rogue_apologist

User Group: Members
Join date: 5-Oct-2004
Last activity: 7-Oct-2004
Posts: 4

Post History

Post: #70192
Topic: Star Wars, The Beatles, and the desecration of our cultural heritage
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/70192/action/topic#70192
Time: 7-Oct-2004 9:10 AM

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.

Post: #70180
Topic: Star Wars, The Beatles, and the desecration of our cultural heritage
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/70180/action/topic#70180
Time: 7-Oct-2004 7:00 AM

Ok Gundark, lets see if we work this out.

Although our disagreement is rooted in a "what if" situation, I stand by my original position and here's why:

A) You stated that despite an artist's interpretation of "when" a product was completed, if it was sold to a studio then the artist would have to abide by it's decision. Apart from the obvious dilemma of who gets to decide when a work is "completed," my point was that even if this were the case, then GL would still retain the legal right to release the SE's with or without Universal's approval. This is my reasoning, as outlined in 17 U.S.C. 201 under the heading "Contributions to Collective Works" it states:

"Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution."......

Now, before you assault me with the rest of the statute, which states that yes, a copyright holder does have control over contributions, revisions etc. I would ask you to realize that if this case were being litigated, then attorneys for Lucas would almost certainly argue that the SE's do not represent a "revision," "contribution" or otherwise. They would argue that the SE's would represent "Completion" of said films (and this is my view as well). Given that Lucas has made many, many statements over the past 25 years with regard to the technical, financial and industrial problems that plagued the films, this leads me to believe that GL's attorneys would have a strong argument in favor of never having completed his films. This is far from a "gross oversimplification" in my view.

But again this all goes back to the question of who has the right to determine when a film is completed.

With respect to "moral rights," I don't understand why you brought this up as it is not applicable to motion pictures in the US and thus, totally irrelevant to the present debate.

On a personal note, I don't understand why so many people have a problem with this, artists should have the right to alter their work. The assertion that works of art belong to the people is too communistic for my tastes.

Post: #70089
Topic: Star Wars, The Beatles, and the desecration of our cultural heritage
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/70089/action/topic#70089
Time: 6-Oct-2004 3:13 PM

hmm... well, as a full time law clerk who deals with these documents every day and as a part-time law student, I feel I have a pretty strong grasp of what Intellectual property is and how it is applied. I shall only state the facts.

A) George Lucas owns the copyright to the Star Wars franchise.

B) George Lucas is the CEO of Lucasfilm Ltd. LFL owns the rights to the cuts of the films that were released between 1977-1983.

C) If, for instance, Universal or whoever owned the rights to those films, then Lucas (as copyright holder) would still be able to have his SE's because said SE's would be a new product and not the original '77-'83 cuts.

D) To Clarify, the Special Editions are recognized under US law (17 U.S.C. section 101) as a "Derivative Work," and completely separate from the '77-'83 cuts.

Since this is a SW/Beatles thread, a suitable comparison would be when Paul McCartney released "Give My Regards to Broad Street" album in 1984. The album had several re-workings of Beatles songs like 'For No One,' among others. Macca did not have to pay EMI/Capitol anything to release those songs as they were not the original recordings made by the Beatles in the 1960's. He might have had to pay Michael Jackson or whoever had the controlling share of Northern Songs Ltd. at the time, but he didn't have to pay EMI/Capitol a dime.

That being said, I would refer your forthcoming questions to Section 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

Post: #69950
Topic: Star Wars, The Beatles, and the desecration of our cultural heritage
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/69950/action/topic#69950
Time: 5-Oct-2004 3:16 PM

I don't know how many of you have seen Empire of Dreams (Ithink it was EoD), as many of you obviously didn't buys the dvd's, but there is a segment where lucas speaks of anakin's fall and the reasoning behind it. Anakin was afraid of and refused to adapt to change which led to the darkside. I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure this is a veiled jab at you guys and all the unnecessary grief you've given him over the past few years.

As far as the Beatles comparison goes, I agree Let it Be naked is better, although it wasn't a great album to begin with, I think Lennon once refered to it as a piece of sh*t. I also remember Lennon saying shortly before his death that he'd like to re-mix or possibly re-do both "tomorrow never knows" and "strawberry fields forever," as the finished product was not what he heard in his head.

In either case, Intellectual property belongs to the owner and is not completed until the artist says its completed. period.