Baronlando:
I'm sure they will, (and that he rationalizes it that way these days) but that's a pretty shallow read on it, and a douchey-lawyer way for those people to cherry pick what he actually said. Especially since so much of it is about our heritage and a clear picture of our cultural history etc. etc. And basically none of it is about how writer/producers should be free to do the exact opposite
Well, he sort of does, but I didn't include it. He has two main points:
-Films belong to society, and should be preserved as they are.
-Artists also should have the right to block the alteration of a film on the grounds of their moral rights. But, if they want to have it altered, that is a decision that only the "authors" of the film can consent to, which is the director and writer.
So, it may seem a bit conflicting on the surface. But he says that rights holder should continue to release and maintain the original versions even if altered versions exist, and expresses anger that this has not be happening very well. Which is the reconciliation of his two arguments.
It's also the exact situation we have today, except in the case of Star Wars. You have the Director's Cut/Special Edition/Extended Version, plus the original theatrical version, released in basically the same quality. Lucas had the right idea, even in 1988. He seems to have lost it.
Unfortunately, there is a caveat in that films are collaborations, and that includes the studio too, and not single-handed efforts that a director can control unilaterally. They tried to open it up to include the primary writer, but that seems like a futile and arbitrary designation for most cases. That's why the Berne Convention wasn't extended to films, and that's why Cultural Heritage protection law is the only effective way to preserve films. People can alter them as much as they like as derivative copies but the original get's priority treatment and preservation. Alas, as Lucas says, this is comparitively unimportant matters for Congress, and the only reason this motion was brought forth was because of the celebrity angle. Who knows when it will come up again, and if they will be wise enough to deal with it properly.
None:
Good suggestions. I have incorporated all of them, except the reference to August, which I don't think is very confusing or relevant to clarify. I also am keeping Brackett out of this because according to the Berne Convention she would not be considered a primary screenwriter even though she has credit, and with her being dead while the main writer is alive she would probably be ignored in the issue.
