Clean Flicks Lawsuit Thread

jerbl · 2004-10-20 09:56:45

<update>
Edited the post for my comments to be in bold, I think this is a very important topic in our day and age and I would love active discussion here in this thread, to facilitate this, I am keeping all my comments in bold so you can skip the actual articles if you so desire, feel free to post, and if you want to check my sources, they are usually in italics or linkified
</update>

<me>
Seems that all the info on the clean flicks lawsuit it several years old, brings new meaning to the slow process of the law

BTW, http://www.cleanflicks.com is still alive, so something good is happening because usually if they settle, then everybody is so poor that they have to declare bankruptcy, but it seems that although the movie industry countersued, that cleanflicks was actually preemptive in the assault (they filed first), I also saw something that it might go to the supreme court, but I was not able to confirm it with an actual article, as the cleanflicks site doesn't even mention anything about the lawsuit :idea:
</me>

deseretnews.com

Deseret Morning News, Saturday, September 21, 2002

Directors Guild says editing is wrong

By Elyse Hayes
Deseret News staff writer

The Directors Guild of America says companies that edit movies and then rent or sell them for profit are violating federal law and should be stopped.

The guild Friday responded to a lawsuit filed last month by Clean Flicks, a video firm that edits movies for content and rents them to customers.

The DGA called the editing of movies by Clean Flicks "wrong, plain and simple," and asks the court to allow the DGA to expand its counterclaims against Clean Flicks to about a dozen other companies that also edit movies.

"It is wrong to cut scenes from a film ? just as it is to rip pages from a book ? simply because we don't like the way something was portrayed or said, then resell it with the original title and creator's name still on it," said DGA President Martha Coolidge in a statement on the guild's Web site. "It is unethical, it is shameful, and the DGA will aggressively pursue these claims."

Clean Flicks of Colorado, a licensee
of Clean Flicks in Utah, filed a lawsuit last month asking a judge to determine if cutting out rough language and objectionable scenes from movies is a violation of copyright laws. The suit was filed after the company learned the directors guild planned to seek an injunction against the company, preventing further editing.

In its motion filed Friday, the guild asks the U.S. District Court in Denver to allow the guild to intervene in the practice as well as bring in motion picture studios to the fight.

The directors named as defendants in the Clean Flicks lawsuit, which include Robert Redford, Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg, will be defended by the DGA, the guild states in its motion.

The DGA argues editing and renting movies is a violation of federal law prohibiting false advertising, trademark infringement and unfair competition. The DGA asks the court to grant a permanent injunction to stop the video companies from distributing the edited versions.

Clean Flicks representatives in Utah and Colorado could not be reached Friday. Last month, a spokesman for the Colorado Clean Flicks told the Deseret News because there is such a large market for edited movies, he was surprised Hollywood hasn't yet filled the need.

"We just don't think that families should have to see movies with the 'F' word," spokesman Pete Webb said last month.

E-mail: Ehayes@desnews.com

jerbl · 2004-10-20 12:48:45

<me>
Random Source, I found the initial defendants (the movie industry etc.) but haven't really found the case per se. I'll keep looking
</me>

http://www.dga.org/news/v27_5/news_digitalpiracy3.php3

DGA Magazine Vol 27:5 - January 2003 - Click here to return to Table of Contents

On December 13, Hollywood's major studios joined the Directors Guild of America in its countersuit against a number of companies involved in the unauthorized editing and manipulation of films for rental or sale.

In their filing, the studios ? Disney, DreamWorks, Fox, MGM, Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warner Bros. ? note that the edited films "are of lousy quality in terms of continuity and reproduction; sometimes, the dialogue is not in synch with video images" and that "use of studio trademarks on the ... films 'falsely and erroneously' suggests a connection with the studios that deceives consumers as to the source" of the edited films.

The studios are seeking an injunction to stop the sale and renting of the altered videos and to declare that the unauthorized editing infringes upon the studios' copyrights and trademarks. The studios are not seeking punitive damages, but do seek attorney fees.

On August 16, CleanFlicks pre-emptively sued the DGA and 16 well-known director members asking for a judicial determination that they had a First Amendment right to edit movies for private use. The DGA countersued on September 20 asking the court to allow the Guild to represent the interests of its membership, allow the Guild to expand the counterclaims to include other companies that engage or contribute to the practice of editing or altering videocassettes and/or DVDs in commerce, and allow the Guild to bring in the motion picture studios as necessary parties, citing their role as the copyright holders of films. These actions by the DGA set the stage for the studios joining in the battle against film alteration.

For complete background information about the issue and the lawsuits, see DGA Magazine's November 2002 issue, in print and or click on the "Related Items" links below.

Understanding the CleanFlicks Lawsuit

(Editor's note: On September 20, 2002, the DGA filed an answer to a lawsuit filed against 16 of its director members by Robert Huntsman and CleanFlicks of Colorado, L.L.C., as well as a counterclaim to the lawsuit. As outlined in the Fall 2002 issue of DGA Magazine, a number of companies, without any authorization from studios or filmmakers, have been editing, selling and renting alternate versions of motion pictures to the public. The DGA's answer and counterclaim were filed in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado. DGA Magazine has compiled this series of articles to help its readers better understand the issue.)
Related Items:

* European Union report says recognizing directors as "authors" no barrier to trade. (December 9, 2002)
* Why the Digital Piracy War has to be Fought (November 2002)
* Battlelines Drawn in war over Who gets to say "CUT!" (November 2002)
* Federation of European Film Directors supports American Filmmakers in struggle to protect the integrity of films (FERA website - October 2002)
* DGA responds and counterclaims against Robert Huntsman and CleanFlicks; adds motion picture studios to suit. (September 20, 2002)
* Letter from the President (September 20, 2002)
* They're Editing My Film! (September 20, 2002)
* DGA denounces lawsuit filed against 16 directors by two entities engaged in unauthorized editing of films (August 29, 2002)

Table of Contents Top of Page

jerbl · 2004-10-20 12:53:38

<me>
Correction, I found the defendants, I think there might be more, but this clarifies the case a little bit Sorry if this turns into a long thread, I am really interested in this and I think it is important to all of us , I am going to put all my text in bold so if you want to read just what I put, look for the bold
</me>

http://www.dga.org/news/pr_expand.php3?281

DGA responds and counterclaims against Robert Huntsman and CleanFlicks; adds motion picture studios to suit. (September 20, 2002)

Motions also filed to expand counterclaim to include other entities that provide unauthorized altered versions of videocassettes and/or DVDs

Los Angeles (September 20, 2002) ? The Directors Guild of America (DGA) today filed an answer to the lawsuit filed against sixteen of its director-members by Robert Huntsman and CleanFlicks of Colorado, L.L.C, as well as a counterclaim to the lawsuit. The answer and counterclaim were filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado.

In addition, the DGA also asked the Court:

* To allow the Guild to "intervene," thereby enabling the DGA to represent the interests of its entire membership;

* To allow the Guild to expand counterclaims to include other companies that engage or contribute to the practice of editing or altering videocassettes and/or DVDs in commerce;

* To allow the Guild to bring in the motion picture studios as necessary parties, citing their role as the copyright holders of films.

The other entities the DGA motion seeks to include in its counterclaim are Video II; Glen Dickman; J.W.D Management Corporation; Trilogy Studios, Inc., which is the producer and distributor of MovieMask software; CleanFlicks; ClearPlay, Inc.; MyCleanFlicks; Family Shield Technologies, LLC, which is the manufacturer of a product called MovieShield; Clean Cut Cinemas; Family Safe Media; EditMyMovies; Family Flix, U.S.A. L.L.C.; and Play It Clean Video.

The sixteen directors named as defendants in the original lawsuit, all of whom will be represented by the DGA, are Robert Altman, Michael Apted, Taylor Hackford, Curtis Hanson, Norman Jewison, John Landis, Michael Mann, Phillip Noyce, Sydney Pollack, Robert Redford, Martin Scorsese, Brad Silberling, Steven Soderbergh, Steven Spielberg, Betty Thomas and Irwin Winkler.

According to the documents filed with the court, the film altering entities are renting, selling, or distributing versions of movies, which neither the Guild's members nor the studios authorized, and which are altered versions of members' works. In the counterclaim, the DGA states that these entities are in violation of the Lanham Act, which is a federal statute that prohibits false advertising, trademark infringement, and unfair competition, and has been applied to protect an artist's right not to be associated with an unauthorized, edited version of his or her work.

In addition, the DGA charges the companies with trademark dilution under federal law and unfair competition under California law.

"What these companies are doing is wrong, plain and simple," said DGA President Martha Coolidge.

"It is wrong to cut scenes from a film ?just as it is to rip pages from a book?simply because we don't like the way something was portrayed or said, then resell it with the original title and creator's name still on it." Coolidge continued. "It is wrong to circumvent the studios, who are the copyright holders, and the director, who is the film's creator?all in the name of turning a profit. It is unethical, it is shameful, and the DGA will aggressively pursue these claims.

In its counterclaim, the DGA and its director plaintiffs are asking the Court to grant a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from wrongfully distributing unauthorized versions of feature films that they have edited to remove content and language.

Following are descriptions of what the defendants are doing:

* CleanFlicks sells, distributes, and/or offers in commerce, versions of feature films that have been edited by CleanFlicks to remove portions of the films. Through the cleanflicks.com website, CleanFlicks sells edited videos and DVDs; through the mycleanflicks.com website, MyCleanFlicks rents edited videos and DVDs. CleanFlicks also offers edited videos in its chain of video stores throughout California, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Ohio and Oregon. Like Video II, CleanFlicks removes content through cut edits and volume muting.

* Video II is editing films to offer "E-rated" video versions of new releases, which are then provided to grocery stores in Utah. Corporate record filings and previous news accounts list Glen Dickman as the President of both Video II and J.W.D. Management.

* MovieMask, produced by Trilogy Studios, is software that consumers can purchase online then download into their computer. The software "masks" or filters frames either by editing scenes or dropping out language. On the moviemask.com website, Trilogy Studios boasts that future upgrades will have the ability to superimpose new images, words, advertising or other material during the playback of the DVD. The software "masks" are currently available for 41 films, though the company says it plans to increase its library on an ongoing basis.

* ClearPlay, like MovieMask, markets movie-filtering software that can be downloaded from the Internet. The company currently offers software filters for over 150 DVDs and according to its website adds approximately 25 titles per month. The software instructs the DVD player when to skip over or mute portions of the film in order to filter out specific content. ClearPlay is offered on a monthly paid subscription basis.

* Family Shield Technologies is the maker of a product called MovieShield. MovieShield consists of three separate electronic devices: One device is connected between a VCR or DVD player and television set. A second device is portable and is used to transfer specific movie information. A third device is connected to a computer to download information into the transfer device. MovieShield uses a "patent pending" technology to determine which scene is being played in the movie. Then, using a database of timing information, MovieShield determines when to mute the sound and/or blank the video screen. The "shielding" is broken into eight different categories. According to their website, these categories include: "vain references to Deity; minor language; major language; nudity; sexual situations; immodesty; violence; and gore."

* Clean Cut, like CleanFlicks, sells, distributes, and offers, via the Internet, versions of feature films that have been edited by CleanFlicks to remove portions of the films. The videos and DVDs sold and rented by Clean Cut have been edited, without authorization, to remove content they consider "objectionable." Clean Cut offers its products via the Internet at www.cleancutcinemas.com.

* Family Safe and its affiliated entity or alter ego EditMyMovies, rent and sell edited videos via the www.familysafemedia.com and www.editmymovies.com websites. Family Safe and EditMyMovies also offer a software product called "TVGuardian," which masks or filters language of movies during their VCR playback, and provide this software in DVD players available for sale via the Internet.

* Family Flix, and its affiliated entity or alter ego Play It Clean, sell, distribute, and offer via the Internet, versions of feature films that have been edited by to remove "objectionable" portions of the films, similar to CleanFlicks. Family Flix and Play It Clean offer their products via the Internet at www.familyflix.com and www.playitclean.com.

jerbl · 2004-10-20 13:12:04

<me>
Kinda funny really

BTW, saw this on a bumper sticker today between classes:

You are stupid and evil and do not know you are stupid and evil :idea:
</me>

http://insidebuzz.tripod.com/moviebuzz.htm

HACKERS WONDER WHOM TO SUPPORT IN CLEANFLICKS BATTLE

The legal battle between Hollywood and Clean Flicks, a company that deletes scenes of sex, violence and profanity from videos on behalf of its clients, has put many online hackers in a quandary about which side to support. On the SlashDot website today (Monday), one message observed: "The DGA is defending the desecration of many of our favorite films, while Clean Flicks is strongly advocating for the copyright rights of the consumer to edit and/or alter the media that they purchase. At the extreme you have folks who want to eliminate all traces of sex and violence from the popular media; [on the other extreme, you have] the movie industry who wants to eliminate all property rights of the consumer." On Friday, the Directors Guild of America filed an action in federal court in Denver seeking an injunction against Clean Flicks and other companies that bowdlerize Hollywood films. In a statement, DGA president Martha Coolidge said, "What these companies are doing is wrong, plain and simple."

Talduras · 2004-10-20 13:40:05

It's funny that they (the movie industry) would call editing movies "wrong, plain and simple," because TV versions of movies are ALMOST ALWAYS edited (cable movies may be a different matter). Also, I'm not so certain all TV networks have jurisdiction from the makers of the films to edit anyway (if you find any info on that, let me know). Even if they do, one thing that should be kept in mind with edited movies from these companies is that they are CLEARLY labeled edited. If they're worried about they're property being thought of in a different light, that doesn't matter if people know what they're getting isn't the complete package. In fact, it's a bigger market BECAUSE some things were snipped.

Reythak · 2004-10-20 16:58:02

i didn't read it all, but i think that they need to think about these things before they fight against it, A lot of people only buy something because it is edited, therefore if they stop people from editing it, then they stop some if not a lot of their profit, I think it would be funny if they won and went bankrupt.

Monisawa · 2004-10-20 18:12:05

Personally, movies which have those vulgar things in them, are not worth my time. To waste money, time and worthless existance on editing them is a penny wasted...

On the other hand, I agree that it is a HUGE marketable franchise that could be started.

Just like the dozens of companys that conform to foreighn languages, they should have it as an option in the DVD menu..."Play KIDSAFE." They would not have to have another video track, just program the DVD to skip certain scenes and bleep foul language!!! :idea: :idea: :idea:

Finally, I completely agree with the directors and companies that have their movies edited and messed up. It gives bad information to the consumers concerning them and when the dialoge and things are off, it does not help...SOOO avoid this whole mess and have it as an option. As another side note, I think they should have a menu in the DVD selection that you should be able to choose the movie in a certain rating:
"R"
"PG-13"
"PG"
"G"

...of course movies like Lord of the Rings would be 20-30 min. long if it was edited to a "G" Rating.

Talduras · 2004-10-26 13:57:05

Here's some info I posted in another forum, word for word. Lets hope all of the tags works. *Crosses fingers*

Found this juicy little article on Reuters.com . It talks about both copyright laws and content editing (hereafter refered to the Family Movie Act, as it is commonly known as) that have been merged into a single bill. MPAA (among other hollywood related groups and people) were for the copyright protection bill, but against the Family Movie Act part. They're still supporting the bill for it's copyright protection parts, but the fact that they don't like the Family Movie Act does make me raise an eyebrow, considering the following excerpt from the above linked article:

"Parents should have the right to watch any movie they want and to skip over or mute any content they find objectionable," he said. "This legislation ensures that parents have the final say in what their children watch in the privacy of their own home and that parents can act in the best interests of their children."
Changes made in the Family Movie Act make it clear that the technology can't add content, commercials could not be edited, the underlying work cannot be changed, and it applies only to home viewing.

What they would have against people watching movies how they want to in the privacy of THEIR OWN HOME makes no sense to me, considering the quote above. They'll still get their commercials through, the plot would remain consistant to the unedited version, nothing would be added, and, most importantly, these edited versions are only for home use. Why this bugs MPAA and other people is beyond me. I've heard of a "clash of freedoms" before, but this is ridiculous!

The Family Movie Act, in its entirety. This is before its merge into the copyright protection bill. I've been unable to find a website that has the HR 4077 bill with the Family Movie Act added to it. :-/

Found another article which seems to say the bill was approved (whether that means approved for voting or passed into law I cannot determine). I'll have to say, some of the arguments against the family act part of this bill have been rather downright laughable. One congressman in particular (John C. Conyers, from Michigan) sounded as if he never had to watch movies with his family, or didn't care what they watched. Either that or he must really love all those movies that are marketed specifically for kids. (these days, about the only decent "family movies" comes almost exclusively from Pixar. It's just a good thing they're such a top notch company, or else family viewing as we know it would be doomed ).

Sorry about all the links, Jeremy. All of the important stuff I typed anyway.

Jerbl.com Forums

#1 2004-10-20 09:56:45

Clean Flicks Lawsuit Thread

#2 2004-10-20 12:48:45

Re: Clean Flicks Lawsuit Thread

#3 2004-10-20 12:53:38

Re: Clean Flicks Lawsuit Thread

#4 2004-10-20 13:12:04

Re: Clean Flicks Lawsuit Thread

#5 2004-10-20 13:40:05

Re: Clean Flicks Lawsuit Thread

#6 2004-10-20 16:58:02

Re: Clean Flicks Lawsuit Thread

#7 2004-10-20 18:12:05

Re: Clean Flicks Lawsuit Thread

#8 2004-10-26 13:57:05

Re: Clean Flicks Lawsuit Thread

Board footer