The Passion of the Splice: Gibson sues CleanFlicks

relapsedcatholic.blogspot.com ^ | 11/18/2005 | Kathy

[solitas]

Christian vs Christian in pop culture smackdown:

"Mel Gibson's film production company has filed a lawsuit against a Utah firm for editing his movie The Passion of the Christ. The suit targets Ray Lines and his company CleanFlicks, which edits the nudity, violence and foul language out of films.

(...)

"The lawsuit is not asking for compensation, KUTV reports, but rather seeks to shut down CleanFlicks for good."

[solitas]

A link in the article:

http://view.e.newsmax.com/?ffcb10-fe8616767c60027573-fe1a15797d600d7c721377-ff2c1d70746d

[VeritatisSplendor]

Wonder if CleanFlicks really do violate copyright - the way I understand it, they buy a tape and resell it to you with the problematic parts cut out. they don't actually copy it. with a dvd you might have to copy - I'm not sure - but they're not ripping the makers off - they buy one copy for each copy they sell.

It seems pretty much the same as if I bought books and resold them with the steamy pages razored out.

I wish I could get custom movies - I'd like that one PG on the violence, PG-13 on sex and language please. There's a lot of highly praised movies I've skipped because I knew they'd be too violent for me - The Patriot for instance, or Braveheart.

Artistic integrity, I suppose. Like putting a bathrobe on the Venus de Milo.

Mrs VS

[EveningStar]

Catholic ping

[EveningStar]

FYI

[solitas]

Yeah, with a tape you can actually cut things out of it and re-sell the remainder. I don't know about a DVD though - would they have to rip it, edit it, burn it, and destroy the original?

T'would make more sense to rip/edit/save once to burn many times WHILE paying the distributor for copies they've so cloned.

I could imagine gibson's so full of himself that he doesn't want his snuff-flick edited and doesn't _care_ that people don't want to see gratuitous violence.

[cas7boys]

gratuitous violence? snuff-flick?? what are you babbling about?? it showed what My Lord and Savior went through in order to save my unworthy soul. I had never really understood the extent of his suffering, and his love. i thought it was the most accurate passion movie i have ever seen.

as far as gibson being full of himself, if that was the case he would be suing for monetary loss.

if someone wants to see the edited version, wait for it to come onto a network channel (abc, cbs, nbc).

[supercat]

Wonder if CleanFlicks really do violate copyright - the way I understand it, they buy a tape and resell it to you with the problematic parts cut out. they don't actually copy it. with a dvd you might have to copy - I'm not sure - but they're not ripping the makers off - they buy one copy for each copy they sell.

Unfortunately, I don't think that Cleanflicks has a leg to stand on since their actions, even though they ensure that the owners of the films get properly paid, nonetheless do not fall under legally-recognized concept of "fair use", and I don't think even the new laws explicitly allowing for auto-editing players allow for what Cleanflicks is doing (producing edited copies of films).

I am somewhat curious, though, what would have been the legal implications--prior to video taking over everything--of a company which purchased 16mm film prints, edited them, and then sold the edited films? Having to edit the film prints individually would probably be more trouble than it was worth, though with the right sort of equipment it wouldn't be too bad. Anyone know if anyone ever did that? Note that this is a very different situation from editing a film and then selling duplicates of the edited film (as companies like Castle Films very frequently did in 8mm); for that, copyright permission would obviously be required as for any mass-duplication effort.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Should have the film in it's unedited form. Should show the most crucial part of history warts and all.

[Cicero]

I watched the movie and had no problem with the "violence." It's no different from what Catholics have been portraying in the Stations of the Cross and innumerable paintings of the Passion and Crucifixion for two thousand years. It's no different from reading the Gospel accounts. None of it is gratuitous, and there has not been a single incident of anyone being driven to violence by seeing this film.

Sure, the scourging is tough to watch, and the nailing. But that's what the Passion is about.

[George from New England]

There's more to this than the first ten posts touch on.

Mel is against nudity and obscenity.

Clean Flicks is run by non-Catholics and I'll bet you their edits maybe perceived and interpreted by Gibson as anti-Catholic.

I'll bet this comes out later on.

Mel would not want to shutdown a place that cleans up movies unless there is something else going on.

[Redcloak]

I suppose that it's a copyright violation in that their using someone else's title for a similar, yet different work. It would be like starting your own newspaper and calling it the New York Times. You're deceiving people who purchase your paper thinking that it's really the NY Times. This would harm the NY Times' copyright. In the same way, they are harming Mel Gibson's property by producing not just a similar product, but one that purports to be the same as what he offers.

And, of course, what they're doing in terms of artistic works is an obscenity.

[Borges]

What would you edit out of the film to make it less Catholic? (and more Protestant)? They're clearly editing out the violence. And Gibson has been nude in quite a few films himself.

[questions_everything]

There is a point here that everyone seems to be missing. Companies that edit films are not editing them and then trying to fool people into buying those instead of the real version. In fact the truth behind the edit is to provide a service so that people who have the original can watch it in their home the way they feel comfortable watching it. It's really kind of funny because people come away from watching the movie saying "Wow that was an awsome movie,Mel Gibson (or who-ever produced it) did a great job." I've never heard anyone say Oh way to go editors or anything like that.
It's simply a way to allow people to enjoy the genius of Hollywood without the "Oh it was a great movie BUT ..."

[nickcarraway]

For example: the scene were Claudia gives the towels to Our Lady and Mary Magdalene, which they use to soak up the Precious Blood.

[questions_everything]

You are very right!! Why don't the producers edit their own and then release them to the public?? Well actually they do. Many times they have to edit them and then they sell the edits to a company that completes the edits then passes it to the airlines and cruise ships. So why are those not available to the public. ONE WORD, Money!! So instead the directors release the original and then the directors cut which at times is more graphic and then they release the unrated version which is still worse. But to go the other way, Don't even think about it.
Anyway, until the day that Hollywood releases it's own edits - why not let people enjoy these producers talents without having to hold the remote ready to fast forward or mute it. Let the praise go to the producers, the story and feeling is still there.

[Redcloak]

But you're not enjoying "the genius Hollywood" when you see an edited movie. You're seeing someone else's work. Thus when you see Mel Gibson's name scrolling across the screen in this version, you're being lied to. It's not Gibson's movie; it's the work of some hack in Orem, Utah. You're being robbed as a consumer and Gibson is being robbed as an artist.

If you do not like the material in Gibson's movies, then you shouldn't watch them. Your desire to be "comfortable" while watching a movie doesn't give someone else the right to steal from Gibson or any other artist. Encouraging theft isn't the sort of thing a Christian should do.

[Redcloak]

Why don't the producers edit their own and then release them to the public?? Well actually they do. Many times they have to edit them and then they sell the edits to a company that completes the edits then passes it to the airlines and cruise ships.

But in those versions, the artist is able to maintain artistic control. And if the director and the editors can't come to an agreement, the director is able to have his name removed from the new version. (Ever wonder how Alan Smithee could have a directing career that spans 5 decades?) I doubt that the CleanFlicks version calls itself "Alan Smithee's Passion of the Christ".

[questions_everything]

I agree that if you don't like the movie then you shouldn't watch it, and you shouldn't justify the action and say "Well let's change it so that we will like it." But the point is that's my personal opinion. And there are thousands of people who do say, "I want ever Mel Gibson movie because I love his work, but I don't want to watch the gore, blood, sex, etc" so to them it's ok to get the original and cut out those parts. Again the issue is giving people what they want so that they can watch it in their own homes the way they want it. That is their prerogative. And cleanflicks and any other business editing movies is just providing the service.

I will say that editing movies came about not from someone wanting to make a huge payload. It came about because someone edited his own movies for his family, and then people found out that he had the technology so they brought him Titanic to edit for their home use. He charged the person for using his equipment and providing a service. That's corporate America, we use what we have to provide a service for others and we hopefully get paid for it.