Broadcasters vs Producers on Content Integrity

mpawlo writes "I just did a quick write-up for Greplaw on an interesting pending law suit in Sweden. Two Swedish directors, Vilgot Sjoman and Anders Eriksson, are about to file a suit against Swedish broadcaster Tv 4. According to the author's rights or droit moral doctrine, the work may not be displayed or changed in a way degrading to the author or the author's work. Tv 4 has just changed its policy for commercial breaks. Breaks are now introduced during movies. The commercial breaks used to be placed between the end and start of a program. The directors argue the breaks are degrading from an artistical point of view. They want to try the commercial breaks in court from a copyright perspective."

Re:So in conclusion...

[rmohr02]

Well, that includes just about all TV producers in the US. But generally, sitcoms (if not dramas as well) switch between scenes frequently, and nearly all of those switches are good spots for commercial breaks.

How would it change...

[Flamesplash]

Note it's talking about a movie, which are usually not intended to have commercials in it, and not a regular tv show.

If the US did commercials like England I think our shows would be much different. At least half of all commercials in US TV merely act to delay a moment of suspense. The show leaves off and picks up at the exact same moment in this case. The commercials are not merely in between scenes, but there to entrap you to watch at least part of the commercials so that you don't miss the pick up.

How much different would our TV be without this? better? worse? the same?

This is about the director's control (i.e. money)

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Basically, this would mean that the TV execs would have to pay the director to wave his right for his movie to not be interupted by commercials. Otherwise, the movies would not be shown at all, and neither side wants that- particularly the director.

Re:Interesting..

[infornogr]

Sue for degrading the quality? Right, and I suppose it's the cable company's responsibility to provide me with a private movie theater and DVD-quality film. Believe it or not, some stations actually used to broadcast television over the airwaves and the quality would fluctuate with weather conditions and the positioning of metal objects on top of the TV set. I don't think sueing for a bad picture would hold up well in court. Nobody's forcing you to buy digital cable, anyways. If the cable company is actually promoting that the picture quality is superior, that's something different, but they're just claiming it has more channels and a "digital picture". Buyer beware.

TV programming exists only to sell advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole entire point of TV programming is to sell advertisements...period. It hasn't changed in 40+ years.

Anyone who licenses content to a TV station thinking they won't run ads during it is just plain stupid. The TV station doesn't give a crap- they'll run a film from a director who isn't a space case instead.

Re:The US Balance

[bobdotorg]

"The directors argue the breaks are degrading from an artistical point of view."

This concept is so foreign in the United States I'm not sure if anyone will get it.


Other than when we pay (in theater, premium channels on cable, renting movies) we Americans are rarely exposed to commercial free anything. And not just on television. There's advertising everywhere.

A few years ago I taught in Finland and was impresssed by the fact that the "Government office of whatever..." mandated that movies broadcast over (the peoples!!!) airwaves could only have one (two?) commercial break, had to be uncut, and with the exception of children's titles, had to be subtitled (the 'no cheesy dubbing' law). The subtitling provision even applies to theaters.

It was wonderful.

To any Europeans reading this post - can you imagine watching the mini-series version of Das Boot (running time over five hours) on American television - 20 minutes of commercials per hour would bring the running time to eight hours. Our (Americans') collective attention span is currently about eight seconds - I suspect that American television networks have played a large part in this. In addition, imagine watching a deep movie that is interrupted with a commercial that's narrative starts out with, "Painful, burning vaginal itch...." I'm not making this up - this is an actual commercial here that runs during prime time on national networks.

I feel a rant coming on, so I'll end with this - Europeans might not know the value of a law like this because they have not been exposed to the unrelenting onslaught of advertising that is American Television.
Americans might not know the value of a law like this because we have not been exposed to the bliss that is commercial free movies and sporting events. Well, except for the eight or ten of us who watched the World Cup.

microrant And God Dammit!!!! I had to stop watching the World Series last night (kept the sound on though) because of the fscking inserted ads right in the pitch trajectory - you MUST read the ad on every goddamn pitch, and it changes every half inning. FUCK I HATE THOSE THINGS.
/microrant

Sorry.

Integrity

[yar]

I have a question.

How does European law define "integrity?"
The term can be used to refer to the wholeness or completeness of a work, unaltered from its original state, or the term can be used to refer to moral (in this case, artistic) values. So EU copyright law applies to the author's artistic intent?

This brings up some of the same vagueness the term "authenticity" possesses.