George Lucas - On the preservation of original film releases (1988)

[Dangelus]

Yes, he said it!! Lol

Original article here: http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagainstspecialedition.html



"My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.
I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.
The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.
A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.
People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.
These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.
In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.
There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.
I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.
I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.
The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.
There are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of "The Maltese Falcon?" Why are films cut up and butchered?
Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.
I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art--as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities."

[Bryancd]

Well, to be fair, Dan, what he is referring to is alterations to films that are not done by their creator but a thrd party. He is actually defending that it's his and his right only to alter his own creation, not someone elses.

[Dangelus]

Well, to be fair, Dan, what he is referring to is alterations to films that are not done by their creator but a thrd party. He is actually defending that it's his and his right only to alter his own creation, not someone elses.

He goes further than that, talking about preserving cultural heritage and criticising copyright holders for not preserving the work that they control.

[Bryancd]

"The work they control" is his own work. He clearly reatins the right of the creator to do whatever he wishes to his own work. And STAR WARS is his work and he's free to do with it what he will.

[Dangelus]

"The work they control" is his own work. He clearly reatins the right of the creator to do whatever he wishes to his own work. And STAR WARS is his work and he's free to do with it what he will.

Well yes nobody is disputing this but in this speech it does imply (at least to me) that he is making the argument that the work shouldn't be tampered with by anybody.

I don't know, after reading this I'd be rolling my CGI eyeballs if I were an Ewok! ;)

[Feathers]

I think it's his use of the term '"Original" negative'. Lucas can do what he likes with Star Wars but there was only one original negative ever made.

Of course, I'm fairly sure that that isn't what he means by "original" in this context, but it's a compelling interpretation.

[Bryancd]

I think it's his use of the term '"Original" negative'. Lucas can do what he likes with Star Wars but there was only one original negative ever made.

And if it's the Original negative of any STAR WARS film it's still his to with as he pleases per copyright law.

[Dangelus]

You won't find anyone argue against that statement but in this speech Lucas is arguing for the preservation of the original negative of works of art (movies in this case) for historical and cultural reasons. I suppose this wouldn't necessarily mean it would have to be made publically available and I'm sure Lucas has the original prints meticulously preserved so technically he may not be contradicting himself. That being said I can see how some people might think he is.

[Bryancd]

It seems he is refering to original copies that are now outside the immediate control of the copyright holder, be it through piracy, death of the creator, ect.

[Dangelus]

It seems he is refering to original copies that are now outside the immediate control of the copyright holder, be it through piracy, death of the creator, ect.

He is talking about copyright holders who were not the original creators yes but he does say:

"A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.
People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race."

Open to interpretation.....

[Jobydrone]

It seems ironic on the surface (to say the least) which was certainly pointed out and taken advantage of by the creators of savestarwars.com, but I think Bryan is correct in his interpretation.

Let's say Da Vinci, 20 years after finishing the Mona Lisa, decided to go back to an old print and add horns and a moustache.  No one would deny him his right to do such a thing, but would it still be considered the Mona Lisa when he was done?  That is open to interpretation.  If some dude came by 200 years later and did the same thing it certainly wouldn't be the Mona Lisa, and I think that's what Lucas is saying here.

[Dangelus]

Love the example Joby! :)

[Feathers]

I get the full legalities of it all Bryan, I just see the irony of the words when taken literally. (It's what I do. It drives my wife mad I think.)

[Bryancd]

LOL!

Yeah, I think "reverts to public domain" assumes the death of the creator. When GL croaks, it would be wrong to alter the films.

[Rico]

I have heard many interviews with George over the years.  He has most certainly changed his tune many times on several things with regards to "Star Wars", and film making in general.  Of course, people have the right to change their minds and opinions.  But be careful when you think he hasn't said one thing and done another later on.