If you don't like the X-wing analogy then imagine altering a book:
"I have this book for sale, used condition. A few pages are missing so I have included copies of those pages. The replacement pages may have slightly different content from the original book, as they were re-typed from memory."
No different in principle.
Actually, it's a bit different. If we're talking about fan edits of the SEs -- either to return them to as-close-to-OOT-as-possible status, or to simply present one's personal take -- that's actually what would be considered a "derivative work." You can sell or give away your copy of the SE DVDs if you want. There's nothing wrong with that. You're basically just transferring your license. What you can't do is make a copy of the licensed product, nor sell or give away an altered version (derivative work) of that licensed product.
Making the copy
in and of itself is actually infringement. One of the exclusive rights for copyright holders is the right to
copy. That's a distinct, and separate right from the right to
distribute. There's a provision of the copyright act which, if memory serves, applies to audio recordings and software that basically says you can make a backup copy for your own personal use. But without that provision, ANY act of copying is infringement. Even if you never distribute that copy. Now, practically speaking, a rightsholder would have a hard time making the case that they've been damaged by the copying, but they could still get statutory damages, potentially, meaning they don't have to prove that they were actually harmed by your actions -- merely that you infringed their rights.
The book scenario is different because it'd probably fall within the realm of "fair use," which is another separate section of the Copyright Act itself. And in that case, your copying would be of
only the damaged pages, rather than the work as a whole. The amount of the work copied is one part of the test for fair use, along with the purposes for which you infringed (e.g. commercial vs. non-commercial). Also, each prong of the four-part test is given equal weight by courts.
It's not stealing if the reseller is buying another copy of the original for each altered one sold.
My point is that it doesn't matter if it's "stealing." We aren't talking about theft here. We're talking about copyright and copyright infringement. Copyright law is defined by specific legislation -- the 1976 Copyright Act, and its subsequent amendments -- which is interpreted by reams of caselaw out there. It's not a simple matter of "well, logically..." The specific rights and remedies that copyright holders have are outlined in law, and that law is ultimately designed to provide incentives to people to keep creating copyrightable works. Towards that end, the provisions of the law go well beyond basic concepts of "theft," in no small part because we're dealing with intellectual property rather than physical objects.
This is not just a hypothetical arguing point. This has been happening in the real world. There is some Christian business that has been doing exactly this: Re-editing popular movies to make G-rated versions for reselling. But they have been very careful & clear about purchasing another copy of each movie for each re-edited copy that they resell. So it cannot be argued that they are depriving the filmmakers of any sales.
That may be the case, but without knowing more of the facts, it's difficult to say whether they're infringing. It could be that these works are in the public domain. Or it could be that they've obtained a license from the rightsholder to do this. OR it could be that they're infringing and the original rightsholders simply aren't aware of the infringement. To me, it sounds like that'd be infringement, although I'm not sure if a court has weighed in on that fact pattern or anything similar to it. I also don't think that'd be protected under "fair use," merely because they aren't depriving the filmmakers of sales.
One thing you have to keep in mind about copyright law is that it's mostly policed by the rightsholders. They have to be aware of an infringement and try to do something about it before anyone gets sued. So, the fact that various infringers are getting away with infringing doesn't necessarily mean anything other than that the rightsholder isn't aware of the infringement. In some cases, rightsholders turn a blind eye to the infringement (e.g., this entire hobby), but in others it's really just because they don't know about it yet. I wouldn't look at this Christian company you're talking about as a model for why it's legal to make Star Wars fan edits. Bottom line: it isn't legal. Fan edits, Despecialized Editions, etc., none of it's legal.
Note: I'm only talking about
legalities here. I'm not addressing the issue of the
morality of copying, restoring, re-editing, etc. We can argue in circles forever about the morality of this stuff, but the legalities are pretty clear.
.
