fan edits with directors commentary?

[leeroy]

a couple of questions if anyone could answer them for me, i'm currently putting together a commentary track for my killer bride edit (kill bill) made out of various interviews with the cast and director. they've all been taken from various youtube clips and edited to make a commentary track. so i guess my first question would be is this ok within the rules of a fanedit? i know there's a star wars edit/documentary that doe's the same thing

which leads me to my second question about the extras that we are/aren't aloud to use. i read on the NOES anthology / vol1 that the 2nd disc wouldn't be available as the editor used elements that were available to buy.

http://www.fanedit.org/forums/showt...1-(2-dvd-set-2009)&highlight=nightmare+street

i know this is a subject that may not be able to discuss so if anyone could PM me with an answer i would be grateful

 

[geminigod]

Sounds interesting.

Confused by your questions though. Perhaps there is something I am not understanding here, but I don't see what the problem would be. I think it is very ambitious and cool that you would put together a custom commentary track from the movie creators. From a copyrighting stand point, considering you have just edited a copyrighted movie, doing a commentary track is the least of your worries. Admins could answer better, but if I had to guess, the edit you are referring to that was banned was probably advertising content available only for purchase from the faneditor. So long as you are distributing the commentary freely, it wouldn't make any sense for this to be a problem.

 

[Frantic Canadian]

Admins could answer better, but if I had to guess, the edit you are referring to that was banned was probably advertising content available only for purchase from the faneditor.

The edit in question was a 2-disc set of an extended cut of the first NOES film. The first disc is available at .info because it just features the extended cut, but the second disc isn't allowed to be posted at .info because it contains extras that are commercially available, as well as a fan edit of the Freddy's Nightmares pilot episode which hasn't officially been released on DVD. The faneditor, Dr. Saperstein, isn't selling the second disc, if he was he would most likely be banned from fe.org, he just can't have it posted at .info for the reasons I've mentioned above.

 

[geminigod]

the second disc isn't allowed to be posted at .info because it contains extras that are commercially available

I guess now I am confused too. Based on my present interpretation of this statement, it would seem to me that everything on this site should be banned. There is nothing we do here that doesn't involve commercially available material.

 

[Frantic Canadian]

I guess now I am confused too. Based on my present interpretation of this statement, it would seem to me that everything on this site should be banned. There is nothing we do here that doesn't involve commercially available material.

Let me try to clear up the confusion. The films that appear on the site here have been altered in various ways by users to give the films a different viewing experience. Some of the extras that are included on disc 2 of the NOES 2-disc edition that Dr. Saperstein created are completely untouched, which is why that disc can't be included here. Not to mention that it includes a fan edit of an episode that has only been released on VHS and laserdisc.

 

[geminigod]

Ok, I get part 1 of your statement, Frantic. Now on to part 2. What is wrong with fanediting a VHS and laserdisc release? Rarity video makes it that much cooler in my crazy mind.

 

[Frantic Canadian]

Ok, I get part 1 of your statement, Frantic. Now on to part 2. What is wrong with fanediting a VHS and laserdisc release? Rarity video makes it that much cooler in my crazy mind.

As a collector I agree, I love collecting movies or oddities on DVD that have only been released on VHS or laserdisc, but if I'm not mistaken, and my mind isn't playing tricks on me at this late hour, this is a rule that was added when Boon created this site. Maybe Boon, or one of the current Admins, or mods, could further explain/clarify this rule.

 

[hebrides]

I'm not sure I'm remembering this correctly, but I think the VHS issue is primarily one of video quality, which is inevitably far inferior to DVD. I think some of the stuff on preserv may use VHS elements, but I believe the rules are somewhat different there.

It's very late, though, so I could be totally wrong about this...

 

[leeroy]

Let me try to clear up the confusion. The films that appear on the site here have been altered in various ways by users to give the films a different viewing experience. Some of the extras that are included on disc 2 of the NOES 2-disc edition that Dr. Saperstein created are completely untouched, which is why that disc can't be included here.

thank you Frantic Canadian this answers my second question, i recently edited both the making off documentaries on the kill bill dvd's and removed all the Japanese segments/interviews but wondered if it was legit to include on the dvd.

Confused by your questions though. Perhaps there is something I am not understanding here, but I don't see what the problem would be. I think it is very ambitious and cool that you would put together a custom commentary track from the movie creators. From a copyrighting stand point, considering you have just edited a copyrighted movie, doing a commentary track is the least of your worries.

the clips that i have been using i don't own, though there not available to own either as they are just interviews done during the release of the film. so the question was if this could qualify or would it be excluded as part of the fanedit

 

[Uncanny Antman]

...it may also have to do with availability. If 'you must buy the original before downloading an edit' is a rule, it's only fair to make sure the material used can be purchased.

That said, there have been at least two times that people have managed to get an edit accepted that were edited from bootleg/out of print sources. Shhhhh!

 

[TMBTM]

That said, there have been at least two times that people have managed to get an edit accepted that were edited from bootleg/out of print sources. Shhhhh!

:behindsofa:



I don't know if you think about The War Of The Star, UA, but yes, I used the Puggo Grande version that is not commercialy available. However I only used the Puggo Grande to prevent me from making the "grindhouse looking" picture by myself with added effect plugins on my original DVD like I did with JAWS. I own the original movie on DVD and let's say that mister Lucas did eat several time on the best restaurants with the money I gave him all along the years...

but yes, the rule here is: you must own the original. So if the movie is not available, you obvioulsy did not buy the original in a legal way.

 

[Uncanny Antman]

Nah, I didn't even think of that...I guess for me, it's less important that you buy the exact edition that the editor used and more important that you bought the material at all. So owning Star Wars would be enough, morally speaking, if you ask me.

 

[TV's Frink]

I disagree. Having bought Star Wars on VHS in the nineties would not entitle you to download ANH:R IMO. And owning the 2004 DVD's would not entitle you to download an edit based on the upcoming Blu-rays.

Incidentally, the rules of the forum agree with me.

 

[Uncanny Antman]

Fair enough then, those are the rules. (Although the Amazon link on the main page simply states "YOU MUST OWN AN OFFICIALLY RELEASED VERSION TO LEGALLY WATCH A FANEDIT.")

...So how does that work then, exactly? In regards to War of the Stars, I mean. How many people own the 16mm release of Star Wars?

 

[TMBTM]

Well the look of the war of the stars could have been made by adding effect plugins on my official DVD, that was just me being lazy (well in fact not really, because I had trouble with a lot of frame cuts that were not exactely the same as the official DVD, that I used for the sound). But I agree it's a bit on the edge of the rule. That's why I bring this matter on this thread.

But I agree about the blu ray fanedits. Owning a DVD version should not be enough to download a HD fanedit. You should own the blu ray (concerning Star Wars the box set is already available to buy months on advance, so it's okay, IMO?)

 

[TV's Frink]

i'm currently putting together a commentary track for my killer bride edit (kill bill) made out of various interviews with the cast and director. they've all been taken from various youtube clips and edited to make a commentary track. so i guess my first question would be is this ok within the rules of a fanedit? i know there's a star wars edit/documentary that doe's the same thing.

To bring this discussion back to the question in the OP, it is being discussed amongst the team and an answer will hopefully be available shortly.

 

[Captain Khajiit]

I think owning at least "one up" on the release format should be considered sufficient. If you own the Blu-ray, you should be able to download a DVD release, but not vice versa. (Obviously, you could download the BD too.) This makes sense to me, as you would have bought the movie in at least the (nominal) definition level of the release's source material. It would also accommodate releases such as TMBTM's War of the Stars.

I also don't think that director's commentaries should be included on fanedit releases, as it blurs the line between fanedits and custom DVDs too much for my liking.

 

[leeroy]

To bring this discussion back to the question in the OP, it is being discussed amongst the team and an answer will hopefully be available shortly.

thank you

 

[geminigod]

I think owning at least "one up" on the release format should be considered sufficient.

Definitely. Shit, many blu-rays you purchase throw in an extra disc with a digital or dvd version for free.

That rule would partially cover the issue of using older material, but not completely. Edits using rarity material like the amazing Army of Darkness edit should technically not be available based on this (in my opinion) crazy rule. I believe people should be encouraged to clean up old stuff and share unofficial material. If we aren't doing fanedits to provide the world with great collectors items, then what are we doing it for? This is a great service faneditors can do for the world in addition to tweaking modern movies.

I get that we must live in fear of Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and the Berne Convention prior to that. I get that we tread a gray line here, but trust me when I say that if we get shut down it is not going to be because of Army of Darkness or a commentary track. It is all the "acceptable practices" on this site that are going to get us in trouble (i.e. having a rip of Harry Potter available so soon after the official release).

Prior to these absurd new media laws that go far beyond anything in history and even presently in any other industry, copyright was interpreted to be a limited power provided to the government to encourage art and industry, but it was always limited and always contained an expiration date (generally up to 20 years). Corporate greed and lobbying has managed to erode copyright law for their betterment at our expense. Amongst other things they destroyed great projects such as Project Gutenberg by reversing previous copyright law on dead authors and thus removing it from the public domain. Are the author's offspring receiving royalty? No. Will there soon be a near monopoly on ebooks? Yes. Has the advancement of technology and knowledge for the world suffered a terrible blow? Yes.

I do not hold to these insane laws that have diminished our way of life over the past 30 years and stand in direct contradiction of history's lessons and technological trends moving toward the future. I cannot bite my tongue and passively watch as greed and corruption trump the progress of humanity. In the words of Ben Rudiak-Gould, creator of Avisynth and Huffyyuv, "I think that one of the most serious problems with our democracy is that people tend to think it doesn't matter much what laws get passed or what politicians get elected. It does matter. The reason you don't notice is that you only get to live one of the alternatives." In an alternate universe right now there is some version of me that has an app on his iphone that can access the collective wisdom of all the previous generations of man. In this universe I have an app controlled exclusively by Apple that can access the latest best-seller fiction novels, if I am lucky and if I can afford to pay up the ass for it.

I understand that this site rides a fine gray line, and that to the best of our ability we need to tow the line in a way that tries to show respect to artists and corporations. I think that is good, but I also think there are some areas where we need to stand up and tow our own line in regards to what we believe to be morally right, and this is one of those issues. The corporations that are greedy will want us shut down regardless of this minor stuff we are discussing right now. Again, it won't be because of Army of Darkness or a re-mixed commentary track (which sounds like a cool documentary idea to me). So who are we really trying to pacify with such a rule?

Here is Ben's full essay that is a must-read:

http://neuron2.net/www.math.berkeley.edu/benrg/copyright-dmca.html

Here are the rules I morally hold to that I would try to get passed into law if I worked in public policy:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/008.nsf/eng/04134.html

There comes a point where we have to take a stand for what we believe is right. Otherwise we empower the very people who would have us shut down regardless of our support. Inconsistent enforcement of a rule preventing people from using rarity material simply because it isn't an "official extra available on a purchasable DVD" seems a little whacky and sad to me.

 

[leeroy]

as someone who studied art for seven years we where told of the dangers of copyright but often encouraged to go place's that would be considered dangerous. for me fanediting is way for me to be creative with my time which resembles what you could call a piece of art. it's the whole concept that we bring that i enjoy from this site. i agree with geminigod when he say's 'there are some areas where we need to stand up and tow our own line in regards to what we believe to be morally right'. the idea of doing a commentary track was because there isn't one on the dvd if there was then i wouldn't have done it. but again it's the concept that the fanedit site encourages i.e making a trailer/dvd covers that made me want to do it.

a few have mentioned the war of the stars edit which i have seen, but also raises a few question such as with the use of James Earl Jones clips would i have to own these films as well? the songs that were added would i also have to own them? but it's also a good example to what geminigod was saying.

the audio clips that i've used for the commentary are available to watch on youtube, i've simply added them on to a audio time line in keeping with the video track. it doe's skate that fine line between what is right and wrong however for me the laws of downloading/copyright are so entangled the best lawyer couldn't bring an argument to the table without contradicting themselves. the line is crossed if i start charging for the fanedit. i've spent alot of time in doing what i did for the enjoyment for myself and hopefully others. like with ALL the faneditors on this site i make no profit from doing what i do. i guess the big question is would Quentin approve?