Hollywood wins legal fight against sanitized DVDs

A federal judge in Colorado has handed the entertainment industry a big win in its protracted legal battle against a handful of small companies that offer sanitized versions of theatrical releases on DVD.

The case encompasses two of Hollywood's biggest headaches these days: the culture wars and the disruptive influence of digital technologies.

Senior US District Court Judge Richard Matsch came down squarely on the side of the Directors Guild of America and the major studios in his ruling that the companies must immediately cease all production, sale, and rentals of edited videos. The summary judgment issued Thursday requires the companies--Utah-based CleanFlicks, CleanFilms, and Play It Clean Video, Arizona-based Family Flix USA and the separate entity CleanFlicks of Colorado--to turn over all existing copies of their edited movies to lawyers for the studios for destruction within five days of the ruling.

Utah's CleanFlicks, which describes itself as the largest distributor of edited movies, through online sales and rentals and sales to video stores in Utah, Arizona, and other states in the region, said it would continue its fight against the guild and the studios. CleanFlicks and the others make copies of official DVD releases and then edit them for sex, nudity, violence, and profanity.

David Schachter, attorney for CleanFlicks of Colorado, said Sunday that it was unclear whether any of the video-editing companies would seek an emergency hearing this week to request a stay of the injunction pending an appeal. He said such a move was unlikely for his client, which operates a retail store in Colorado Springs. It was unclear whether the store was still open Sunday.

Representatives for Family Flix could not be reached for comment during the weekend. A posting on the Web site CleanEditedMovies.com reported that the Family Flix had decided to shut its doors after five years as a result of the litigation, though the date of the posting was unclear. The site quoted Family Flix founders Richard and Sandra Teraci as making plans to establish their own production company.

CleanFlicks and the others maintained their edited DVDs were legal under fair use guidelines that allow for the use of copyrighted material in criticism, news reporting, parody, and other circumstances. The slogan on the CleanFlicks Web site is "It's About Choice." An online listing for Family Flix's offerings on the Web site of the Mormon-based Meridian magazine noted that the content snipped out of its edited videos included all references to "homosexuality, perversion, and co-habitation."

The mainstreaming of sophisticated digital editing technologies has fueled the cottage industry of movie sanitizers. CleanFlicks and others purchase an official DVD copy of a film on DVD for each edited version of the title they produce through the use of editing systems and software. The official release disc is included alongside the edited copy in every sale or rental transaction conducted. As such, the companies argued that they had the right on First Amendment and fair use grounds to offer consumers the alternative of an edited version for private viewing, so long as they maintained that "one-to-one" ratio to ensure that copyright holders got their due from the transactions. Matsch disagreed.

"Their business is illegitimate," the judge wrote in his 16-page ruling. "The right to control the content of the copyrighted work...is the essence of the law of copyright."

The fight began in August 2002 with a preemptive legal filing by CleanFlicks against the DGA and 16 prominent directors after it got wind that the guild was preparing a legal case against the company. CleanFlicks sought a court ruling clarifying its right to market the videos on First Amendment grounds. The DGA and directors countersued the following month. After initially staying out of the fray, eight Hollywood studios joined with the directors and the guild in December 2002, filing claims of copyright infringement against CleanFlicks and other companies.

"Whether these films should be edited in a manner that would make them acceptable to more of the public playing on a DVD in a home environment is more than merely a matter of marketing; it is a question of what audience the copyright owner wants to reach," Matsch wrote. "This court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works. What is protected are the creator's rights to protect its creation in the form in which it was created."

The studios involved in the suit are MGM, Time Warner, Sony Pictures Entertainment, the Walt Disney Co., DreamWorks, Universal, 20th Century Fox, and Paramount Pictures. The directors named in the initial August 2002 filing included Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Steven Soderbergh, Michael Mann, Robert Altman, Curtis Hanson, Betty Thomas, and DGA president Michael Apted.

Apted called Matsch's ruling a vindication for the guild and its members, especially with its clear support for rights of the work's original creator to protect how their film is presented.

"No matter how many disclaimers are put on the film, it still carries the director's name," Apted said. "So we have great passion about protecting our work, which is our signature and brand identification, against unauthorized editing."

Early on, the legal sparring involved Salt Lake City-based ClearPlay, which offers video filtering software that allows for home viewing of cleaned-up versions of Hollywood titles.

ClearPlay offers software programs developed for specific titles that users can run on their computer or ClearPlay's proprietary DVD player along with an official copy of the DVD. With this technology, a nude shot of an actor can be altered to show a silhouette, or profanity can be bleeped out. Because ClearPlay's technology does not involve making an altered DVD copy, it has been shielded from the copyright infringement claims. The debate over movie content filtering activities made its way into Congress, which passed the 2005 Family Movie Act that protects ClearPlay and other software-based filtering companies. Matsch noted that Congress at that time had the opportunity to also carve out legal protections for CleanFlicks and its ilk, but chose not to.

The DGA said in its statement on the ruling it "remains concerned about this exception to copyright protection."

Matsch's opinion could wind up eliminating most of ClearPlay's competition, but company CEO Bill Aho still criticized Matsch's reasoning.

"While it may be good for ClearPlay Inc., it's bad for parents," Aho said. "Moms and dads need all the help they can get to protect their kids, and these companies were providing a valuable service."

Comments (5)
Sort: Latest | Popular
Aug 01, 2006
Score one for the good guys. I think George Lucas is happy now :)
Jul 28, 2006
If you read the DVD warning notices, you'll see that it is prohibited to broadcast or modify the movie/program. TV networks cannot and do not just run out and buy a copy of the DVD and shove it on the air - they operate under different agreements and guidelines than those on DVDs. The same rules do not apply, and the same comparisons cannot be drawn. In addition, there are broadcast laws which actually _require_ editing in some cases, which also do not apply to DVDs (it's related to public vs private viewing).

I'm so glad these companies are being shut down. Taking out the "homosexuality, perversion, and co-habitation" can change a omvie in fundamental ways. The characters, the plot, the motivation, the conclusion.

If you watched Friends, remember when Phoebe had no idea that Old Yeller was shot at the end, because her mother always turned it off before that point? Completely different movie without that ending.

So, you go out and make a movie about a gritty look at a forbidden love between two cowboys. Some bozo comes along, hacks out the bits they don't like (completely subjective) turns it into a dull film about two fishing buddies who actually went fishing, who often seemed upset for some reason, and where you would have a hard time figuring out why they were even friends, and leaves your name on it. That that was the movie you made, when it most certainly wasn't.

Here's a thought: how about we edit the bible? Take out all the references to that guy Jesus. Let's see what that book looks like. Let's see how that goes down.

Or, personally, I find The Sound of Music to be dull and cheesy. How about I open up DirtyFlix.com, and spice things up by inserting a little sex into it, and then sell it?
Jul 14, 2006
These companies have no right to edit someone else's work. They should focus on creating a production studio to create their own 'family' films instead of trying to rape the work of other artists.
Jul 10, 2006
Networks edited out parts of movies all of the time, yet you don't see the directors & writers sreaming that their film has been destroyed. As long as people are paying for the DVD's there shouldn't be a problem.
Jul 10, 2006
Um...but if you don't like the content of a movie, why have it edited out? Why not just watch a different movie?

With an edited movie, you get a dumbed-down storyline that could turn out to be quite far away from what the director intended.