[Confusion]

Architects are a well known example of artists that keep a say over their products after they have been produced and 'sold'. You can't just modify 'your' building: the original artist has to approve. Even if you're the only one living in it and you shield the building from public view.

When you buy a painting, the artist may forbid you from changing it.

Why do you believe that can't be the case for a movie? Just because it is technically possible to modify only copy does not make it obvious that you should be entitled to it.

Note that I'm not asserting that this actually is the case. I'm mostly asserting it's not obviously not the case.

[chongli]

The difference with paintings and architecture is that there is only one. That is a sufficient justification for letting the creator control the ability to modify it. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping you from taking a photo of that painting or designing a model of that building and using it in some modern art bodily fluid exhibit or whatever.

Originals will always have inherent differences from copies in people's minds.

[fmueller]

It's a good point but I think it does not apply to my example.

Because in my example I don't even have to modify the movie. I can apply the filter while it's playing.

And besides that your examples require the presence of a contract between me and the architect/painter where I resign from my rights to change the object. Copyright has nothing to do with it.