Christian Filmmakers

James Burgess wrote:

I wonder what we would ‘believe in’, had copyright laws existed in the first
century, and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, along with St Paul, St Peter
and St James, been granted exclusive protection for their writings, the span
of their lives + x years?  “No hand written copies or dissemination without
prior approval”.

Shortly after the Civil War, corporations which at that time were limited to
a life of 6 years, were granted ‘in perpetuity’.  So Man bestowed on his own
creation that which he could not claim for his own existence: ‘eternal life’.

There is a pattern here, obviously.  Man seeks to control—harvest, bottle
and sell—that which is given freely to his imagination by the Creator of all.

Very insightful sir! 

I worked for Pfizer at one point, and many of my friends are anti-capitalist socialists, so I think I’ve got the picture from both sides. 

The picture is essentially: man is corrupt and evil and self-interested, no matter which system you use! 

But back on-topic (until they catch that anonymous thread-locking fiend) could someone please explain to me how the ‘public interest’ is served by Mickey Mouse falling *into* the public domain?

What, culturally, are we lacking that we would have if Mickey was ‘free for all’ back in the 50’s or the 70’s or whenever?

Because keep in mind - only expressions of ideas are protected by copyright, no ideas themselves; if you want to make a Marty Mouse without using any of the copyright-protected elements that Disney owns, feel free!

(That Disney will probably sue doesn’t change things - anyone can sue anyone over anything, and just because a corporation uses its legal power and deep pockets to intimidate fair trade is part of the way the game is played these days.)

So the simple question:

How is the ‘public interest’ hurt specifically by Mickey Mouse specifically being kept under copyright protection?

Curiously,
Calix

(...I like the thought of profiting off of my work, how ‘bout you?)

I think it gets to a point of insanity when filmmakers or other artists can’t reflect upon the society they live on because they need “permission” to show something in their film that is copyrighted.  I’m not talking about stealing something and I certainly know it’s important to protect an artist’s property but say you have a kid who walks into a classroom wearing mickey mouse on his shirt.  Well… nobody’s trying to rip off Mickey Mouse—b ut the artist is unable to show mickey on the shirt unless he has permission from Disney.  This goes for everything like that.  In our society, people in the real world watch the Simpsons on tv but I know of a filmmaker who was not allowed to show folks watching the simpsons in his documentary unless he had permission.

It means that our characters become plain and unrealistic because everything in our real world at least in America is surrounded by this sort of cultural icons that most of us filmmakers can’t afford the price we have to pay in order to show it in the reality that our characters live and operate in.  You have to strip a little kid of his real toys when he steps on your set.  Get rid of your Spongebob sneakers and take off your Snoopy hat.  And no… this and that. 

Then the kid says, “But I don’t have plain clothes. What do you want m e to wear?”
I’ll just wrap you in a blanket…  Then to your shock his blanket is a Star Wars blanket

What do you think about Bible translations being under copyright protection? 

Yes/no?

Also - and forgive me for being slightly gross/graphic/personal - but what if I made a documentary that celebrated perverts ‘enjoying’ a certain on-line martial arts series that featured young girls fighting? 

Yes/no? 

Do you want that copyright protection in how your material is shown and/or used?

Curiously,
Calix

(...it would be simpler if it were simpler, wouldn’t it?)

...and strangely apropos…

Cheers,
Calix

(...remembering, of course, that our moviemaking brother Ralph Winter is directly affected as a producer of the film…)

(...yes, I forgot… so yes, that’s why the edit…)

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/2009-3-31-wolverine-workprint-leaks-online

Tuesday, Mar 31, 2009

UPDATE: Fox responds officially after ‘Wolverine’ workprint leaks online
Posted by Drew McWeeny

Wanna guess what Wolverine’s going to do to the guys who leaked his new film online?

The following statement was sent to us by 20th Century Fox in response to yesterday’s story:

“Last night, a stolen, incomplete and early version of X-Men Origins: Wolverine was posted illegally on a website. It was without many effects, had missing and unedited scenes and temporary sound and music. We immediately contacted the appropriate legal authorities and had it removed. We forensically mark our content so we can identify sources that make it available or download it. The source of the initial leak and any subsequent postings will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – the courts have handed down significant criminal sentences for such acts in the past. The FBI and the MPAA also are actively investigating this crime. We are encouraged by the support of fansites condemning this illegal posting and pointing out that such theft undermines the enormous efforts of the filmmakers and actors, and above all, hurts the fans of the film.”

We appreciate their comment on the situation, and you can read the original story below.

* * *

Right now, everything you read about the financial situation in Hollywood is doom and gloom.  Studios are laying staff off.  Production companies are losing long-standing development deals.  Hedge funds are running for the hills.  DVDs are dying.  No one wants BluRay.  If you were to believe every negative thing written, the industry is seemingly days away from shutting down altogether.

Of course, that’s not really the case.  But it’s certainly what you’d think if you only listened to the worst of what’s being reported.  One of the questions being asked over and over is “What is the real financial impact of piracy?”  And since piracy means different things on different films, that’s a hard question to answer.

20th Century Fox is about to have an interesting practical test on one of their biggest summer films.  “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” leaked online today in what appears to be a near-finished DVD quality rip, marred only by a few unfinished FX shots.  As soon as files go up, they’re coming right back down as Fox legal chases pirates around the web, but that toothpaste is out of the tube, gentlemen.  And that sucks.

If there’s any big-budget movie that’s been a whipping boy so far this year, it’s “Wolverine.”  There have been reports, both published and also off-the-record, about problems almost since the start of production.  I really like director Gavin Hood and his earlier film “Tsotsi,” so I’ve been waiting, fingers crossed, hoping the bad buzz is just bad buzz, ignoring as much of it as possible.  For the film to be so close to release and then get kneecapped by a leak like this is insane.  It had to be someone inside the production.  I looked at a random three minute segment from the middle of the film this afternoon when first told it was online, and there’s no timecode, no watermark… nothing.  It’s a clean, perfect copy.  Someone did that on purpose.

So the question is this… will it hurt the film?  I imagine the file will be traded endlessly between now and opening weekend, and no doubt you’ll start seeing reader reviews pop up at geek sites from people who “just happened to see the film.”  And unless word of mouth is orgasmic, I’m guessing this takes a big bite out of that opening weekend.  The exact demographic who would open this movie is savvy enough to have the film on their hard-drives right now if they want it.  And if they hate what they see, I can’t imagine they’re going to pay to see it again when it opens.

I hate seeing this happen to anyone, and I take no joy seeing it happen to 20th Century Fox.  I think it’s bad for the business overall.  I think it’s obviously a personally-motivated leak, and Fox will no doubt come down like the wrath of Galactus on whoever did it.  But in the meantime, I put the question to you guys… what happens to “Wolverine”?  Will piracy be the one thing his healing factor can’t handle?

This entire topic is funny, in a depressing sort of way.

Imagine if the copyright for Veggie Tales suddenly expired.  I wonder how many Christians would suddenly be advocating increased copyright protection. 

But because it’s Disney, those Satan-spawned demons who create that Believe-In-Yourself garbage, it’s suddenly about money.

Now I’m sure that money’s got something to do with it.  It always has something to do with it, whether you’re Disney or Rich Christiano.

But I’m personally offended by the idea of the beloved, classic Mickey Mouse being opened up to whosoever will.  That character was created by Disney, and Disney deserves the copyright for at least a couple centuries, IMHO.

My personal opinion is that, at the present time, works should only be public domain from the Revolution on back.  Maybe even before that.

I know that, for myself, a man who fully intends to create iconic characters/images/concepts, ones that become classics and can be used for a century without being worn thin on the audiences, I don’t want to see some idiot disrespecting my creation, or making stories out of something my great grandchildren could be making stories out of - using something that their great grandfather (that would be me…) created.

It’s about the equivalent of me building myself a beautiful house, and 70 years after my death it gets turned over to the public and every person in America can come claim it as their own, and deface it all they want.

It’s sad and outrageous what happened to Fox and Wolverine.  I know I’m going to see the movie, and it may sound frivolous, but I’ll pray that God gives it a good return - for one simple reason.  If I had worked for 3-7 years on a film, and then it failed all because some jerk decided to leak it, I’d be depressed as heck.

Never thought I’d see the day when the right-wingers of CF.org would defend socialism…

Let’s say you have a milkshake… and I have a milkshake.  And I have a straw that reaches alllllll the way over… to your milkshake.  I drink your milkshake!  I drink it up!
-There Will Be Blood

Never thought I’d see the day when the right-wingers of CF.org would
defend socialism…

One can’t read the scriptures, believe they are true and be a ‘right-winger’.

The world’s current economic crisis could have been over in 48hrs had someone
the guts to declare a ‘Year of Jubilee’.  Anathema to right wing thinkers!  Force
all those capitalist money hoarders to forgive debts and put everyone back on a
slightly more level playing field? 

The Judges and Prophets of the Old Testament decried the accumulation of
wealth and the mistreatment of the poor and oppressed.  These themes are
echoed throughout scripture.

Here’s a variant on the copyright issue:
Our most recent Ex President, GW Bush, through the use of Executive Order,
extended the right to exclude access to Presidential papers by passing that
right on to a President’s family/heirs.  Obvioulsy, in this case, it was an
attempt to obfuscate and deny an opening up of the most secret presidency
in our history and to delay any possible legal ramifications. But it also denies
historians, educators and the general public from research and other legitimate
purposes to important elements of our history.

[it’s certainly no coincidence the wall behind is RED] 
{just thought I’d pass you all a left-learning curve ball]

James Burgess wrote:

One can’t read the scriptures, believe they are true and be a ‘right-winger’.

Thanks for a great laugh to start my day, James!

Cheers,
Calix

(...and the anti-Bush bromides… man, you’re killin’ me here with laughter!)

In no way would I ever advocate socialism, just balance and not abuse of freedom and protection under the law.  Actually, my wife and her family fled from Communist Cuba years ago and we all too well understand from their experience (and the poverty that has devestated that once beautiful country) that a Marxist society only brings everyone down and the government turns itself into a god.  My wife’s grandfather built up his own business, by the way, and then had it taken away from him because it was now the property of the government.  But they told him he could work there if he liked. 

The Scriptures do not promote socialism.  They promote owners of property being very giving.  They do not ordain taking property from someone and giving it to someone else (other than the case of judgment over the Canaanites) against their free will because then the Scripture is clear that it is stealing.  When Ahab’s wife collected the Vineyard it was stealing according to God even if he wanted the Vineyard for the common good (which obviously it was for selfish reasons).  When David got the threshing floor he didn’t want it for free. He wanted to pay for it and that was for a holy space.  Same with Abraham, he purchased the grave for his wife. God’s Word teaches that the Israel belongs to the Jews - not to everyone else.  Even the Israelites had to work to obtain the Promised Land which was freely given by God to them by fighting to collect it.  While everything is God’s, including the cattle on the hills, he gives certain people to be stewards of that property and we can’t say that because it’s God’s then we can take it -because then why bother having a Commandment against “stealing”.

But Capitalism gone crazy turns into an insane evil that is a stench in God’s nostrils.  Thus the truths of what James was commenting on with the prophets condemning greed and God’s law endorsing freedom from debt.  When businesses start acting like the wicked Potter from It’s A Wonderful Life, it becomes all about control and abuse of power and wealth that was given by God.

This is a good place to quote a Jewish perspective on ownership that I thought was wonderful. I’m pretty sure this is how I remember it and I’m taking it on good faith from a Jewish website that it comes from Ethics of our fathers:
   

Ethics of Our Fathers 5:13
     
There are four traits which differentiate people (in dealing with property):

  * “What’s yours is yours and what’s mine is mine” - a mediocre person, and some say this characterized Sodom.
  * “What’s mine is yours and what’s mine is yours” - a fool.
  *  “What’s yours is yours and what’s mine is yours” - a righteous person.
  * “What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine” - an evil person.

I think the founding fathers were balanced when they created the copyright system. They were allowing for freedom of ideas, but also giving rights to authors to protect their work… but not forever.  I’m not sure when at what point it should be cut off because it actually is someone’s property and that property is being passed down to their descendants.  And I’m all for an inheritance, which is very Biblical.

I’m not sure how I feel about newer translations being copyrighted.  That’s a hard issue for me to deal with knowing the obvious Sacredness of the text.  I do believe that a lot of the companies who have their translations copyrighted are very free with allowing you to quote scores of Scriptures in any art or work.  They just want their translation credited for it.  They seem to be more balanced and free with allowing it’s use.  They will allow for Scriptures to be quoted, but not large amounts of texts enough for someone to copy the text and sell it and make money on it themselves - basically stealing from the translators. 

I hear you, Calix about the perverts making a film and attempting to use mine or any other film watching it without mine or the owner’s permission and your point is well taken.  But why should they be allowed to watch Shakespeare or listen to Bach or Beethoven and do the same thing?  I don’t believe freedom of speech   includes pornography, which is harmful to society and this scenario seems to come across as such.

Blessings,
Tom