FEDERAL JUDGE BLEEPS DVD EDITING

BY DEBORAH NATHAN, ESQ. / July 13, 2006
Find Law: Legal News & Commentary

A federal judge has stopped the distribution of major motion picture DVDs that were edited by several companies to remove objectionable content, ruling that the sanitized versions infringe the copyrights held by several major movie studios and directors.

Judge Richard P. Matsch of the District of Colorado granted the motion for partial summary judgment made by such cinema luminaries as Steven Soderbergh, Robert Redford, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and Sydney Pollack.

The directors and several movie studios were defendants in a 2002 lawsuit filed by Clean Flicks of Colorado, Family Flix USA, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video.

The movie studios included Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Co., Disney Enterprises Inc. and Dreamworks LLC.

The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that they were not infringing any party's copyrights by making edited versions of motion pictures.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging copyright infringement, and then moved for partial summary judgment.

In response to the counterclaims, the plaintiffs argued that their actions did not constitute copyright infringement because they were making fair use of the copyrighted works.

The fair-use doctrine is an affirmative defense to allegations of copyright infringement. The doctrine allows use of copyrighted works for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.

Courts balance four factors to determine if a particular use is fair: the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion of the work used; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the work.

As explained in Judge Matsch's opinion, Clean Flicks and Family Flix operated similarly by purchasing an original DVD of a movie. After downloading the DVD onto a computer, they edited the film by deleting sex, nudity, profanity and gory violence.

The companies either sold the edited movies directly or through distributors CleanFilms and Play It Clean.

Judge Matsch weighed the four factors and concluded that the scales tipped in favor of the directors and studios.

The plaintiffs conceded that they were using the DVDs for commercial gain. Second, Judge Matsch said the edits to the movies, although constituting a small percentage of the original films, did nothing to transform the creative expression of the movies.

He explained further that the non-transformative nature of the edited copies, coupled with the creative expressions of the movies, weigh heavily in favor of the studios and directors under the second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work.

The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that their use of the movies had no adverse effect on the value of the copyrighted work to the studios, noting that the argument ignored the intrinsic value of the right to control the content of the copyrighted work.

The plaintiffs also raised a public policy argument, claiming they were criticizing the objectionable content in many movies and were providing more socially acceptable alternatives.

Judge Matsch said that argument was addressed to the wrong branch of government, because courts are not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works.

He observed that during the pendency of the case, Congress enacted the Family Movie Act of 2005, which allowed private households to edit movies if no fixed copy of the movie is created.

The judge said Congress had the opportunity to make the policy choice now urged by the plaintiffs and rejected it.

Agreeing that the plaintiffs were infringing the defendants' copyrights, Judge Matsch enjoined them from continuing to produce and distribute edited versions of the films.

The plaintiffs' attorney, David N. Schacter of Sherman & Howard in Denver, acknowledged that Judge Matsch's opinion was well-reasoned, but said, "I'm disappointed that the court took the decision-making role away from the jury."