Someone Has Tried To Bring Justice To The Prequels

[TheJoker]

I really want to see these.

[workingclasshero]

Actually I think the only scene that needs work in ep3 is anakins turn, its too fast and its poorly written and acted. Its a shame because the rest of the film worked pretty well, why did Lucas have to make a mess of the most important scene?

[ARROW]

Don't get me wrong, your argument is compelling. However I would ask you one question - do you think Lucas was just in reediting The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi? Because I would like to point out that he didn't "create" these movies, as he wasn't the director. He certainly played an important part in creating the story, but the director is the one who creates the film.

 

He's the owner of the properties on which those films are based, and the other creator's work is essentially work-for-hire. Once they have been compensated the creative rights legally become Lucas's--thus he can change the work as he pleases.

He has the moral and legal imperative to alter "his" work as he sees fit, no matter who assists him in creating that work. If he wants to change Empire Strikes Back and other movies, even though I and other people might disagree with his decisions, its his RIGHT to do so--no-one elses.

For someone else to come along and change his work without his authority violates the sanctity of artistic creation and the inherent rights all artists have over their creations.

 

 

What's being justified here is called vandalism, and its actually a crime, no matter how well-meaning the intent.

 

It is HIS right to create the work to HIS vision, and have it displayed to his desires. Anyone else coming along and altering his work and displaying it thus, puts them in the wrong--no matter how good their "work" is.

 

The edits do not function as wholly new works because they contain trademarks owned by someone else. They are slightly derivative of a existing creation, and not radically redressed. Characters and situations remain from the original work, and the intent clearly to tamper with the original work for selfish aims. In any legal contest on this, Lucas would win-hands down.

 

As I have said many times before, these laws are not an impedance, they benefit you and me as well.

Not only do they protect Lucas's property, but mine, yours and everyone's.

Just because a man is wealthy doesn't mean his rights under law are abrogated, nor are those same laws abrogated for someone lacking wealth. If you create a work and wish to maintain control of it, the trademark and copyright laws protect you too.

When people like these "editors" tamper with someone else's work, they are, in essence tampering with yours and mine as well.

 

Consider that before you rally to them.

[DPrime]

Arrow, I would agree with everything you said, from a legal point of view if not necessarily from a moral one (when it comes to the directors/creators of the films ESB and ROTJ, which Lucas was not). If (and this is a big if), that is, whoever is re-editing his films is doing so in order to make money. Since that does not seem to be the case, I suspect Lucas' legal grounds to do anything about it are very, very shaky.

 

Think of it this way. Let's say someone buys a poster of one of Monet's Impressionist masterpieces, and decides to paint the same image over it, using his own choice of colours and putting his spin on Monet's work - is there anything morally wrong with that?

 

I disagree with your use of the term vandalism. Vandalism is defined as the willful or malicious destruction of public or private property. If this same person purchased his Monet poster, it is his property to do with as he pleases. Same with a DVD. Lucas may have a legal case with his distributing or selling it (because it does still say Star Wars), but not with his re-editing it and showing his friends. The fact that it's available free (although I haven't found it) on the Internet is another matter altogether, but that's not really the argument here.

 

So if I re-did a drawing ( without permission) of someone's from the fan art section here to make it "better" and make them, it turn, look less capable than me, it becomes okay?

 

I'd like to revisit this statement as well, because this has happened recently on the forum. One of our members here is making some really nice drawings of Clone Troopers - one is clearly copied from the often seen head-on running pose. Now, I'm not saying he's traced it - that's not my point at all - but he has taken an image that was created by someone at Lucasfilm and has put his own spin on it. I don't think anyone here had a problem with that. I certainly didn't.

 

After all, in art, everyone copies something that happened before - all an artist really does is put his or her own spin on something.

[ARROW]

Arrow, I would agree with everything you said, from a legal point of view if not necessarily from a moral one (when it comes to the directors/creators of the films ESB and ROTJ, which Lucas was not). If (and this is a big if), that is, whoever is re-editing his films is doing so in order to make money. Since that does not seem to be the case, I suspect Lucas' legal grounds to do anything about it are very, very shaky.

 

The image is being diseminated in a broadcasted format, on for-profit ISP's and web-sites as well. Any site with sponsors ( kind of like this one) that hosts any files with the edited version of the film can gain increased traffic because of such offerings. Hence they can profit by them and that is where the rights of the original creator are violated--the work and some of his ability to profit from control of that work are not removed from his hands.

 

This is the fine line: if the edit was done solely for the sake of it, and NOT publicly displayed then there would be little argument, as it does become artistic exploration, only using another's work. Once the work becomes displayed, the revisionists and the altered work steal the limelight from the original creator and their work. The revised work is displayed as its OWN ENTITY (simply by its now-public presence), removing value from the original work.

The revisionist can, in turn be offered gains ( job offers, payment for copies etc) by others ( by using the vandalized work) and profit from those gains. Greed and ambition are core traits in human nature, and once tempting offers come the editors way, they've clearly profited by their crime, as have others.

 

The argument here IS that the material is being broadcast on the internet. That is the key problem--and its why you and I know about this in the first place. Had the editor(s) not placed the work so that others could access it at will, this would be a victimless crime. Now that the altered work IS available on-line, then rights of the original creator have been violated.

If a thief steals money from a bank, then throws that money to a crowd of people on the street, its still stolen money.

 

I copy other works all the time. I do not display those works unless I have been paid for them and authorized by those than commission the work. I use those works as a means of learning and testing my own skills--they are a tool.

 

If these editors are so skilled and insightful in doing this kind of thing, then why do they not put forth the effort and create their own original works? I've seen exceptional fan flims ( Knightquest comes to mind) that expanded upon the original series of films and their stories, without actually altering the stories and these fan works were wholly original.

Its easy to take something someone else has done, modify it and hold it up as being something "better"--its also lazy as well.

 

As an artist, I take strong exception to this kind of practise for definite reasons, I know where the line is because I deal with that line every day.

I cannot expect people that may(or may not) be creators themselves to fully understand why this rankles me so much.

[DPrime]

If these editors are so skilled and insightful in doing this kind of thing, then why do they not put forth the effort and create their own original works? I've seen exceptional fan flims ( Knightquest comes to mind) that expanded upon the original series of films and their stories, without actually altering the stories and these fan works were wholly original.

Its easy to take something someone else has done, modify it and hold it up as being something "better"--its also lazy as well.

 

Well, the movie industry does have editors for a reason. If this guy's work leads to him getting a job as such, so much the better for him. That's what editors do... I don't know if he, or professional editors, consider themselves artists, but it is a viable field in the film industry.

 

I think I see your argument, but it sounds like we're starting to go in the direction of the whole "illegal" sharing of movies on the internet. After all, his edited SW movies would still be directed, produced and owned by George Lucas. I'll admit, I don't really have a problem with people file sharing, and I won't get into my reasons right now, but legally (in the States at least) that would cause a problem.

[ARROW]

Well, the movie industry does have editors for a reason. If this guy's work leads to him getting a job as such, so much the better for him. That's what editors do... I don't know if he, or professional editors, consider themselves artists, but it is a viable field in the film industry.

 

I think I see your argument, but it sounds like we're starting to go in the direction of the whole "illegal" sharing of movies on the internet. After all, his edited SW movies would still be directed, produced and owned by George Lucas. I'll admit, I don't really have a problem with people file sharing, and I won't get into my reasons right now, but legally (in the States at least) that would cause a problem.

That's the thing, he'd have trouble getting work if his rep was known.

Its not his skills that are in question, it'd be his integrity and respect for the work.

 

Fans make the best and WORST employees in the entertainment industry.

I can say that for a fact as I've seen both sides of it.

[SentinelPrime]

Well, I see no difference at all to people stealing other people's songs and sampling them, then releasing it as "their" song. Hell, rappers make MONEY doing it.

 

Of course, maybe that's not the best example since that makes me sick.

 

Fan edits seem harmless to me, other than making the original editor seem generous.

[DPrime]

Well, I see no difference at all to people stealing other people's songs and sampling them, then releasing it as "their" song. Hell, rappers make MONEY doing it.

 

Of course, maybe that's not the best example since that makes me sick.

 

Fan edits seem harmless to me, other than making the original editor seem generous.

 

That's a good point though... on a similar note (no pun intended) what about cover bands? I could go out any night of the week and listen to some local band playing stuff I know they didn't write, but they're playing it and making money off it anyway. If a band records a cover and that song gets played on the air, the original artist who wrote it is going to get a piece of the action, and will be credited on the CD. However, no one gets anything if it's simply played live, other than the band who's playing it.

 

I don't think this guy who re-edited SW is trying to claim ownership or anything with it, either. Unless, that is, he wrote in the credits that he directed it or something, which would be completely false. Credit would still go to Lucas as the writer and director.

[PlayNiceOrDie]

and what about tribute bands? dave matthews & KISS can't be everywhere at once

 

back on topic, i don't see how editing it is all that different from people who take anime clips and make music videos out of them