Originally posted by: Will Tasker

Originally posted by: lordjediFair use still exists in the US. You do not need the consent of the copyright owner in order to make a fan edit.

The Fair Use statute covers "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" - of which none of what happens here falls under. The fact that such items are not "obviously" covered by said statute (107) means it could certainly be taken to court and made an arguement of.

That said, the best case scenario is that you simply lose money by mounting a defense by hiring a lawyer.

It's so nice of you to include only a portion of the statute. Here it is in full:

§107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USC § §106 and 106A], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)
the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

I think you'd find that a fan edit would fall under non commercial use and the fact that you have to have the original in order to even make a fan edit would actually increase the market value of the work. The statute also covers making a personal backup for your own use. It could be argued that a fan edit is nothing more than a personal backup (especially if you're only ever watching that copy, even though you own the original). You could probably also argue that by making a fan edit, you are in fact making a comment or criticism on the original work. It could also be argued that you did it for teaching purposes (to teach yourself how to edit a movie together). As others have already stated, the law is actually pretty gray about what those terms mean (they don't define comment, criticism, or teaching).

The point is, the only time anyone here is treading close to the line of "bootlegging" is when they distribute a copy of their fan edit, for free, to anyone that wants it (again, those people are suppose to own the original work). The act of creating a fan edit, for ones own personal use, is not in itself illegal.

P.S. Of course no one here would go to court without a lawyer, but I doubt any judge would be willing to accept a case based on someone editing a movie for their own use. You bought the DVD. If you want to cut everything but the opening sequence, you're free to do it, as long as you don't attempt to resell that as the original work. Of course, if you were distributing copies in a market that had no existing copies of the original work, you might get in trouble (case in point, the original Phantom Edit), but that's also probably a case of the studio will be distributing copies for sale later, so you'd be infringing on that (and that's assuming that everyone that got a copy didn't later go out and buy it when it came out on DVD).