.
In the Colmax edit ['Femmes Lib?r?es'] Katalyn Hoffner masturbates with
what I think is Barbie-doll; rhis is for some reason pixelated and I wondered
if anyone could tell me whether the original version is the same. I don't think
it's some weird 'Barbie-censorship' thing as film-posters on the wall [e.g.
one of Jim Morrison in 'the Doors'] and other features of the bedroom are
treated to a similar 'water-ripple' effect which obscures their fine detail.
It's quite the oddest thing I've ever seen in a porno [and that's saying
something....]. I can't imagine what the point of it could be.
Giovent? Bruciata
Giovent? Bruciata
"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
signification...."
Re: Giovent? Bruciata
I have seen the same version.
I surmise the pixilation has to do with the question of "unfair" or "unathorized" use of a patened article.
Parody is one thing, but use of something without the formal consent of its copyright owner is another. You surely must have seen over the last few years lawsuits and threats of lawsuits taken up by various personalities (singers, actors) or their estates whose likeness or songs have been used without their consent.
You may recall some time back, a scene in GANGBANG GIRL 20 was shot in a Harley Davidson bike shop. That movie took a lot of heat and I believe it was either temporarily or permanently withdrawn.
The "Barbie" doll in question falls in that category. In commercial parlance it is known as "licensing". If you want to sell T-shirts with a big Batman logo on it, you have to talk to the Warner Bros people and get their permission and if granted you have to pay them a fee for that license. Heard of Star Wars toys and trinkets, and toys that summer box office hits engender???
With regards to this movie, why the producers/director would have used the easily recognizable doll in the first place and then to pixilate it is another. Surely they knew they were wading in dangerous territory...
I surmise the pixilation has to do with the question of "unfair" or "unathorized" use of a patened article.
Parody is one thing, but use of something without the formal consent of its copyright owner is another. You surely must have seen over the last few years lawsuits and threats of lawsuits taken up by various personalities (singers, actors) or their estates whose likeness or songs have been used without their consent.
You may recall some time back, a scene in GANGBANG GIRL 20 was shot in a Harley Davidson bike shop. That movie took a lot of heat and I believe it was either temporarily or permanently withdrawn.
The "Barbie" doll in question falls in that category. In commercial parlance it is known as "licensing". If you want to sell T-shirts with a big Batman logo on it, you have to talk to the Warner Bros people and get their permission and if granted you have to pay them a fee for that license. Heard of Star Wars toys and trinkets, and toys that summer box office hits engender???
With regards to this movie, why the producers/director would have used the easily recognizable doll in the first place and then to pixilate it is another. Surely they knew they were wading in dangerous territory...
Re: Giovent? Bruciata
I have seen the same version.
I surmise the pixilation has to do with the question of "unfair" or "unauthorized" use of a patened article.
Parody is one thing, but use of something without the formal consent of its copyright owner is another. You surely must have seen over the last few years lawsuits and threats of lawsuits taken up by various personalities (singers, actors) or their estates whose likeness or songs have been used without their consent.
You may recall some time back, a scene in Anabolic<s GANGBANG GIRL 20 was shot in a Harley Davidson bike shop. That movie took a lot of heat and I believe it was either temporarily or permanently withdrawn.
The "Barbie" doll in question falls in that category. In commercial parlance it is known as "licensing" or "product placement". If you want to sell T-shirts with a big Batman logo on it, you have to talk to the Warner Bros people and get their permission and if granted you have to pay them a fee for that license. Heard of "Star Wars" toys and trinkets, and toys that summer box office hits engender???
With regards to this movie, why the producers/director would have used the easily recognizable doll in the first place and then to pixilate it is another. Surely they knew they were wading in dangerous territory...
I surmise the pixilation has to do with the question of "unfair" or "unauthorized" use of a patened article.
Parody is one thing, but use of something without the formal consent of its copyright owner is another. You surely must have seen over the last few years lawsuits and threats of lawsuits taken up by various personalities (singers, actors) or their estates whose likeness or songs have been used without their consent.
You may recall some time back, a scene in Anabolic<s GANGBANG GIRL 20 was shot in a Harley Davidson bike shop. That movie took a lot of heat and I believe it was either temporarily or permanently withdrawn.
The "Barbie" doll in question falls in that category. In commercial parlance it is known as "licensing" or "product placement". If you want to sell T-shirts with a big Batman logo on it, you have to talk to the Warner Bros people and get their permission and if granted you have to pay them a fee for that license. Heard of "Star Wars" toys and trinkets, and toys that summer box office hits engender???
With regards to this movie, why the producers/director would have used the easily recognizable doll in the first place and then to pixilate it is another. Surely they knew they were wading in dangerous territory...
Re: Giovent? Bruciata
Sorry, my PC is causing me problems and it blocked when I tried to post the message. It got duplicated in error, and if administrators with to deleted the first at 23:26 it would be fine with me.i
Re: Giovent? Bruciata
Ok- but it still doesn't explain the 'water'-effect superimposed upon the
film-posters, does it? Did Oliver Stone also threaten to sue, on the grounds
of unauthorised use of one for 'The Doors'?
And to be honest I think Mattel or whoever makes Barbie, even had they
deigned to notice a Euro porn-flick at all, would have gone for deletion of the
entire sequence- if I could identify the product used despite the pixelation,
anyone could: and so it would have been argued in court.
film-posters, does it? Did Oliver Stone also threaten to sue, on the grounds
of unauthorised use of one for 'The Doors'?
And to be honest I think Mattel or whoever makes Barbie, even had they
deigned to notice a Euro porn-flick at all, would have gone for deletion of the
entire sequence- if I could identify the product used despite the pixelation,
anyone could: and so it would have been argued in court.
"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
signification...."
Re: Giovent? Bruciata
Jeff, I am not a lawyer, and I can't adequately comment on the various points you have raised.
A poster on a wall, which is not being used for any type of sexual activity, is a lot less offensive than a famous toy which is being used for sexual "purposes" not intended by its manufacturer and rights holders.
Aside from the case I mentioned about the unauthorized use of the Harley Davisdon name and bike dealership, there have been other contentious use of copyright material: Desireau Cousteau starred in a spoof of a female "superwoman" (that WAS the original title of the movie), and Warner Bros sued or threatened to sue, and they had to change the film title and posters of the ,movie. DEBBIE DOES DALLAS (1978) also got into a lot of trouble because of the cheerleader name and (copyrighted) cheerleader uniform used in the film.
The questuion is, even if the Barbie doll, is easily identifiable through the pixilation process, would Mattel want to give this little known hardcore film unwanted publicity by suing or threathening to sue the producers of this movie (if you could find them or even locate their assets). Often they just leave such things alone, and Harley Davidson's suit against Anabolic for the bike shop use was a truly odd one, especially when you consider who makes use of these bikes!
A poster on a wall, which is not being used for any type of sexual activity, is a lot less offensive than a famous toy which is being used for sexual "purposes" not intended by its manufacturer and rights holders.
Aside from the case I mentioned about the unauthorized use of the Harley Davisdon name and bike dealership, there have been other contentious use of copyright material: Desireau Cousteau starred in a spoof of a female "superwoman" (that WAS the original title of the movie), and Warner Bros sued or threatened to sue, and they had to change the film title and posters of the ,movie. DEBBIE DOES DALLAS (1978) also got into a lot of trouble because of the cheerleader name and (copyrighted) cheerleader uniform used in the film.
The questuion is, even if the Barbie doll, is easily identifiable through the pixilation process, would Mattel want to give this little known hardcore film unwanted publicity by suing or threathening to sue the producers of this movie (if you could find them or even locate their assets). Often they just leave such things alone, and Harley Davidson's suit against Anabolic for the bike shop use was a truly odd one, especially when you consider who makes use of these bikes!
Re: Giovent? Bruciata
I've now acquired a copy of this title which has no pixelation whatever in that scene.
Curiouser and curiouser......
Curiouser and curiouser......
"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
signification...."
Re: Giovent? Bruciata
The Barbie doll in in the Italian version is not pixelated.
Re: Giovent? Bruciata
So we can probably blame the French : -))
"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
signification...."