[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
On 30 Jan 2003 at 13:43, Jeremy Erwin wrote:
Date sent: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:43:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
From: Jeremy Erwin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Send reply to: email@example.com
> On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 12:51 PM, Richard Hartman wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> >> On 22 Jan 2003 at 14:34, firstname.lastname@example.org 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...
> 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."
Well trademark dilution is another PBS intellectual property right....subject
to parody and freedom of speech.
> would do much to clear up Lanham type dilution claims, but under the
> current regime, who knows?
> pfaffenBlog covers this point
> > _ 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
> Now a film of Kate Winslet nude (to be inserted in the DirtyFlicks
> version) might have some commercial value outside the DirtyFlicks