Phantom Edit Legal Question

[mbaker_jr]

As I am sure many of you know, a while back a fan known only as "The Phantom Editor" re-edited a widescreen VHS copy of Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace in order to take out unwanted elements (Jar Jar etc). Copies of the edit were distributed under the table at various conventions and widely over the internet.

My question to you is: Is there any way that a work of this nature could be legally distributed?

The issue is indeed complex as there are several legal issues at play. The first is the act of editing a copyrighted work. A second is the act of distributing copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder.

My knowledge of the legal issues surrounding these matters can be described as fuzzy at best. For a brief moment I pondered this question: "If one had a DVD quality copy of "The Phantom Edit" (made by re-editing VOB files ripped from the official release or something like that) could it be distributed legally if the distributor purchased a retail copy of the original film for every copy of the re-edit and destroyed the retail disc, replacing it with the DVD re-edit? The reasoning behind this is that the studio would not lose any money on the transaction. They sell another copy of the original DVD for every re-edit that is sold so who gets hurt?

I realize that the issue is quite complicated with questions such as "would the re-edited DVD be encoded with CSS and region coding" and "Is it wrong because the director's creation is being sold in a form that has not been approved by him?" etc.

Some may be inspired to volunteer a simple answer such as: "It would be illegal." But I would like to encourage everyone to explore the various legal, ethical, and rational issues involved in this question.

What are your 2 cents?

[northcat_8]

"It would be illegal."

Yes.

That is only 1/2 a cent.

I would think in order to obtain the rights to edit and redistribute the author of the phantom DVD would have to purchase the rights to the movie and would have to jump through the hoops and foot the same bill as other folks have to do when they "re-make" an older movie. Main difference being that in a remake the entire movie is remade, different actors, different director, etc.

He could maybe purchase the rights to "digitally" re-master the original movie much like some older movies have been digitally remastered but there again he did not enhance the movie...he edited it.

The fact that he would purchase an original for every copy he made might keep the one who holds the copyright from actively pursuing him. It would not keep the legal system at bay.

I think the question of ethics is past, editing and distributing it illegally already...

[adam]

Since it is copyrighted, the only way it could be legal is if it qualified as one of the exceptions to copyright enforcement or if the copyright holder gave permission for its creation and distribution. The only exception that seems even remotely applicable would be the Fair Use right to parody, but even this is an incredible stretch. If we were talking about a short film version which was more of a parody, or a longer film which just contained portions of the movie, that would be one thing. But the edited version could itself be considered a full length film, and as far as I know it is unchanged except that it is re-edited and has some portions removed. This is not a parody. I have seen other blatant bootleggers argue that their modified copies qualify as a work of art, which could also qualify under the Fair Use exemptions. Needless to say these people are just kidding themselves.

Also if anyone at all profits off of the distribution of it than the Fair Use argument is out the window. Also it doesn't matter if the copyright holder isn't hurt monetarily. There are plenty of copyrights held on wholly unmarketable material. Its not just that violating a copyright could potentially rob them of sales, its the idea of control. If you create something, and pay the government office for a copyright, then you have the right to a certain degree of control over how your creation is used...regardless of whether money is involved or not. Also the fact that you have to pay for a copyright means that even if no sale is lost due to copyright infringement, you have techincally still been hurt financially. You have been robbed of something you paid for, even if the loss is negligable.

The answer is definitley no. The creation and distribution of this re-edit is definitely not legal, but I think Lucas was actually quoted as saying he thought it was funny.

Now obviously there are lots of movies distributed with certain kinds of editing done to them, mostly to remove potentially offensive scenes or language. But as the copyright requires, these are only done with the permission of the copyright holder.

[Nelson37]

What if several people saw the "edited" version, logically and obviously associated it with the real Star Wars, and were affected by the edit in some way other than what Spielberg intended? Whether not to buy it, to feel happy or sad, amused or angry. You do not get to decide if it's OK, only the creator of the original. That is why said creator has the Copy Right.

It all dates back to old English law, the underlying concept is "A craftsman has the right to protect his trade." Or something like that.