Where the Bleep is My Bleeping Movie?

Movies. They're far too violent and obscene today. Last week, a Federal court ruled that that was a good thing. A case which has been in court for at least three years was finally concluded, in my opinion, to the detriment of decency.

Sixteen directors sued four editing companies for removing violent, sexual and obscene content out of their (and all) movies. The legal claim is that the editors do not have the right to change copyrighted material without the prior consent of the creator of that content.

As a movie-watcher, I completely disagree with the directors. Movies can have great storylines, minus a couple of objectionable scenes and words, and stay true to their overall "vision." There are several movies that I think of as "favorites" but which I have never seen the original R-rated version:

The Ghost in the Darkness
The Shawshank Redemption
Shining Through
Office Space
The Matrix
Vanilla Sky
The Game

There are plenty more. But I listed these specifically because they have been played, in an edited version, on TV. Who gets with the TV networks to review the edits they make before airing a movie? Does Spielberg sit down with the editors at NBC to tell them exactly where they can make their cuts? I'm not in TV, but it doesn't seem likely to me that he does. Who oversees the edits that are made so that movies can be seen on an airplane? Again, I'm betting it's not the big time director.

The other big argument is that the editing company should not get paid to distribute a work that does not belong to them. Well, since none of the studios would cooperate with them, these editing companies have to buy the original movies at RETAIL prices. Rental companies own a real copy of the movie for each edited copy in their possession. They do not rob anyone of any income. The monthly rental fee is comparable to Netflix, despite having to pay higher prices for each copy of their movies.

Yes, the editing companies do charge higher prices to sell the edited versions of the movies. But it is clear in the contract that the price the consumer pays above retail is for the editing service. Technically, the consumer could buy the DVD on their own, ship it to the editing service and have them make their edits. The editing company would then return the original DVD and the edited copy. But to cut down on shipping costs, the editing company has agreed to purchase the original DVD on the consumer's behalf.

So, the government is telling you that you can't edit or alter something that you purchased. Imagine if this same principle were applied to clothing. I mean, there are a lot of big names out there in the fashion industry. What if they decided that you could no longer alter the clothes that you purchased? No hemming. No removing annoying little appliques. No adding straps. No adding pleats. No removing shoulder pads. No ... nothing. Altering a garment in any way destroys the artistic vision of the designer. After all, the designer's label is on that piece of clothing. If you alter the garment in any way, you've ruined their desired effect.

Sound ridiculous? It's the same thing.

As a photographer (and artiste), I've tried to see it from their point of view. But try as I might, I can't reconcile it. Once I sell a photo, I have no control over where it goes. If someone wants to cut it up into bizarre shreds and paste it back together as a completely new work of art, I can't stop them - as long as they cite me. If I sell a black and white photo and someone hand colors it to hang in their home, I can't force them to take it down and give it back to me. As long as they identify that they have altered the work, they are free to hang it in their home. So the question becomes, "Do they then have the right to apply the same alterations to other copies of my photos and sell it to their friends or strangers?"

Again, the reality is that if their friends bought my photos and brought them to the other artist to receive the treatment, I couldn't do anything about it. If the artist cut out the step of having other people buy my photo and just bought it themselves to alter and sell? I don't know. I probably wouldn't like it. But again, they are not simply presenting this as my work. Everyone who buys the work knows that it has been altered. It is, in fact, the alteration that makes the resultant photo appealing to them. No audience at all or an altered audience? Well, the truth is that there would be both - lots of people would buy my original photo and keep it the way it is and a very small handful would buy the altered version. I say let the little altered audience live.

The best solution for this, of course, is for studios to release these TV and airplane edits themselves. In the long run, it would serve all audiences and be a heck of a lot cheaper. My fear, though, is that the studios won't do this. Shouldn't these people (of all people) want to exploit any sliver of a market that exists?

Anyway, for now, the rental service was supposed to shut down last week. So far, I'm still getting my movies. I pared my rental list down to only R-rated movies that I won't get to see any other way. I've also ordered several movies. I haven't heard back about my order yet, so I'm not certain it will go through.