[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
- From: "Steve Hosgood" <steve(at)caederus.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:32:32 GMT
- In-reply-to: <3E39767E.27929.2B1030@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> > >> 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.
And surely that's the purpose of copyright? To ensure that the author(s) get
their recompense for ever copy sold? If they do, then the requirements of
copyright are met, and there is no case.
> > 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...
Yeah, but the episodes were *broadcast* weren't they? So it wasn't quite the
same issues at stake. In the cleanflicks case, individual copies are bought
and paid for.
I suppose the one way the two cases *are* similar is to do with "attribution
of authorship" which is also part of the copyright laws. In both cases
something is being distributed in a form the author did not intend, but
still claims to be by that author.
The movie industry uses "Alan Smithee" as director name to cope with cases
where a director does not want to be associated with a given finished product.
(As seen on the original studio release of "Dune" directed by David Lynch.)
Steve Hosgood |
email@example.com | "A good plan today is better
Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve | than a perfect plan tomorrow"
Fax: +44 70922 70944 | - Conrad Brean
http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve | ( from the film "Wag the Dog" )