Originally posted by: JediRandyWell said but if it's the original author of the piece of art... then you don't really have room to complain, IMO.
You raise a point that begs several classic questions... (1) suppose a great artist, say DaVinci, in his later years went clinically insane and had delusions that his masterpieces must be destroyed because they were possessed by demons. Must it be done? (2) what if someone paid DaVinci to destroy them, on a lark, and DaVinci decided he wanted the money? Must it be done? (3) What if someone today bought the Mona Lisa, and decided to publicly burn it? Must it be done? By your statement above, not only are the answers to all of these questions "yes", nobody should even complain about it.
Well, shouldn't someone? At what point does art take on a cultural significance beyond that of a mere commodity owned by someone?
Even more to the point, shouldn't an organization that purports to be a film "institute" at least condemn the major alteration of a classic film, regardless of whether it has any legal basis to enforce it? I think it should, on the very basis of what it says on its own webpage, that it "maintains America's film heritage". By not taking a stand on the preservation of a great film, it shirks its most fundamental duty, and loses all credibility as a film "institute", in my opinion.