The ruling regarding the CleanFlicks case has now been posted. It's an exceptionally interesting read, for a number of reasons.
One area that I was unaware of, is that the DGA has not yet filed a claim that the businesses editing their films were in violation of the DMCA. The judgement specifically addresses that they may still make such a claim.
Either way, the reasons for the ruling, and the recitations make for interesting discussion if you're into knowing more. The Campbell vs Acuff /Rose case is cited a couple times, as is Bill Graham
Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd, both fairly important precedents to what kind of works in which many of us are involved.
Read the entire ruling if you're interested. PDF, 16 pages.
In short, it all boils down to the previous discussion:
Derivative works
Violation of the studio's exclusive right to copy/license copies
Perhaps the most salient point in the ruling is this statement:
"Judge Posner wrote that a teacher does not have the right to publish the criticized tests indiscriminately “any more than a person who dislikes Michelangelo’s statue of David has a right to take a sledgehammer to it.” Id. at 630. Or, as may be more aptly said in this case, to put a fig leaf on it to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children. The accused parties make much of their public policy argument and have submitted many
communications from viewers expressing their appreciation for the opportunity to view movies in the setting of the family home without concern for any harmful effects on their children. This argument is inconsequential to copyright law and is addressed in the wrong forum. This Court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works. What is protected are the creator’s
One area that I was unaware of, is that the DGA has not yet filed a claim that the businesses editing their films were in violation of the DMCA. The judgement specifically addresses that they may still make such a claim.
Either way, the reasons for the ruling, and the recitations make for interesting discussion if you're into knowing more. The Campbell vs Acuff /Rose case is cited a couple times, as is Bill Graham
Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd, both fairly important precedents to what kind of works in which many of us are involved.
Read the entire ruling if you're interested. PDF, 16 pages.
In short, it all boils down to the previous discussion:
Derivative works
Violation of the studio's exclusive right to copy/license copies
Perhaps the most salient point in the ruling is this statement:
"Judge Posner wrote that a teacher does not have the right to publish the criticized tests indiscriminately “any more than a person who dislikes Michelangelo’s statue of David has a right to take a sledgehammer to it.” Id. at 630. Or, as may be more aptly said in this case, to put a fig leaf on it to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children. The accused parties make much of their public policy argument and have submitted many
communications from viewers expressing their appreciation for the opportunity to view movies in the setting of the family home without concern for any harmful effects on their children. This argument is inconsequential to copyright law and is addressed in the wrong forum. This Court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works. What is protected are the creator’s