logo Sign In

GundarkHunter

User Group
Members
Join date
10-Mar-2003
Last activity
9-Apr-2017
Posts
4,720

Post History

Post
#70200
Topic
Star Wars, The Beatles, and the desecration of our cultural heritage
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/70200/action/topic#70200
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: rogue_apologist
hypothetical.. What if the versions originally released were the exact same thing as the 2004 versions? Would you still have a problem with the recently released dvd's?

help me out, I'm trying to understand if it is the specific changes to the OT you don't like or if it is change in general that bothers you.

If you don't like the specific changes, thats fair enough (I personally didn't care for the audio changes on the Jaws dvd), but to not like change in general precludes the possibility that something really good may come from it.


If the versions orignally released were exactly the same as the 2004 DVDs, the fact is, I don't know what I'd do. I don't know if SW would have had the same impact on me or on pop culture in general as it did in 77, 80 and 83. That psychological conundrum aside, as Bossk said, the number of films in which both the original version and the SE (or director's cut, or whatever you want to call it) are available on DVD far outnumbers those in which only one version is available, that being the director's cut. Given the choice, I would prefer to have both. It is not only insulting to fans of the original work, but insulting to those actors and craftspersons who made contributions to the work and rightfully won awards for the groundbreaking work that was done on the films @ the time, to only release one version and claim that , as far as you're concerned, the older versions no longer exist.

So, as a recap:
Do I think GL has the right to change his work? Yes, I do.
Does it really matter if I like it? No.
Do I stand by my original statement that the only reason GL can get away with this is because he owns all copyrights as pertaining to SW? Yes, and the evidence backs me up. Just ask David Lynch, Orson Welles (RIP), David Fincher, Ridley Scott (don't get me started on Blade Runner), or any other director who has had a film ripped away from him and manipulated without his consent.
Post
#70134
Topic
Star Wars, The Beatles, and the desecration of our cultural heritage
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/70134/action/topic#70134
Time
As a full time law clerk, you should know better than to make such a gross oversimplification of IP. As a law student in my final year, I certainly did. While it is rare that a studio would deny a director in this day and age the opportunity to revisit and revise his film (pumps up the DVD revenues), prior to the video age allow him to attempt any modification would be (at the very least) unusual. As to your point in (c), if GL had sold the films to Universal, he would have to get permission from Uni to use the substantial parts of the films that would be duplicated in his SEs, or work out a distribution deal with Uni to avoid the headache. Universal would be the owners of the copyright unless it was a distribution licence, as was the case with GL's arrangement with Fox. I refer you to s. 201 of the Act in question, which refers to transfers of copyright, as well as works made for hire, which is the usual arrangement in filmmaking.

As to s. 106, I fail to see your point. We have already established that Lucas owns all copyrights pertaining to Star Wars. What exactly are you getting at?
Post
#70040
Topic
Star Wars, The Beatles, and the desecration of our cultural heritage
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/70040/action/topic#70040
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: rogue_apologist
In either case, Intellectual property belongs to the owner and is not completed until the artist says its completed. period.

I hate it when people use the word intellectual property without fully understanding it. Intellectual property is a legal fiction; it is not 'property' in the same sense that a house, a book or a CD is property. It is a bundle of rights that are given to a piece of art or an invention or a process, and like any other bundle, can be split into moral rights and legal rights. Moral rights are what the artist retains (unless he signs them away, at which point they become irretrievable) and legal rights are things like licencing and sale of the artwork. I will state yet again that Lucas is lucky because he retained both sets of rights (since he owns Lucasfilm). Moral rights are not afforded the same protection in the US that they are in other jurisdictions, so it was imperative that he retain those rights if he ever wanted to manipulate or have any control over the Star Wars films. An artist may not think a film is completed, but if it has been sold to a studio, then that artist has to abide by what the studio says, since it is the legal owner of the film. For examples I point to Brazil, 54, The Magnificent Ambersons or any other film with a checkered history.

One more time, Lucas enjoys a unique position, one even more powerful than final cut.