In 2006, Cleanflicks and the rest of the edited dvd industry settled with Hollywood, eight major movie studios and 16 directors in what was a lawsuit filed against them in US district court for infringement of copyright and the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.
In 2007 it seemed like some of the companies offering edited movies may have found a loophole which allows them to create, rent and distribute edited movies for the classroom as long as they can be called educational. This allows teachers to show movies in classes or religious leaders to show movies which would otherwise carry scenes in it that some parents may find objectionable.
The 2006 ruling had effectively closed the doors of the companies that created the family friendly film versions of current release hollywood blockbuster dvds.
The supposed loop-hole allows them to edit movies for teachers and educators and at least a couple of companies such as Cougar video (so named after the mascot of Brigham Young University, the BYU Cougar) and Flix Club – operating out of Orem, Utah, a hotbed of conservative values and the Mormon church.
The question is centered on a piece of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. ยง 106, which says, “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of a copyright.”
This piece of law is often used in documentary film-making and of course is seen daily on broadcast and cable news channels.
A former owner of multiple CleanFlicks stores started up the “Flix Club” as soon as he heard about this loophole in the current ruling. The distributor of the edited movies believes that the ‘fair use’ clause is valid and would withstand legal scrutiny.
Although the first court case was about a number of intellectual property concerns, the majority was about artistic control. The judge’s opinion goes through the complex issues of “fair use” as it related to copyrights and movies.
The biggest hammer brought against those selling renting and distributing edited films was the idea of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.
Whether this latest maneuver will stand up under the glaring scrutiny of the law remains to be seen. However, given the interpretation of fair use and the broad leeway given the use of entire movies — multiple copies even — for education, many of the consumers and viewers of the edited movies could merely claim their use as home schooling or after school educational materials for their children.
Utah directors and producers Josh Ligairi and Andrew James are working on a documentary film dealing with the “edited for content” legal battle.
They claim that there is a market for edited movies all over the US, however, Utah still provides a the biggest market for these kinds of movies.
“One distributor currently has 2,547 titles and is editing new releases each week,” he said.
The directors will also speak to the “R-rating taboo” and its roots within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
While the store admits that LDS culture is what is driving the demand for edited dvds for people in Utah, he claims that his customers are from many different religions as well.
The directors’ film will cover the meteoric rise of the companies embracing the CleanFlicks business model, the shutting down of CleanFlicks, all of the legal, ethical and moral debates surrounding the issue of edited dvds or sanitized movies, the LDS and conservative culture that gave them a ready and willing market, and the businesses still trying to operate after the landmark legal decision in 2006.
The documentary is now complete, aired at the Toronto film festival and will be showing at the Mormon film festival in Salt Lake City in 2010.
The Director’s Guild of America has not commented yet on the companies attempting to operate under the ‘fair use’ provisions of the copyright law.
Edited Movies for the Classroom
In 2006, Cleanflicks and the rest of the edited dvd industry settled with Hollywood, eight major movie studios and 16 directors in what was a lawsuit filed against them in US district court for infringement of copyright and the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.
In 2007 it seemed like some of the companies offering edited movies may have found a loophole which allows them to create, rent and distribute edited movies for the classroom as long as they can be called educational. This allows teachers to show movies in classes or religious leaders to show movies which would otherwise carry scenes in it that some parents may find objectionable.
The 2006 ruling had effectively closed the doors of the companies that created the family friendly film versions of current release hollywood blockbuster dvds.
The supposed loop-hole allows them to edit movies for teachers and educators and at least a couple of companies such as Cougar video (so named after the mascot of Brigham Young University, the BYU Cougar) and Flix Club – operating out of Orem, Utah, a hotbed of conservative values and the Mormon church.
The question is centered on a piece of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. ยง 106, which says, “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of a copyright.”
This piece of law is often used in documentary film-making and of course is seen daily on broadcast and cable news channels.
A former owner of multiple CleanFlicks stores started up the “Flix Club” as soon as he heard about this loophole in the current ruling. The distributor of the edited movies believes that the ‘fair use’ clause is valid and would withstand legal scrutiny.
Although the first court case was about a number of intellectual property concerns, the majority was about artistic control. The judge’s opinion goes through the complex issues of “fair use” as it related to copyrights and movies.
The biggest hammer brought against those selling renting and distributing edited films was the idea of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.
Whether this latest maneuver will stand up under the glaring scrutiny of the law remains to be seen. However, given the interpretation of fair use and the broad leeway given the use of entire movies — multiple copies even — for education, many of the consumers and viewers of the edited movies could merely claim their use as home schooling or after school educational materials for their children.
Utah directors and producers Josh Ligairi and Andrew James are working on a documentary film dealing with the “edited for content” legal battle.
They claim that there is a market for edited movies all over the US, however, Utah still provides a the biggest market for these kinds of movies.
“One distributor currently has 2,547 titles and is editing new releases each week,” he said.
The directors will also speak to the “R-rating taboo” and its roots within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
While the store admits that LDS culture is what is driving the demand for edited dvds for people in Utah, he claims that his customers are from many different religions as well.
The directors’ film will cover the meteoric rise of the companies embracing the CleanFlicks business model, the shutting down of CleanFlicks, all of the legal, ethical and moral debates surrounding the issue of edited dvds or sanitized movies, the LDS and conservative culture that gave them a ready and willing market, and the businesses still trying to operate after the landmark legal decision in 2006.
The documentary is now complete, aired at the Toronto film festival and will be showing at the Mormon film festival in Salt Lake City in 2010.
The Director’s Guild of America has not commented yet on the companies attempting to operate under the ‘fair use’ provisions of the copyright law.