In this series
Want to see World Trade Center without the bad language? The Illusionist without the violence? Titanic without Kate Winslet's breasts? For years, CleanFlicks (and a few similar companies) have sold and rented DVDs with profanity, nudity, violence, and sexual content carefully edited out. For each edited copy sold or rented, a copy of the original was also purchased. We're marketers, CleanFlicks told Hollywood, offering your films to an audience that wouldn't otherwise see them.
No, you're thieves, the Directors Guild of America responded, and sued for copyright infringement. In early July, the directors won. CleanFlicks does "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch wrote. "Their business is illegitimate."
We at Christianity Today are divided about scrubbing films (as are our readers, as response to our online coverage of the decision indicates). Some emphasize artistic integrity and the dangers of trying to make everything "safe for the whole family." Mel Gibson, they note, sued CleanFlicks for removing three minutes of violence from The Passion of The Christ. Such violence was supposed to make the viewer uncomfortable.
Others reply that the "art" of adding profanity or nudity to an otherwise entertaining film is often just a marketing ploy, as studios seek a rating that will attract 17-year-olds. As one of our readers put it, we'd rather be on the edge of our seats because the movie is exciting, not because we want to hit the fast-forward button before we're confronted with a lustful image. The judge compared CleanFlicks to "putting a fig leaf" on Michelangelo's David. But surely people should be allowed to cover a copy of the statue in their own home!
It's an interesting discussion, but in this case, it's moot. Under America's byzantine copyright code, only the copyright owner is allowed to make "fixed copies" of DVDs. There are a few exceptions, but CleanFlicks doesn't fall into them. CleanFlicks was left with a shaky "fair use" defense, arguing that the originals were too crass.
"This argument is inconsequential to copyright law and is addressed in the wrong forum," the judge responded. "This court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works." CleanFlicks' argument that they're making money for Hollywood, he said, "has superficial appeal, but it ignores the intrinsic value of the right to control the content." The filmmakers and studios, the judge noted, have made it clear that they don't want to reach CleanFlicks' audience, and that's their right.
Copyright law is indisputably tortuous and contradictory, but it's the law, and we're obligated to follow it. No appeals to a higher law, please: Editing films is not a right granted by either the Bible or the Constitution.
There are options. CleanFlicks and its customers could work to change the law. That's what happened with ClearPlay, a company that makes DVD players that edit films on the fly (and thus don't create a "fixed copy"). Last year, Congress passed the Family Movie Act to save such companies from the CleanFlicks suit. That suggests a second option, at least for companies: Change the business model. (Family Flix, a CleanFlicks twin also named in the suit, has now left the editing business and is launching a film production company.) The third option, for those who don't want sex, violence, or bad language in their films, is not to watch such films. You can use the time to do something truly culturally relevant.
Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
Related Elsewhere:
Matsch's decision is available from several sites, including FindLaw.com.
CleanFlicks had earlier planned to appeal the ruling, but has since changed its mind and will close. Some are now trying to get Hollywood directors to release the edited versions of films shown on airplanes.
The judge's decision "may be good for ClearPlay, it's bad for parents," says ClearPlay CEO Bill Aho.
In related news, some video rental stores are not renting rated versions of films when unrated ones are also released.
IPTAblog rounded up the many law blog comments about the decision.
Reason ran an article and a blog post about the decision, both critical of the directors' efforts to defeat CleanFlicks. "Hollywood won a lawsuit while losing a cultural battle," wrote Nick Gillespie.
In 2003, Slate's Drew Clark argued that "free speech will be the loser, not the victor" if the directors succeeded in their suit.
Mark Moring of Christianity Today Movies applauded the decision. Readers' reaction was mixed. Earlier Christianity Today coverage of CleanFlicks includes:
Everybody's a Director | CleanFlicks and Movie Mask give film fans an alternative. (Mar. 25, 2002)
Clean Flicks, Illegal Flicks? | Hollywood directors file suit against CleanFlicks (Dec. 9, 2002)
Film Forum: Is a Clean Movie Unrealistic? | Readers debate movie-editing software. (August 29, 2002)
Film Forum: Adventures in Poetry and Surfing | Hollywood directors sue CleanFlicks. (August 22, 2002)
