities (in this case, the _legal_
> violation was a breach of contract).
> 
> That is, of course, my own condensation of the summary.  If
> one of you legal types could confirm or deny my reading of
> this I would appreciate it.
> 

I didn't quite get that reading the decision. They don't recognize it yet do 
recognize that there is a "trademark" aspect to it. If by editing they alter 
the product to the point that it is unmarketable, then there are 
damages...remember the rumors about L.B.Mayer altering John Gilbert's voice 
when talkies came in to damage his appeal at the box office

> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeremy Erwin [mailto:jerwin@ponymail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:57 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:01  PM, microlenz@earthlink.net 
> > wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 12:51  PM, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> > >>>> On 22 Jan 2003 at 14:34, johnzu@ia.nsc.com wrote:
> > >>>> The
> > >>>> notion that copyright controls ALL derivative works is the
> > >>>> problem. It only
> > >>>> should  control COMMERCIAL derivative works and by commercial
> > >>>> I would contend
> > >>>> that applies ONLY to lost revenues that are demonstratable
> > >>>> (e.g., 1000 copies
> > >>>> of bootleg ). In the case of the clean Flicks, I can't see
> > >>>> that they have lost
> > >>>> ANY commercial revenue even with the copies of the tape.
> > >>
> > >> The Monty Python case demonstrated that the Lanham Act was 
> > >> inapplicable
> > >
> > > My impression of the Monty Python case was that is involved 
> > breach of 
> > > contract
> > > between the BBC and NBC(?). Monty Python sold episodes to 
> > the BBC with 
> > > certain
> > > contractual arrangments. BBC sold them to NBC who did not 
> > honor those
> > > agreements...maybe memory is wrong...
> > I'm slowly going insane. A mere search for "monty python 
> > erwin lanham" 
> > will prove that I've forgotten the gist of Gilliam v. ABC.
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg10434.html
> > A summary (and link to the opinion) is available here:
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/respect/sumgilliam.html
> > 
> > Jeremy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >