RE: VERY interesting copyright article

Trent Nicholas (
Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:54:20 -0800 (PST)

Again, a fascinating debate and the most spirited I have read on this
listserv. And, by the way, for Media/Bell Atlantic, this IS part of our
Seemingly, most people are arguing that the law CAN and WILL get the
perpetrator. Whereas, I see Mr. Wiggers as more bringing into question the
CONCEPT of the law. Which is a valuable endeavor, right or wrong.
I am amused at those who seem to scold him. You make your points well and
it is obvious the law can and just might succeed. But to get incensed at
Mr. Wiggers for raising these questions seems antithetical and possibly
hypocritical considering the product most of us work with which is art and
education that often does question the established rules so that, if for no
other reason, we may learn and think. I think I have.
Of course, in the future there may be no authors/owners. Everything
will be a compilation, amalgamation, pastiche. (Apologies to Foucault and

Trent Nicholas
Statewide Media Resource Coordinator
Virginia Museum of Fine Arts

-----Original Message-----
From: Kristine R. Brancolini []
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 1:19 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: VERY interesting copyright article

I'm having troube with the inconsistency of Mr. Wiggers stating that
have to use the legal definition of a word, "derivative" in this
then he goes on to use the word in a more popular sense -- _Scary
is "derivative." Using the definition that Mr. Wiggers cites from
copyright office: "A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or
preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound
art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in
which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." It sounds to me like
CleanVideo is creating an abridgment.

Not all media librarians lurking on this list think the Mr.
work is legal. As several people have noted, films are abridged all
time -- for television, airplanes, schools, etc. (Remember how the
censors removed the best shot from Zeffirelli's _Romeo and Juliet_
it was shown in schools?) But I can't imagine arguing that you can
do this
*without* permission. The work has been changed. -- Kris

On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Jessica Rosner wrote:

> Ok I shouldn't but one last comment. I am concerned if not
disturbed that
> someone involved in Media would not believe that editing and than
renting a
> film is NOT a copyright violation.. To compare this to bad
projection (
> which I probably hate more than ANYTHING ) is just silly.
> I do believe most studios would in fact be willing to do edit
versions of
> their own films if they saw profit in it and indeed companies that
rent them
> for public screenings like SWANK have edited versions available
BUT this is
> done WITH permission and by agreement. I honestly could care less
about most
> of the titles on the Clean Video edit list but I am particularly
upset by
> the two Speilberg films, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and especially
> LIST. Cutting out the violence , nudity, bad words etc. destroys
the very
> integrity of these films. Speilberg had TOTAL control of the
release of
> Schindler and was adamant that the film HAD to be shown as is.
Brigham Young
> University gained some notoriety for canceling a screening due to
> objections. He believed as I do that even middle and high school
> needed to see the film EXACTLY as he made it and went to some
length to
> arrange screenings. Clean Video has NO RIGHT legally OR morally to
edit this
> film to his beliefs. Again I hope and believe the MPPA or perhaps
> himself will get this guy in court
> Jessica Rosner
> Kino

Kristine R. Brancolini, Director, Digital Library Program
Main Library E170, 1320 E. Tenth Street
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
Phone: 812.855.3710 | Fax: 812.856.2062 | Web: