Director Of New Moon Says Jailing Of Girl For Snippets Of Video Of His Movie Is 'Terribly Unfair'

from the it-is,-isn't-it? dept

Thu, Dec 10th 2009 9:29am — Mike Masnick

While he has no official say in the matter, it is still worth noting that Chris Weitz, the director of the movie New Moon has said that he thinks it's "terribly unfair" that a 22-year-old girl was jailed and now faces felony charges because her attempt to film some of her sister's birthday celebration caught less than four minutes of New Moon on her video camera (found via Copycense). Weitz is not the copyright holder and has no real say in what happens, but he does note that he's talking to Summit Entertainment, the studio who made the film, to let them know of his concerns, to see if there's anything that can be done.

Of course, what should be done is that the law should be changed so we don't have these ridiculous situations at all. And hopefully he would stand behind such a proposal. In the meantime, it's just yet another in a long line of examples of the law creating punishment that is way out of proportion with the "crime" when it comes to copyright and copying of content.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: camcording, chris weitz, copyright, felony, jailing, new moon
Companies: summit entertainment

53 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

senshikaze (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:42am

so there are people in hollywood that aren't souless copyright nazi's? im am utterly shocked and amazed.

I am sure i just saw a squadron of flying pigs and a fissure opening in the ground with snow coming out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:46am

"snippets"? Talk about downplaying the 4 or 5 minutes that are apparently on camera.

WTG Mike!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:49am

Re:
4 to 5 minutes of a movie is a very small portion. The movie runs for 2 hours 2 minutes. That is 182 minutes. 5/182 is less then .028. That is less then 2.8% of the movie. Practically nothing, yet she has jail time and felony charges.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Headbhang, 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:51am

Re:
Oh yeah, I wonder why people bother to make 90+ minutes of movie when all you need is 4-5 of it to steal it and destroy your profits. Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Call me Al, 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:54am

4 or 5 minutes is nothing and to jail someone for this is absolutely ridiculous.

Even if various people aren't willing to amend copyright laws there should still be a more common sense approach to these things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:57am

Wait until 24 songs will get you 24 years consecutively ....
It seems that we are getting to the point where we will be "getting tough" on piracy, turning civil cases into criminal. With a felony theft being around $2,500 in most states, imagine how much time $80,000 x 24 worth of music will get you ....

.... welcome to the wonderful world of IP maximalism, and have a nice stay
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kyle clements (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:05am

Good for him! I'm glad to see common sense is not completely dead, it's just extremely uncommon.

This is why I oppose restrictive copyright laws. This should be an obvious case of fair use. I think a plaintiff should be required to establish that infringement is not fair use before even contacting the defendant to stop cases like this. Even if the defendant 'wins' they wind up with a massive lawyer fee.

Now lets wait for the trolls to appear, set up the 'guy-on-the-street selling bootlegs' straw man, argue that we are all freeloading pirate lovers, and this case is no different than large scale for-profit piracy.

Why is quoting text not only perfectly acceptable, but required for academic writing, but quoting snippets of TV, music, or film for a video of your own is automatically assumed to be infringement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:06am

Of course it's terribly unfair.
But since when has the outhouse basement called Hollywood cared about "fair"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jayfree666, 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:29am

Re:
5 minutes of movie that has like 6 minutes of good content is about 83%, hardly something that can be ignored!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lobo Santo's Ugly Cat, 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:31am

Re:
Kyle, it isn't an obvious case of fair use - you just shouldn't have a video camera in a movie theater, simple as that. There is not fair use here. Please learn what the term really means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:41am

Re: Re: Fair use
Considering that the movie was in the background while she was filming her sisters birthday party I think there is a reasonably compelling arguement that it isn't use at all. Having a blank wall in the background would not have materially affected the content of the video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Deanjo, 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:43am

Re: Re:
"The movie runs for 2 hours 2 minutes. That is 182 minutes."

Not sure where you live but an hour is 60 minutes here there for the length of the movie is 122 minutes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:44am

I emailed Muvico to tell them I was gonna boycott them. Got this bland statement back:
MUVICO’S OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO CAMCORDING INCIDENT AT MUVICO ROSEMONT 18

The unauthorized video recording of a motion picture while it is being exhibited in a movie theater is illegal under federal law and under the laws of more than forty states, including the State of Illinois. According to a study commissioned by the Motion Picture Association of America, illegal film piracy costs the movie industry billions of dollars each year, and illegal camcording in movie theaters is the source of over 90% of all illegally copied movies in their initial release form.

In order to combat the increasing theft of copyrighted films, the motion picture industry has encouraged theater owners to adopt a “zero-tolerance” policy prohibiting the video or audio recording of any portion of a movie. Specifically, theater managers are instructed to alert law enforcement authorities whenever they suspect illegal activity. Theater managers have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether a crime has been committed. Law enforcement professionals determine what laws may have been broken and what enforcement action should be taken. It is then up to prosecutorial discretion to determine the seriousness of any charges that might be leveled.

In our continuing effort to educate our guests about the illegality of film piracy, Muvico prominently places a number of posters and signs within its theaters alerting moviegoers of its “zero-tolerance” policy with respect to the camcording of films in its auditoriums.

Beatriz E. Gerdts
Administrative Assistant

------------------------------------

Nice and bland. Effectively says "Not our fault, blame the law...."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
william (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:47am

Re:
It's a snippet for crying out loud.

Let me take 1 min segments 4 times every 1/2 hour during the movie to "pirate" it and then sell you for a few bucks.

Would you buy? Would you EVEN download that?

Not to mention it probably only have 50-25% of the movie screen since she's filming her sister, not the movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:48am

Re: Re:
You shouldn't have a video camera in a dressing room, but a movie theater? Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CHrisM, 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:53am

Shouldn't crap
@Lobo Santo's Ugly Cat "you just shouldn't have a video camera in a movie theater, simple as that." -
What a crock.. we live in a so called free society, its probably not wise for me to wave a camera around in a cinema but saying I "shouldn't" is pure crap.. I am innocent until they prove that I have done something illegal...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mjb5406 (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:54am

Yep... good ol Rosemont Illinois... and the Movico theater acted like the rest of the thugs in that suburb of Chicago. Someone should shove a sie 13 boot up the theater manager's behind... of course, he's probably on the "unofficial" city payroll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mjb5406 (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:56am

Re: I emailed Muvico to tell them I was gonna boycott them. Got this bland statement back:
Notice that they lay the blame squarely on the MPAA... and never acknowledge that they have any responsibility.

At least you got a response. I emailed them and it was ignored. Maybe it's time we set up pickets outside their theater.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mjb5406 (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:58am

Another act of civil disobedience?
Maybe we could organize a large group of people (maybe 100 or so) to march into the theater and brandish their cell phones, taking video clips of the movies there... then see how many cops show up to haul us to jail. The Rosemont Police don't have a force that big, and the police they do have are specialists in handling traffic, not something like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 11:11am

Re: Re: Re:
Your right, my bad wasn't thinking correctly. It comes to just over 4% with the correction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Will (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 11:12am

Re: Re:
Who is to say the 5 minutes she got was part of the 6 good minutes of the movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damion, 10 Dec 2009 @ 11:25am

yet another example of how the industries not willing to evolve with technology has brought harm to the otherwise innoscent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comboman (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 11:29am

Re:
Fair Use or not doesn't matter since this isn't a case of copyright infringement (which would be a civil case). She is charged with "camcordering in a theater" which is a criminal offense, so even if fair use would apply to the resulting infringement it doesn't help her in the criminal case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 11:32am

Re: Re:
Except that the location has nothing to do with fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bRUcE, 10 Dec 2009 @ 11:42am

hmmm, isn't the law written to jail those who have criminal intent to break it with disregard? I havent seen the video...however, if only 4-5 minutes was captured during a birthday celebration....somehow that does not show criminal intent. We all incidentally break laws without meaning to, thats life! But, I was always under the impression that we makes laws to punish those who break them with criminal intent, disregard or recklessness.

Honestly its not the law that needs changing, but perhaps law enforcers who do not know how to use good judgement. We all know what the copyright laws are intented to do. Arresting a girl for capturing 4-5 minutes of a movie during a birthday party IS NOT WHAT IT WAS INTENTED TO DO!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DocMenach (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 11:48am

Re: Re:
you just shouldn't have a video camera in a movie theater, simple as that. There is not fair use here. Please learn what the term really means.

Really? Well, can I have my phone in the theatre? Most phones now have video cameras built in. How about my iPod? The new iPods have video cameras too.

Legal Dictionary Definition of Fair Use: "A use of copyrighted material that does not constitute an infringement of the copyright provided the use is fair and reasonable and does not substantially impair the value of the work or the profits expected from it by its owner"

Lets see, incidentally capturing a few minutes of a movie in the background. Sure sounds to me like a fair and reasonable use of the material, and would not substantially impair the value of the work or profits expected from it. It sounds like YOU are the one who needs to learn what the term really means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 11:52am

Re: Re: Re:
C'mon, with all the sparkly vampires the camera probably only shows a white splotch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 11:53am

It's not even copyright infringement!
She isn't even being charged with copyright infringement because there was no copyright infringement. She was charged with a bogus law that shouldn't even exist "criminal use of a motion picture exhibition".

She would have to violate one of the grants of copyright (such as distribution) to have committed copyright infringement. She has done nothing that should be against the law even in the land of overbearing copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:00pm

Re: Re:
I'll just add this attitude of the movie industry to the list of reasons why I do not go see movies in the theaters anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Old Coot, 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:08pm

The Real Crime
The real crime was being rude in a theater. Unless they bought out all the seats for her sister's party, I think it would have spoiled the movie going experience of those who came to see that steaming pile...erm I mean, cinematic masterpiece?

Anyway, if I was trying to enjoy a movie, and some group of folks were being loud and obnoxious brandishing video cameras and having a "fun time" I would have given a standing ovation to the police as they were carted away...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:14pm

Re: The Real Crime
I believe someone mentioned in the previous post that that movie theater actually has separate rooms for parties that look into room where the movie is playing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:25pm

Yes, they rent out the entire room. It would have taken you less time to look it up than write your rant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:26pm

There is only 4 minutes recorded
For the simple reason that she got caught in that amount of time.

come on, what the fuck do you need a movie camera in a movie theater for?

If your taking movies, YOU ARE RUINING WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO. Whatch the fucking movie. Sit down bitch, shut the fuck up, and turn off the god damnc camera. If I appera ANYWHERE in your movie, I will shove the camera up your sweet ass and then slam dunk you out the door. She deserves to go to jail. For all the above reasons along with the charge.

You people are pitiful.

fucking idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vyvyan, 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:41pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's now 4 minutes of movie. It's four minutes of total video with some movie and some pre-movie commercials.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vyvyan, 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah I forgot to remind that four minutes also contain the b'day celebration. Which, I guess, will be comprise most part of video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:57pm

Re:
Common sense has no place in these days of "Zero Tolerance" polices and "Think of the children" grandstanding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm, 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:59pm

"Theater managers have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether a crime has been committed. "...

1) I think some theater managers should SUE for libel, for claiming they have fake credentials when some of them DO have the expertise........

2) The RIAA doesn't have the expertise not the authority to decide whether a crime has been committed...it just lives in a fantasy world where it BELIEVES it does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 1:03pm

Re: There is only 4 minutes recorded
Well, I'm convinced. I am an idiot and pitiful. Thank you for showing the error in my ways.

Should people go to jail for being rude? Did the incident take place in the bulk of the theatre or in a private "party" room?

Either way, I am glad to know I am a pitiful fucking idiot.

Thanks for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 1:12pm

Re: The Real Crime
You don't have to buy every seat. You can book a theatre for a birthday party with the assumption that your party will be during the off-period of the day, when sales are expected to be slow. No indication that was the case, but it's a fair assumption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 10 Dec 2009 @ 1:13pm

Re: Re: There is only 4 minutes recorded
You said it dick head. You must feel guilty for how many times you have ruined other peoples movie experience because of your rude ways.

Maybe we should just kick your fucking ass next time instead of having you arrested. I like that idea better anyway.

f.o.a.d.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 1:17pm

Re: There is only 4 minutes recorded
Why do people get so pissed off about movies? There are two things that people in the US get pissed off about; traffic and theaters. Someone could rip the back wall off of a house and they just have to pay for it, but hell comes to those who swerve in traffic or talk during a movie.

Or you know, dan, you could have seen that they did rent out the room so they wouldn't interrupt anyone.

That's a good idea, I'll have to see if our theater will let me rent out a room for a birthday party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: Re: There is only 4 minutes recorded
Regardless of where she was standing when videoing this movie, i.e in a private room, or in the main auditorium, she was not arrested for being a jerk. If that were a crimal offense, you'd have been thrown in prison after your first post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CastorTroy-Libertarian, 10 Dec 2009 @ 1:40pm

Re: There is only 4 minutes recorded
Wait a tick, if being rude is jailable, would some one please track this guy, i find it rude and offensive to be labeled the way he did...

what do you think of that there sunshine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chronoss, 10 Dec 2009 @ 1:57pm

HOw about he offer to pay her legal fees
and make up for what his film has done to her rather then the proverbial OH GEE isn't that sad i'm sorry , are you ok now?

Like go see her in jail to see what your film and industry are doing to the world buddy

he wont its prolly his publicist saying you better say somehting rather then sincere
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Urza9814, 10 Dec 2009 @ 3:12pm

Re: Re:
But see, here's the thing - it's a CRIMINAL case they're doing here. Not civil, criminal.

What you are in effect saying is that if I invite you into my house and you pull your car keys out of your pocket, I can call the police and have you thrown in jail because I don't think you should have your car keys in my house. Right?

Yes, it's private property. If they want to kick out anyone who brings in a camera they can. But saying it should be a _felony_ is nothing more than a complete perversion of the rule of law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 3:17pm

Re: There is only 4 minutes recorded
Im guessing you didnt read that she rented out a private room where she would not have ruined your time or anyone elses. You're the fucking idiot, stupid illiterate bastard!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 3:26pm

Watching the Twilight Franchise is reason enough to be jailed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:49pm

Re: There is only 4 minutes recorded
"If I appera ANYWHERE in your movie, I will shove the camera up your sweet ass and then slam dunk you out the door. She deserves to go to jail." Hmmm.. So you think a girl who films you deserves to go to jail, right after you do an "assault and battery" on her? Does anyone else see the irony of this post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dementia (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:55pm

Re: I emailed Muvico to tell them I was gonna boycott them. Got this bland statement back:
And on top of everything else, the response is from an administrative assistant. Since when did administrative assistants become spokespeople for a theater company?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JeroenW (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:15pm

Don't whine, it's your own fault
After all, you guys created your political system where special interest groups have way too much influence.

Add to that 8 years of facist rule under bush the younger and this is what you get.

To be honest, I wouldn't have been surprised if she'd been sentenced to the stocks in the nearest mega-mall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 12:39am

Re:
IIRC, Weitz has stated he's tired of the Hollywood game and is considering quitting after his next movie. Common sense is apparently not an asset there...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mjb5406 (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 8:31am

Common Sense Prevails!
The case ws thrown out in court today in Rolling Meadows, IL. According to the defendant's attorney, it seems that the MPAA is offering a reward to theaters for having such "heinous criminals" arrested, so that explains the overzealous theater chain. Movico got itself a whole bunch of bad publicity, and now pribably a civil suit to boot, since the woman spent 2 nights in jail and at least $3,500 to defend herself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mjb5406 (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 8:32am

Re: Re: I emailed Muvico to tell them I was gonna boycott them. Got this bland statement back:
The title may just be a smokescreen to over her ass (I assume it's a female that responded).
[ link to this | view in thread ]