CleanFlicks, LLC v.

Steven Soderbergh, fifteen other directors and the Directors Guild of America
Case 5.9 p.110 TEAM IX Ng Hong Phong o Duy Khnh Thnh Thnh

Case Background
Plaintiff Defendants

Vs.
CleanFlicks, LLC Steven Soderbergh, fifteen other directors and the Directors Guild of America

Case Background
CleanFlicks filed a suit to asked the court to have the right to sell DVDs of defendants films altered without the defendants agreement to delete scenes of sex, nudity, profanity, and gory violence

CleanFlicks, LLC that sold and rented the edited DVDs to customers, sometimes indirectly through retailers. Defendants counterclaimed against CleanFlicks alleging breaking copyright law.

Case Background
In this case, the studios objected when CleanFlicks edited the films and sold the altered versions directly to consumers. Similarly, CleanFlicks made unauthorized copies of the studios DVDs to edit the films, but objected to others making unauthorized copies of the altered versions. CleanFlicks and its competitors asserted that they were making fair use of the studios copyrighted works. They argued that they are providing more socially acceptable alternatives to enable families to view the films together.

Case Background
Question Is these anything unethical about these apparently contradictory position? Why or why not? If you were the judge, how would you view this argument? Is court the appropriate forum for making determinations of public or social policy?

Precedent Case

Precedent Case
Terry GILLIAM et al., v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. was a case where the British comedy group Monty Python. They sold the show to the BBC.
As part of their contract with BBC, BBC was not to make any significant edits to the TV show after it was recorded.

BBC broadcast the show, and then sold the rights to ABC. When ABC broadcast the show they made significant edits to make room for commercials.
- The agreement between the BBC and ABC did not contain any caveats about making edits. - ABC edited the shows to remove 24 minutes of content 90, to create space for advertisements and in part because some of the material was considered by ABC to be unsuitable for American audiences

Precedent Case
After trying without success to get ABC to agree not to cut the shows in the second special, they asked the district court to prevent broadcast of the second special and to award damages for the first broadcast. The Trial Court found that it wasn't clear Gilliam et. al. owned the copyright to the TV show, therefore they couldn't control what happened to it.

30 June 1976 The Appellate Court found that Gilliam et. al. were definitely the owners of the copyright to the script.

Precedent Case

While BBC obtained the rights to the derivative work, they did not have any rights they did not obtain from Gilliam et. al. Since Gilliam did not give them the right to edit the work, they couldn't sell the right to edit the work to ABC.
The Appellate Court found that ABC had impaired the integrity of the work by making edits can cutting out key jokes.

Precedent Case
When ABC cut the TV show, they had made unethical action, they infringement the contract with BBC and Gilliam, they did not respect to a creative work. They also did not respect to the consumers, the consumers should have the right to watch all the TV show, not the edited version.
This work show us the unethical in management of ABC also in moral in business of ABC

US Law
The applicable law is the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-122

US Law
In 17 U.S.C. 106 provides: The owner of copyright has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....

US Law
In 17 U.S.C. 107 provides: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use 1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2) The nature of the copyrighted work; 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; 4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

US Law
In 17 U.S.C. 109(a):

The first sale doctrine basically says that once someone buys a legitimate copy of a work, they can do whatever they want with it, including sell it to others, or lend it out, or whatever. They just can't

make extra copies of it.

US Law
The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101-122 provides: No person or company has the right to profit from creating a new version of a creative work unless they own the rights to that work. Any other individual or organization who is not the owner of the work has no right ethically or legally to modify the work without the owners consent and profit from it.

Question 1
Is these anything unethical about these apparently contradictory position? Why or why not?

Discussion
CleanFlicks make unauthorized copies of the studios DVDs to edit the film; CleanFlicks sold the altered versions directly to consumers; Not only are they guilty of violating the copyright laws, but they also seem to believe that they can dictate to other companies or individuals, who like them do not own the creative work, as to how they are to sell the product.

Discussion
CleanFlicks: - have no respect to the owners and the customers - revenue from selling product of the owners decrease - make consumers misunderstand the authors - Unethical

Question 2
If you were the judge, how would you view this argument? Is court the appropriate forum for making determinations of public or social policy?

Section 107 of the Copyright Act

fair use have four factors:

1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2) The nature of the copyrighted work;

3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; 4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Discussion
1) they are criticizing the objectionable content commonly found in current movies and that they are providing more socially acceptable alternatives to enable families to view the films together, without exposing children to the presumed harmful effects emanating from the objectionable content. This Court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works.

Discussion
2) adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message. the copies were non-transformative nature of the copyrighted;

3) An examination of the quantitative and qualitative amount of the copyrighted material taken
4) Defendant companies were not paying a license fee to the studios;

Conclusion
The Court held that the defendant companies were not making fair use of the copyrighted motion pictures. The Court entered a permanent injunction barring the sale and distribution of the altered versions of the motion pictures.

VIETNAM SITUATION

VIETNAM SITUATION
21-2-2012 the First News (Tr Vit) filed a suit in HoChiMinh city court against Vietnam Australian society English Central. The plaintiff : First News company The defendant: Vietnam Australian society English Central The plaintiff asked the defendant pay 390 millions Dong and have a public apology in front of the mass media. Vietnam Australian society English Central had photocopy, infringement copyright law of 4 TOEIC and TOELF book include CDs

VIETNAM SITUATION
First News show the evident: copy books, copy CDs, invoice of copying in photocopy store. First News have pay about $10,000 for the copyrights of those English book.

VIETNAM LAW

Intellectual Property Law (No. 50/2005/QH11 of 29 November 2005)

Intellectual Property Law (amended) (No. 36/2009/QH12 of 19 June 2009 Publishing Law (No 30/2004/QH11 of 03 December 2004) Publishing Law (amended) (No 12/2008/QH12 of 03 June 2008)

VIETNAM LAW
Part II of Intellectual Property Law (amended) (No. 36/2009/QH12 of 19 June 2009: Author right and relate right

VIETNAM SITUATION
The court conclude that Vietnam Australian society English Central infringement copyrights of the First News Termination coping illegal book. All illegal copy book are recovered. Vietnam Australian society English Central pay 60 millions Dong to First News and 330 millions Dong in scholarship for poor students. A public apology in front of the mass media.

VIETNAM SITUATION
Vietnam Australian society English Central thinks that they have the right copy 4 books follow Fair use right, But, student pay study fee so Vietnam Australian society English Central have profit from their actions

Can not use the FAIR USE right in this situation.

VIETNAM SITUATION
The action coping 4 book of Vietnam Australian society English Central is unethical. Its damaged the benefits of consumers, and also the benefits of the owner of those books. Though unauthorized coping books, Vietnam Australian society English Central did not respect the consumers, the sellers and the authors. So Vietnam Australian society English Central has unethical in management.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2006/07/cle an_flicks_de.html

http://www.pdfport.com/view/436732-clean-flicks-of-colorado-llc-

et-al-v-steven-soderbergh.html
http://www.noip.gov.vn/web/noip/home/vn?proxyUrl=/noip/cms_vn.n sf/(agntDisplayContent)?OpenAgent&UNID=E4DAAD4DEBDA1B224 725766B003250D0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilliam_v._American_Broadcasting http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html http://www.msk.com/news/article.cfm?id=1029&type=Alert&aid=116

http://www.invispress.com/law/copyrights.html
http://dantri.com.vn/c25/s25-645230/tri-viet-thang-kien-cactruong-ngoai-ngu.htm

R E F E R E N C E

Thanks you for your Attention!

TEAM

IX