5 ms·

Am I wrong that a script is copyrighted and thus charging for it, something they have no right to distribute, opens them to all sorts of potential legal action?

• drexlspivey 3y ago
  Yes you are wrong because a movie script and movie subs are not the same thing at all
  • donatj 3y ago
    In what way? The subs are the script (often translated) + timestamps. It’s the definition of a derivative work. The subs wouldn’t exist without the original work. Edit: Yes, it’s a subset of the script and not thee script itself, and being a pedant about that isn’t a useful point. It’s just pedantic.
    • jedrek 3y ago
      Subs are not the script, they are a transcription of the finished work.
      • donatj 3y ago
        That’s just nitpicking. Even by your definition it’s a derivative work, and regardless then it’s just a translation of a subset of the script.
        • nickthegreek 3y ago
          It is not nitpicking, it is an important distinction.
          • donatj 3y ago
            No part of the distinction is important. It's a subset. Imagining I were to hand you a book. It's Harry Potter but missing every third sentence. You tell me "It's Harry Potter" and I'm like "nuh uh", I'd be just being a pedantic ass and not making a good point.
    • djbusby 3y ago
      Script has more content (eg visuals, setting, mood, directions) - subtitles are just the noises.
      • donatj 3y ago
        If I tried to sell a novel with parts missing and translated, I’d still get in legal trouble.
        • BobaFloutist 3y ago
          If you tried to sell a translation of all the dialogue that was explicitly intended to be used with a legally purchased copy of the novel (don't ask me how, it's not my metaphor), I'm not sure you would.
    • cmcaleer 3y ago
      But reading the script to a Simpsons episode doesn't replace actually watching the Simpsons episode. Similarly, I might pay for a subscription to a website which has a detailed review of that episode along with screenshots. Neither replace watching it, not even close. I do think that subs are a little bit more legally ambiguous than a review but I think you could make a reasonable argument that they're a fair use under US copyright law.
      • VanTheBrand 3y ago
        The script has its own separate copyright distinct from the full episode just like how lyrics and musical compositions have separate copyrights from a specific recording of a song.
    • devnonymous 3y ago
      People were writing movie scripts long before the talkies became popular :-) Movie scripts contain much more than the dialogues. There's enough of an argument to be made that transcription is covered by fair use rights.
    • Novosell 3y ago
      Scripts include things such as "Character X does Y" and "Z event happens". Subtitles are more like a transcript or written down song lyrics.
      • PurpleRamen 3y ago
        Arent' song lyrics also under copyright? Or is this depending on the country and their definition of intellectual property?
        • mrpotato 3y ago
          I doubt they are under copyright, if they were, cover bands or bands making covers of songs would be getting sued willy nilly.
          • qingcharles 3y ago
            Cover bands pay royalties to avoid getting sued.
        • qingcharles 3y ago
          Yes, song lyrics are very copyrighted. Most of the sites you see online offering lyrics are paying licensing fees to a stack of different rights agencies. source: I worked in the music biz
    • diggan 3y ago
      "Script" in the movie/tv world has a specific meaning, and is very different from what the subtitles are. Subtitles are just dialog, while the script contains so much more. Calling the subtitles "basically a script" is like saying JavaScript is basically Java.
    • cantSpellSober 3y ago
      Subtitles are sometimes truncated/edited to get them to fit on screen at a readable line length Things like [ominous music plays] are not part of the script at all, but featured in subtitles
• crazygringo 3y ago
  It's definitely a tricky fair use case, and obviously will depend on each country. IANAL but I'd say the main argument for it being free use is that subtitles don't take away from movie/TV sales. There's no harm. To the contrary -- fan-made subtitles in languages the studio didn't produce might generate purchases where there were none before. While the main argument against it is that it's part of and enables broader piracy -- if you can show that people are overwhelmingly using subtitles with content they downloaded illegally, then it is part of harming the studios. (Also, subtitles are not scripts. They usually don't even indicate who's speaking, much less include all of the scene descriptions and instructions. Probably ~half the words in a script are not dialog.)
  • em-bee 3y ago
    i don't follow that argumentation. do you think that people who want subtitles would pay for content if there were no subtitles available for it? subtitles either increase sales, or they do nothing. they may increase illegitimate sharing, but they won't do it at the expense of sales.
    • crazygringo 3y ago
      > do you think that people who want subtitles would pay for content if there were no subtitles available for it? Pretty much. If you're Japanese and don't speak English, and a show you really want to watch is only available to pirate in English (no subtitles available) which means you can't understand it, but if you subscribe to Netflix you can watch it with Japanese subtitles that Netflix provides... I mean yeah? I'm presenting both sides of the argument. The question is really, which side will a court find to be stronger? And there may very well be a distinction here between fan-made subtitle translations, versus official subtitles.
      • em-bee 3y ago
        ok, i was thinking of content that didn't have official subtitles.
  • breakfastduck 3y ago
• 542458 3y ago
  There are fair use exemptions to copyright for providing access to works for individuals with disabilities, for which subtitles may qualify - but I'm not an expert.
• hondo77 3y ago
  Oh, it's not a "tricky fair use case" at all. They'll end up having to pay to whoever licenses these things fees at some point for using dialogue from scripts (not a transformative use of copyrighted material at all) as the basis of their business. They're flying under the radar now but, you're right, a day of reckoning is coming for them.