CleanFlicks

Last updated

CleanFlicks was a mormon company founded in Utah in 2000 [1] that rented and sold commercially-released DVDs and VHS tapes from which they had edited content which the company considered inappropriate for children or that viewers might otherwise find offensive. CleanFlicks removed sexual content, profanity, some references to deity, and some violence from movies, either by muting audio or clipping entire portions of the track.

Contents

A group of major film productions studios sued CleanFlicks in 2002, arguing that their service constituted copyright infringement. A 2006 court ruling [2] closed the company. On March 13, 2007, CleanFlicks reopened its website with "Movies You Can Trust." While legally enjoined from offering edited movies, an email sent by the company on that date indicated that they had reviewed "tens of thousands" of movies and compiled over 1000 that meet their "family-friendly criteria" for sale and rent. In January 2013, the CleanFlicks.com website was no longer online.

Directors Guild lawsuit

An announcement (August 20, 2002) of intention on the Directors Guild of America website (on behalf of the guild and 12 directors) to sue seven entities that engage in the video-editing practice, caused CleanFlicks to preemptively file a lawsuit in Denver Federal Court in August 2002. Robert Huntsman, an attorney and inventor affiliated with Cleanflicks who had a DVD-editing patent pending, [3] was named as the lead plaintiff, so the original short caption for the case was Huntsman v. Soderbergh. Robert Huntsman had been advising Corey Smitheram, former operator of four Idaho and Colorado Cleanflicks franchises, [4] In their suit, Cleanflicks sought a judgment stating that edited content was legal under federal copyright law. In addition to director Steven Soderbergh, named defendants included Hollywood figures Steven Spielberg, Robert Redford, Sydney Pollack, Robert Altman, John Landis, and Martin Scorsese. [3] Although the chain had been operating for two years, the issue was brought to the spotlight when MovieMask made a series of demonstrations around Hollywood in March of that year. [5] The directors' counter-suit soon followed, but the legal battle stretched on for years.

CleanFlicks and Huntsman preemptively filed suit against the DGA on August 29, naming 16 renowned directors as defendants in U.S. District Court for the district of Colorado, seeking the Court's determination as to whether their editing practices are protected under federal copyright law. Also, the preemptive filing ensured the impending legal battle would play out in Colorado courts rather than in California.

As the case made national headlines, its short byline read "Huntsman v. Soderbergh". The docket header read:

ROBERT HUNTSMAN and CLEAN FLICKS OF COLORADO, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs,
v.

STEVEN SODERBERGH, ROBERT ALTMAN, MICHAEL APTED, TAYLOR HACKFORD, CURTIS HANSON, NORMAN JEWISON, JOHN LANDIS, MICHAEL MANN, PHILLIP NOYCE, BRAD SILBERLING, BETTY THOMAS, IRWIN WINKLER, MARTIN SCORSESE, STEVEN SPIELBERG, ROBERT REDFORD and SYDNEY POLLACK [6]

On July 6, 2006, a federal judge in Denver ruled that CleanFlicks' editing violated U.S. copyright laws. The judge ordered the company to "stop producing, manufacturing, creating, and renting" edited movies, and to hand all inventory to movie studios within five days of the ruling. [2] The court gave the company more time than the ruling's initial five-day deadline for turning over the stock of edited movies, since CleanFlicks needed more time to receive movies which were still out on rental. [7]

CleanFlicks had planned to appeal the ruling, [8] but informed its customers by email on July 28, 2006:

It is with great regret that we write to inform you that CleanFlicks is going out of business soon. As you may have heard or read, after three long years of legal struggles, a judge in Colorado has ruled that we cannot sell or rent edited DVDs anymore. While we thought very strongly about appealing the decision, the potential costs and risks to the company, its customers and shareholders was just too great. Accordingly, we have agreed to close our doors after a brief winding-up period.
...We want to offer our sincerest apologies for not being able to provide you with edited DVDs...We appreciate your support of our efforts to provide high-quality, family-friendly movies, and we will try to make this difficult process of closing our operations as painless as we can for all our loyal customers."

The decision not to appeal the ruling became primarily a financial one. Having won the initial court battle, the directors and studios were in a position to collect significant damages for copyright infringement from the editing companies. Although the companies would almost certainly receive a stay of judgment pending appeals, the risk was much higher now. Since the inventory of edited movies had no value to the studios, a deal was offered whereby the companies would be allowed to sell off all of their inventory and keep the profits if they agreed not to appeal the ruling and the studios would not pursue damage claims. Thus, the companies, and their investors, would collect further revenue and be protected from damages and the studios would have a significant court ruling stand and the legal precedent would be set. After discussions with their legal teams and investors, the decision was made to accept the offer. The companies were then given additional time to clear out their inventory but no more films could be edited during that time. All unsold inventory was then sent to the studios as defined by the ruling.

CleanFlicks discontinued offering edited movies on August 31, 2006.

Robert Huntsman

Robert Huntsman (born March 9, 1955, Idaho Falls, Idaho) [9] is an American copyright attorney, engineer, and inventor. He first entered the national spotlight for his association with CleanFlicks during their legal battle with the Directors Guild of America. Huntsman continues practicing law as principal of a small firm located in Boise, Idaho. [10] He operates a litigation practice that includes a Federal Court litigation practice, an Idaho State Court litigation practice, and a Public Interest litigation practice. Huntsman is also a registered patent attorney, licensed to prepare and prosecute patent applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A former Hewlett-Packard software engineer, his website claims Huntsman to be one of few patent attorneys with significant software development experience. [10]

Huntsman had registered the domain "qq.com" as early as 1995, which was sold to Asian internet giant Tencent whose primary product is the online messaging service known simply as "QQ". [11]

Relaunch

In March 2007, CleanFlicks announced by email to former customers that they were relaunching their rental services based on a new business model. Earlier in 2007, CleanFlicks had explored by email to, and online polling of, former customers the possibility of relaunching based on an unedited movie-rental business model. As a result, rather than renting content-edited DVDs, CleanFlicks now offers DVD releases of unedited modern and classic movies.

CleanFlicks' inventory now contains [12] "ONLY Movies You Can Trust". Movies rented from the company "will contain no nudity, no graphic violence, and no sexual content."

Former customers' accounts have been retained in the CleanFlicks database, allowing those customers as well as the general public to resume their patronage of CleanFlicks using a "movies-out-at-a-time" tiered structure as before.

See also

Related Research Articles

Clean-room design is the method of copying a design by reverse engineering and then recreating it without infringing any of the copyrights associated with the original design. Clean-room design is useful as a defense against copyright infringement because it relies on independent creation. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean-room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Video rental shop</span> Physical retail business that rents home videos

A video rental shop/store is a physical retail business that rents home videos such as movies, prerecorded TV shows, video game discs and other media content. Typically, a rental shop conducts business with customers under conditions and terms agreed upon in a rental agreement or contract, which may be implied, explicit, or written. Many video rental stores also sell previously viewed movies and/or new, unopened movies.

Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), was a copyright and trademark case of the Supreme Court of the United States involving the applicability of the Lanham Act to a work in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Newzbin</span> Former British Usenet indexing website

Newzbin was a British Usenet indexing website, intended to facilitate access to content on Usenet. The site caused controversy over its stance on copyrighted material. Access to the Newzbin.com website was blocked by BT and Sky in late 2011, following legal action in the UK by Hollywood film studios.

Redbox Automated Retail, LLC was an American video rental and streaming media company, based in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois. Redbox specialized in automated DVD rental kiosks, and also operated transactional and ad-supported streaming video and television services. From 2022, Redbox was a wholly owned subsidiary of Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Columbia House</span> Mail-order music club brand by Columbia Records

Columbia House was an umbrella brand for Columbia Records' mail-order music clubs, the primary iteration of which was the Columbia Record Club, established in 1955. The Columbia House brand was introduced in the early 1970s by Columbia Records, and had a significant market presence in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lubin Manufacturing Company</span> American silent motion picture production company

The Lubin Manufacturing Company was an American motion picture production company that produced silent films from 1896 to 1916. Lubin films were distributed with a Liberty Bell trademark.

A fan edit is a version of a film modified by a viewer, that removes, reorders, or adds material in order to create a new interpretation of the source material. This includes the removal of scenes or dialogue, replacement of audio and/or visual elements, and adding material from sources such as deleted scenes or even other films.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

A re-edited film is a motion picture that has been modified from the manner in which it was showcased in its original theatrical release. Reasons for this type of editing may range from the distributor's demands to accommodating different audience groups. Fan-made movie edits are often met with controversy, as they bring up issues of copyright law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Odex's actions against file-sharing</span> Legal actions against illegal downloading activities

Odex's actions against file sharing were Japan copyright owners' pre-action discovery to Singapore Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to request for subscribers details in Singapore who were traced to illegal download activities of their licensed anime series. Odex is a Singapore-based company that licenses and releases anime for local and regional Southeast Asian consumption. As Japanese copyright owners are located in Japan, Odex, being holder of the Japanese anime license in Singapore, were appointed to submit legal documents and court proceedings on their behalf in Singapore.

Clean Films was a company in the United States founded by Chad Fullmer that edited the content of DVDs to remove profanity, nudity, violence, crude language, and other unwanted content. They purchased original copies of DVDs for every edited one they produced. They created an online "co-operative rental club" so that others could joint-own the original copies of the DVDs the co-operative purchased.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Film studio</span> Organization that produces films

A film studio is a major entertainment company that makes films. Today, they are mostly financing and distribution entities. Additionally, they may also have their own privately owned studio facility or facilities; however, most firms in the entertainment industry have never owned their own studios, but have rented space from other companies. The day-to-day filming operations are generally handled by their production company subsidiary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright troll</span> Party that enforces copyrights for purposes of making money through litigation

A copyright troll is a party that enforces copyrights it owns for purposes of making money through strategic litigation, in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, sometimes without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution. Critics object to the activity because they believe it does not encourage the production of creative works, but instead makes money through the inequities and unintended consequences of high statutory damages provisions in copyright laws intended to encourage creation of such works.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc., 749 F.2d 154 was a copyright infringement case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit over the playing video cassettes in-store of a video sale and rental store. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoin defendants from exhibiting plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures.

Warner Bros. Entertainment v. WTV Systems is a 2011 copyright infringement case decided in United States District Court, C.D. California.

VidAngel is an American streaming video company that allows the user to skip objectionable content based on user preferences regarding profanity, nudity, sexual situations, and graphic violence. The company uses customizable filters to automatically cut out scenes or sounds which the viewer does not want to see or hear. The company was launched in 2014 by the Harmon Brothers in Utah. The company used equity crowdfunding to fund its growth, raising $10 million from customer-investors.

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc. was a 2016 United States District Court for the Central District of California case in which four major Hollywood studios -- Disney, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Bros.—filed a copyright infringement complaint against VidAngel, a company which allows users to filter out objectionable content from movies and TV shows. The studios alleged that the method VidAngel used to filter and stream films to its users was illegal under copyright law because they broke the encryption on DVDs and Blu-rays. VidAngel contended that their method was legal under an exception provided by the Family Movie Act.

Open source license litigation involves lawsuits surrounding open-source licensed software. Many of the legal rights of open source software licensors enforceable against users violating licensing agreements are untested by the U.S. legal system. Free and open source software (FOSS) is distributed under a variety of free-software licenses, which are unique among other software licenses. Legal action against open source licenses involves questions about their validity and enforceability.

References

  1. ↑ Moring, Mark (February 2, 2008). "CleanFlicks Fights Back". Christianity Today . Retrieved August 5, 2016.
  2. 1 2 Salt Lake Tribune, Utah film sanitizers ordered to cut it, July 8, 2006.
  3. 1 2 Donahue, Ann; McNary, Dave (2002-08-29). "CleanFlicks vid chain sues helmers". Variety . Retrieved 2023-08-11.
  4. ↑ People Magazine, G-Rated Revolutionary, Feb. 17, 2003.
  5. ↑ The New York Times, Hollywood Balks at High-Tech Sanitizers; Some Video Customers Want Tamer Films, and Entrepreneurs Rush to Comply, September 19, 2002.
  6. ↑ Directors Guild of America Website DGA Answer, Sep. 20, 2002.
  7. ↑ The Salt Lake Tribune, CleanFlicks gets more time to surrender doctored films, July 13, 2006.
  8. ↑ The Deseret Morning News, CleanFlicks plans to appeal ruling, July 9, 2006.
  9. ↑ Huntsman-Gifford Genealogy
  10. 1 2 "Huntsman LG Official Website". Archived from the original on 2011-12-11. Retrieved 2021-08-18.
  11. ↑ Industry Information Station, QQ.CN become IDC business of Heilongjiang Unicom new domain name, Sep. 20, 2011.
  12. ↑ CleanFlicks web site, What makes CleanFlicks unique among online DVD rental services? Archived July 15, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.