Oh! Those R-Rated Movies

One of our history teachers has asked if we could purchase an edited version of the film The Patriot for classroom use. He found a Web site called Family Safe Media (shop.store.yahoo.com/familysafemedia/editedvideos.html), which resells videos after editing them for sex, nudity, violence, and language. This does not sound like a business that is copyright compliant. Frankly, if you edit all of the above out of The Patriot, I'm not sure there will be much left to watch.
—Cheri Estes Media Specialist Detroit Country Day Middle School, Beverly Hills, MI

I have received several calls from Librarians about businesses like Family Safe Media that sell "edited for content" videos. At least two aspects of the copyright law are touched upon here—the right to create a derivative work based on the original (an exclusive right of copyright) and the first-sale doctrine (an exemption to the exclusive right of distribution). First, it is questionable whether it is lawful for a business to edit videos without permission from the copyright holders and then sell them to customers. In fact, the Directors Guild of America and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have threatened to sue these companies, arguing that Family Safe Media cannot make derivative works without their permission. These "edited for content" companies, MPAA argues, are exploiting the market for its creative work. Filmmakers are also concerned about "artistic integrity"; they do not want their works presented in ways they never intended.

Can libraries be held liable when they purchase edited films from video outlets like Family Safe Media? No, assuming that the library does not know that the videos are illegal copies. Thus far, a court has not ruled on the legality of editing videos without permission, so we have no judicial opinion to advise us.

Although not legal advice, I believe it's OK for libraries and school districts to edit videos for content. Why? Because the first-sale doctrine says that once a person has acquired a lawful copy of a work, that person can do whatever he wants with the individual copy. For example, libraries can loan copies of books and sell unwanted volumes at their annual book sales. Anyone can buy a copy of a book and cross out all of the foul language and not violate the copyright law. I think the difference between libraries and companies editing videos is the effect it has on the marketplace. The "edit for content" enterprises are actively engaged in the motion picture marketplace. Libraries and school districts are not.

Districts sometimes have strict rules governing videos purchased by their libraries, requiring librarians to delete all R-rated information. Librarians often find themselves stuck with having to follow their districts' policies even though they are concerned about violating copyright laws and students' First Amendment rights. That said, I have heard that there are products, such as MovieShield and ClearPlay, that can filter the content of DVDs while they are being viewed. The actual DVD is not altered; the technology simply skips or bleeps out the "bad parts."

In any case, if a library or school district chooses to edit its own copy of a video or use a filtering device, I suggest that the videotape or DVD be labeled accordingly—something like "this video has been altered for content." I also think that before teachers show a doctored video to their classes, they should inform students that the film has been edited. Nothing in the copyright law says that they must do these things, but I think it is the ethical thing to do, and students should be aware that parts of the video have been censored. This is a tough issue for librarians, because it cuts so close to our professional values like free speech. Librarians and school media specialists have a responsibility to openly discuss these concerns with their teachers, principals, and school boards, and to be engaged in policy development. After all, we know what we're talking about!