A new, amazing, thorough and hilarious critique of The Phantom Menace (1 Viewer)

[Sam Posten]

It's easy. If you didn't make the work, you don't get to change it

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. Hint: It doesn't work much like you seem to think it does.

Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
The Key phrase there is "For a limited time". If you never want your work to be modified you will have to keep it private. If you want to make a buck from it tho you'll have to live with it's limitations. those include some big ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright
The most misunderstood of those is Fair Use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
IANAL and you need to be to understand the nuances of Fair Use, take a look at that article and see what I mean.
But, there is nothing that prohibits anyone from taking copyrighted works and modifying it for your their consumption. Now if it leaks, then the sharks come out.

 

[TravisR]

People do remix or re-record all of the time, so I don't get how you say there's no parallel.

Admittedly, I don't listen to much music that lends itself to a remix but I assume that remixes are done by people approved by the original artist. In other words, it's done with the approval of or in conjunction with the people who made the song. If there's lots of music out there remixed without any permission or involvement of the artist, I'd look at it in the same way as I look at this- someone deciding to take someone else's work and tinker with it.

 

[TravisR]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how copyright works. Hint: It doesn't work much like you seem to think it does.

I'm not a lawyer so perhaps I don't. However, I don't find this objectionable because of any legal reason and copyright isn't the issue here so you can save the Wikipedia links. I find it objectionable because I think it's wrong for someone to take someone else's work and change it to their preferences.

 

[Carlo_M]

Admittedly, I don't listen to much music that lends itself to a remix but I assume that remixes are done by people approved by the original artist. In other words, it's done with the approval of or in conjunction with the people who made the song. If there's lots of music out there remixed without any permission or involvement of the artist, I'd look at it in the same way as I look at this- someone deciding to take someone else's work and tinker with it.

Original permission not needed: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/290/must-you-get-permission-to-record-someone-elses-song
It's called a Mechanical License: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license
It's "good etiquette" to get the original artists' permission (especially if you don't want to burn bridges in the industry) but not required.

 

[Sam Posten]

I'm not a lawyer so perhaps I don't. However, I don't find this objectionable because of any legal reason and copyright isn't the issue here so you can save the Wikipedia links. I find it objectionable because I think it's wrong for someone to take someone else's work and change it to their preferences.

Right, you don't understand how this works. ALL WORK is derivative of some form or another. In order to make commercial work viable, in a world where everything cultural had always been freely shared but new technologies allowed mechanical reproductions to exist the idea of copyright was established. In order to secure the rights of artists for a limited time (originally just a few years, now hundred past their lifetime) laws were created which mad e a very cool trade: Artists could make money but eventually their ideas would go to the public good. This was a good deal for everyone when it was a short term because it let ideas feed back into the system. Now the companies who represent artists have gotten so greedy that its a TERRIBLE deal for the world and a great deal for the RIAAs of the world and a mediocre at best deal for the real artists.
So like I said, it doesn't work like you think it does or should, and if it worked like you thought it should we wouldn't ever see anything but commercial works, hence an end to culture.
Lots of people think the system is broken (except the RIAA and MPAA), including individual artists. So this is an area that will continue to evolve in our lifetimes. Unfortunately because of the way money talks in politics its continued to get WORSE, not better.

 

[TravisR]

Right, you don't understand how this works.

OK but what does any of that have to do with my thinking that someone changing another person's work is terrible? I don't really care about the legality of it. If I wrote a book or made a movie or recorded a song or painted a picture, I can pretty much guarantee that it would be terrible and would benefit from a talented person's touch but that doesn't mean that they should just come along and change my work.

 

[Carlo_M]

You can feel how you like about it, no skin off my nose. Your original post made it sound more like this is something that shouldn't ever be done, and came across less as an opinion that you have and more of a prohibition. Then in subsequent posts it morphed into questions of copyright law, legality and morality issues, etc. and the findings were that Topher doing this violated none of those.

 

[TravisR]

Your original post made it sound more like this is something that shouldn't ever be done, and came across less as an opinion that you have and more of a prohibition.

I'm certainly not suggesting that a law be enacted but to me, the idea of changing another person's work is so out of line that I'm shocked that anyone would defend it.
In my mind, Orson Welles could rise from the grave and fix Plan 9 From Outer Space and I bet it'd be better but I'd much rather see Ed Wood's version.

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm certainly not suggesting that a law be enacted but to me, the idea of changing another person's work is so out of line that I'm shocked that anyone would defend it.
In my mind, Orson Welles could rise from the grave and fix Plan 9 From Outer Space and I bet it'd be better but I'd much rather see Ed Wood's version.

And our point in the posts following yours has been that whether it be music, art, movies, etc. that it's already been part of established practice and doesn't need defending. And Topher hasn't stepped out of the bounds of normalcy by doing what he did, especially given that he made zero money from it, limited exposure to just a select few people, and was doing it for educational purposes.

 

[Sam Posten]

Exactly right. "All art is theft"

 

[TravisR]

Exactly right. "All art is theft"

It's one thing to be inspired by or pay homage to another person's work but it's another thing entirely to take another person's work and 'fix' it. To me, that's so creatively bankrupt that it's the opposite of art. I can only hope that artists continue to make their own work with or without inspiration from what came before and don't resort to drawing all over another person's work and try to call it 'art'.

 

[Carlo_M]

I think we have reached the point where I will agree to disagree. We are talking past each other now.

 

[mattCR]

 

[Edwin-S]

It's kind of amusing, but I think they were stupid to say that TPM ruined the greatest sci-fi saga of all time, meaning the original Star Wars. The original STAR WARS wasn't ruined by TPM, If it was ruind by anything, it was Lucas's inability to leave well enough alone. Also, although TPM isn't a very good movie, it is actually somewhat prescient as I think it is basically an allegorical telling of the decline and fall of the USA as a republic.

 

[mattCR]

It doesn't ruin the original series at all for me. And, while TPM is not a great film for me, I don't mind ATOC, and Revenge of the Sith is far better then it gets credit for.
And yes, I still hope for sequels.. and while won't happen, if Lucas would just do the Timothy Zahn series, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

 

[Sam Posten]

It's one thing to be inspired by or pay homage to another person's work but it's another thing entirely to take another person's work and 'fix' it. To me, that's so creatively bankrupt that it's the opposite of art. I can only hope that artists continue to make their own work with or without inspiration from what came before and don't resort to drawing all over another person's work and try to call it 'art'.

Well, the law, history, and reality aren't on your side here. But you -are- entitled to your opinion! I'll take Carlo's lead and bow out here too.
Also, this:

 

[Carlo_M]

Just a side note, last night I watched James Cameron's Titanic The Final Word special on TV, where he gathered some of the preeminent Titanic scholars to try and update the way the ship really sank, acknowledging that although they did the best they could for his 1997 film, new data/analysis would prove it wrong.
In the middle of the program he says he is going to update the animation showing the sinking as they now think it happened, but "I'm not going to correct the feature film, because once you go down that path, where do you draw the line?"
A slippery slope indeed, Mr. Cameron.
[and yes I know he has his fair share of Director's cuts but they are mostly restoring footage he had to trim for time, nothing like a Greedo Shoots First moment]

 

[WillG]

In the middle of the program he says he is going to update the animation showing the sinking as they now think it happened, but "I'm not going to correct the feature film, because once you go down that path, where do you draw the line?"

Cameron did make some fixes to the Titanic Re-release. Although they're very subtle. One I did hear about was that he changed some of the starfield shots to reflect the alignments that would have been seen on the date the Titanic sank. Thought I heard about a couple of other ones, but I can't remember what they were offhand.

 

[Sam Posten]

In the middle of the program he says he is going to update the animation showing the sinking as they now think it happened, but "I'm not going to correct the feature film, because once you go down that path, where do you draw the line?"

Cameron did make some fixes to the Titanic Re-release. Although they're very subtle. One I did hear about was that he changed some of the starfield shots to reflect the alignments that would have been seen on the date the Titanic sank. Thought I heard about a couple of other ones, but I can't remember what they were offhand.

This was due to comments made by "That son of a bitch" Neil deGrasse Tyson:
http://news.discovery.com/space/neil-degrasse-tyson-tightens-titanic-accuracy-120402.html

 

[TravisR]

Well, the law, history, and reality aren't on your side here. But you -are- entitled to your opinion! I'll take Carlo's lead and bow out here too.

The law and history have no bearing in what I'm talking about. And feel free to leave me in my fantasy world where people with a Mac and editing software aren't considered artists because they've drawn all over someone else's work like they're a child with a coloring book rather going out and making their own work.