Topher Grace Edits Star Wars Prequels

[JD]

Personally, I hope Lucas/Disney sues him.

 

[blewis17]

Personally, I hope Lucas/Disney sues him.

Why do you want that?

 

[JD]

Why do you want that?

Lots of reasons... they're not his to edit; I think it's an asinine thing to do - especially if you're publicizing it as he seems to be; I think it takes an incredible amount of ego to take someone else's work - without their permission - and make changes for the "better."

He's trying to capitalize on someone else's work. That just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Bigdaddy]

He's not the 1st fan to mess with SW footage, he just happens to be kind of famous. Personally I'm glad fans are willing to do it, otherwise I would still be stuck with the "special" edition that George wants us all to know as the "only" Star Wars.
Can George still sue anybody over this kind of thing? I would think that would be Disney's call now.

 

[dascoyne]

He's not the 1st fan to mess with SW footage, he just happens to be kind of famous. Personally I'm glad fans are willing to do it, otherwise I would still be stuck with the "special" edition that George wants us all to know as the "only" Star Wars.
Can George still sue anybody over this kind of thing? I would think that would be Disney's call now.

actually I think Disney would be more likely to take legal action than George. It seems that, in the past several years, George has been allowing just about anybody to play with the franchise without sticking them for fortunes in royalties ... e.g. Family Guy Star Wars series which even uses music from the film ... etc. I think the Disney Empire (pun intended) won't be as generous.

 

[dascoyne]

Not arguing, at all. I see where you are coming from, but students remake old masters all the time.

It's was assigned to us in art school, in almost every beginning class.

I learned recording, much in the same way. I picked something I was familiar with and tried to remake it.

Learned guitar the same way.

And in all cases, when I was done, I wrapped it up with a big ole "Look what I can do!"

I really think that's all this was.

Agreed.
It's a shame it got so much attention that folks made more of it than it really was.


I think I recall that Robert Rodriguez used to splice up old horror movies to make new films when he was young ... e.g. Invisible Man meets, say, the Bride of Frankenstein ... or something like that.

 

[JD]

The difference between you doing so in your bedroom, or even Robert Rodriguez doing it as a kid... is you're not a working actor (at the time), you're not going around publicizing it and getting attention because of it.

Comparing music/cover bands to chopping up someone else's movie and editing parts out of it that the creator of the original material felt was necessary are two different things.

Again, I hope Disney goes after him.

 

[Egon Spengler]

Big fricken deal. He put his own edit together and showed it to a closed audience. Did he make cash off it?

 

[Darth Lars]

Topher Grace is entitled to do anything he wants with the edit within what the copyright laws in the US defines as "fair use". He is allowed to edit it together with other movies, even p0rn if he would want to.
What he can not do is make copies of it for other people - and we have not seen that done, so there is no reason to throw **** at him.

 

[JD]

LOL, why the hostility towards me for having an opinion. If he deserves a C&D, I hope he gets one... if he continues to do this, sue him. You don't like my opinion - that's fine. But, my personal opinion is that he's already gone above and being "fair use" - I don't think fair use means taking someone's existing filmed movie and editing it to show off to any audience.

This isn't taping a television show to watch later, a parody or even sampling part of a song for a "new" song (which have been part of the "fair use" clause). This taking existing work, as it's creator intended it to be seen and altering it dramatically and then publicizing it - so, yes - I feel he does deserve to have four asterisks thrown at him. That's a very naive and cocky move - and I do feel he need to have something done to him about it.

Maybe he should edit himself out of Spider-Man 3 instead? Or help Ashton's career?

You like it - that's fine. I disagree.

 

[Wes R]

Well disney's nothing but money grubbing crap peddlers so i wouldn't be surprised if they'd go after him even if he'd never shown it to anyone.

 

[JD]

Well disney's nothing but money grubbing crap peddlers so i wouldn't be surprised if they'd go after him even if he'd never shown it to anyone.

It's their property and as I've already stated, I hope they do something about it. They're entitled to it, nothing wrong with protecting what's yours.

 

[dascoyne]

The difference between you doing so in your bedroom, or even Robert Rodriguez doing it as a kid... is you're not a working actor (at the time), you're not going around publicizing it and getting attention because of it.

Comparing music/cover bands to chopping up someone else's movie and editing parts out of it that the creator of the original material felt was necessary are two different things.

Again, I hope Disney goes after him.

Well I'm not as read on this issue as I ought to be, but is he actually going around publicizing it? I thought it was a private screening for selected folks, and it was those guests who went around shouting about it and doing write ups.

If he's publicly promoting it he probably ought to get slapped.

 

[JD]

Well I'm not as read on this issue as I ought to be, but is he actually going around publicizing it? I thought it was a private screening for selected folks, and it was those guests who went around shouting about it and doing write ups.

If he's publicly promoting it he probably ought to get slapped.

We've heard about it, haven't we? At the very least he's showing it to people (and that itself my violate fair use) who are talking about it.

 

[JoMamma_Smurf]

Ohhh lord JD... Really??

I personally want to see this. Ever since I first heard about it.

 

[dascoyne]

We've heard about it, haven't we? At the very least he's showing it to people (and that itself my violate fair use) who are talking about it.

Well let's distinguish legality from professional ethics.

From a legal standpoint I'm not certain he did anything that's clearly actionable. Let's consider difference between some film school student showing his edit to some buddies in a garage and a celebrity film school student showing his edit to some celebrity buddies in a rented venue. Unless he had garnished profit from this showing I don't see where the violation lies. There isn't a separate set of laws governing celebrities, last I checked.

But then there's a good deal of publicity behind it unlike any old film student's project. But, until there's evidence to state otherwise, I don't think we can presume that he initiated the rash of publicity. It may very well be the case that he encouraged friends in the industry to write about it but, even if that were the case, I don't see where one can make the case for damages about something that's not going to be publicly accessible.

I mean, what would a "cease and desist" letter from Disney actually say? I'm at a loss.

Legalities aside, now let's discuss professional ethics. In this instance I think a case might be made for impropriety. The difference between a film student and this person is that his celebrity status does place him in the entertainment industry and, as a performer, he ought to recognize that his position comes with the privilege of ready access to media attention and publicity. If he knowingly disseminated details about his edits through his friends/resources in the industry, and if such information had the capacity to besmirch the franchise in any perceptible way then I would state that he is guilty of professional impropriety, even if it's not legally actionable. In that case Disney can send a couple of goons to "Roger Rabbit" his ass.

 

[JD]

You're obviously more well versed in fair use law than I am. I certainly used the word "may" (well, I meant to... darn typo) and meant my statement to reflect more on a public performance which I know depends on the number of folks he's showed this to... seeing that it is getting publicity, it seems that it's been shown to a number of folks now. But, I don't know that... hence "may violate." I don't think showing a profit from showing really applies, I think just showing it to what's considered a public audience does (and from what I understand, that's determined by the number of people).

Yes, his (cough) celebrity status may have given this more publicity than a college student showing a friend or two. But, that's what happens when you're in the public eye. Obviously, Mr. Grace isn't just a film student - he's put his edit out there for some people to see and those people are talking about it. He can't control what folks say about it, but he can control who he shows it to.

What could a C&D say? Stop showing people edits of our films might be a start.

I'm not a lawyer - I just know how I feel about something personally and I'm not giving Disney (or anyone) legal advise. I hope they go after him, do they have grounds to? That's above my pay grade.

 

[dascoyne]

Obviously, Mr. Grace isn't just a film student - he's put his edit out there for some people to see and those people are talking about it. He can't control what folks say about it, but he can control who he shows it to.

Looks like he did. It was "invitation only", no?

What could a C&D say? Stop showing people edits of our films might be a start.

Was the showing open to the general public or was it a private screening?

Last I heard this was an "invitation only" affair. And that's a crucial difference. It seems more and more like a fella showing his edits to associates.

As long as it's a private screening they can spend the evening watching animated Little Mermaid porn, if they wanted.

I don't fault you for being offended, but that doesn't make it an actionable offense.

 

[JD]

Looks like he did. It was "invitation only", no?

Was the showing open to the general public or was it a private screening?

Last I heard this was an "invitation only" affair. And that's a crucial difference. It seems more and more like a fella showing his edits to associates.

Nope. The way I understand it - and I'm sure you'll correct me if you find something otherwise, any performance with a "substantial number" of viewers may not be allowed under fair use. That's why you get warnings prior to home movie releases.

The best I can find is from Columbia University who states:

Allowed: Performing a work privately, and not publicly
A performance may not be “public” if the place is closed to the public, and the audience is not a “substantial” number of persons. Therefore:


The smaller the viewing group, the less likely it will be a public performance.
Gathering a large group of friends or using a common room in a residence hall can make the performance “public."
Open invitations and announcements to the public can make a performance “public.”

Now, technically... this is still a Star Wars film not owned by Grace despite him taking liberties with someone else's work... so that it should still be subject to that aspect (I guess that would be subject to debate, too). Also, other universities seem to have similar policies and this seems to a policy to avoid other things... but, I think this applies under that scope.

As long as it's a private screening they can spend the evening watching animated Little Mermaid porn, if they wanted.

Not if its copyrighted they can't.

I don't fault you for being offended, but that doesn't make it an actionable offense.

Again, I hope Disney sues him. Not saying it's actionable (and I still do think parts of this are)... I'm sure Disney lawyers, if they wanted to, could keep him busy for a while regardless if it's actionable or even worth their while. OJ Simpson was found not guilty... still doesn't mean I don't think he should be serving time for those murders.

 

[Bigdaddy]

C&D for this? By the same ethical standards everyone here creating a "replica" prop with any artistic changes, has done the same thing Grace did with the PT. I don't have much of an opinion about the guy, (and Spiderman 3 sucked with or without him ) regardless of his celebrity status (or lack there of) I see this the same as the Adywan edits or the "de-specialized" OT. Anyway you slice it I don't see GL or Disney giving a crap about it, the world is too litigious already.