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

[Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>]

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 
to copyright law, and could not be used to substitute from the two 
moral rights (attribution and integrity). Since then, however, 
trademark law has been broadened considerably-- the Trademark Dilution 
Act of 1995 does not  require evidence of market confusion for there to 
be a finding of infringement. I'm not so sure the Monty Python 
precedent would stand.

Perhaps a dsiclaimer to the effect of.
"This film has been edited by a third party for scenes of nudity, 
blasphemy, etc..
  Neither the original film makers, nor the movie studio have endorsed 
this reedit."

would do much to clear up Lanham type dilution claims, but under the 
current regime, who knows?

pfaffenBlog covers this point
http://pfaff.tcc.virginia.edu/home/MT/archives/000009.html
> _ movie which happens to be overlayed on the
> original.  Ok, who would want a movie that is essentially
> 2 hours of blank and a few minutes of a corset somewhere
> in the middle?  Well ... nobody said that art had to be
> comprehensible.
>
I assume you are talking of "Titanic"--I've never seen the film. Where 
does the "footage of the corset" come from. If it comes from another 
part of Titanic, the studios could advance a claim of infringement... ( 
a difficult case, but nevertheless, fair use is an affirmative 
defense...)
Now a film of Kate Winslet nude (to be inserted in the DirtyFlicks 
version) might have some commercial value outside the DirtyFlicks 
system...