There are also wrinkles in the distinctions between subtitles and captions, definitions of accessibility, the application of accessibility to fair use (and rela

There are also wrinkles in the distinctions between subtitles and captions, definitions of accessibility, the application of accessibility to fair use (and related restrictions on distribution), the definition or existence of fair-use exceptions in different jurisdictions, and on and on. The bottom line is that most of these points haven't been challenged outside of that BREIN case, nor do they cover some of the more valuable uses of authored or revised subtitles, such as subtitling and captioning works that never had them, or in languages that weren't translated, or to correct significant translation errors. The legal cases of subtitling are especially pertinent now that we have relatively accurate, low-cost, easy to implement realtime speech-to-text. If many devices that play video can now add subtitles, or even captions, locally in real time, how much value is there in paying lawyers to pursue cases to protect the copyright of _just_ the subtitles? Is editing a subtitle script generated by a speech-to-text engine also a copyright violation, and if so, who all is violating the copyright? The person who feeds the video to the engine? The editor, who could be a different person? The distributor of the resulting subtitle file?