5 ms·

Netflix Caught Using “Pirated” Subtitles in Finland

29 points by Garbage 14y ago

k3n 14y ago
This is confusing, first we have: > To cater to the local audience, on some of its programming the company displayed “unauthorized” fansubs. Unlike regular subtitles, fansubs are created without permission from content owners and often used alongside pirated content. But then: > “It’s nice to see that the texts are used, but they [Netflix] did not ask permission,” they [DivX Finland] wrote, adding a link a clip from the Netflix video where DivX Finland’s credits are clearly visible. So DivX Finland made an authorized derivative work -- from content which Netflix has licence to -- and DivX Finland is calling out Netflix? IANAL and certainly not Finnish, but wouldn't Netflix just need to make a call to the rights owner of the work in question? I wouldn't think the original content [Andromeda (2000–2005)] would be public domain or that this would be considered "fair use" or not. It would seem like DivX Finland should just be happy that they haven't been sued YET...but now they're drawing attention to themselves (even though they were getting free advertising).
- VBprogrammer 14y ago
  DivX Finland were clearly being facetious. They of course know that their work is on the wrong side of legal but to see it used commercially must have made them laugh.
  - dscrd 14y ago
    It's also very amusing for the real translators who have been F'd in the A seriously in Finland for the last few years.
- rcfox 14y ago
  While DivX Finland didn't have permission to produce translations, many countries consider translations to have their own distinct copyright. Translation is a creative process, rather than a mechanical one. (This is why you can't pass that French course by pushing everything through Google Translate.) Also, generally when you start making the claim that so-and-so are just getting free advertising, you're arguing in the wrong direction 99% of the time. ;)
  - antiterra 14y ago
    In the US, there was Pickett v. Prince [1], wherein Pickett made a guitar out of Prince's symbol and Prince copied the guitar. Both the trial court and the appellate court agreed that Pickett had no copyright because he had no permission to make the derivative work. Pickett's argument was based largely on an interpretation of 17 USC 103(a) [2] that implied he could own the copyright on the portions that were non-infringing, and the court soundly rejected this argument. Internationally the wording is similar: From a translation of the Finnish Copyright Act [4]: "Art. 4. A person who translates or adapts a work or converts it into some other literary or artistic form shall have copyright in the work in that new form, but his right to dispose of it shall be subject to the copyright in the original work" The Berne convention states: "(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice [3] to the copyright in the original work." I haven't read any Finnish caselaw. However, I expect it to be incredibly rare for a functional legal system to determine the act declares it acceptable to create derivative works sans permission in a manner that inhibits the owner's management of derivative works. (With the exception of mechanically licensed derivatives, such as song covers.) [1] http://openjurist.org/207/f3d/402/ferdinand-pickett-v-prince http://openjurist.org/207/f3d/402/ferdinand-pickett-v-prince [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103 [3] "Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges" - West's Encyc. Of American Law [4] http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=127088 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=127088 [5] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P85_10661 http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#... (Article 2, Item 3)
    - ANTSANTS 14y ago
      Interesting. IANAL, but I was under the impression that an important part of the Berne Convention was to give authors the right to approve translations in other countries, ie so that an American company could not translate and sell copies of Crime and Punishment without getting the approval of (and therefore compensating) Dostoyevsky. This the interpretation I've seen repeated amongst many fan translation groups, the implications of which vary amongst mediums from "we don't have a legal right to anything we translate, but we'll try to voice our disapproval anyway," typically said by manga scanlators to the giant, quasi-legal online manga sites who they have little power over, to "we may not have a right to our translation, but we do own the rights to our code, and we will use that ownership to send DMCA takedown producers of pirate 'reproduction' cartridges" in the translation hacking scene. In response to the, uh, great grand parent post, even if they are not legally entitled to protection for their unauthorized derivative works, I think they are justified in their feelings of ownership toward them. People in the various fan translation scenes put a hell of a lot of their own free time into their works; even if the law does not support it, in a "common sense" kind of way, I find it difficult to believe that they do not have the moral high ground here.
- k3n 14y ago
  s/made an authorized/made an unauthorized/
ender7 14y ago
I've also seen Hulu using fansubs for some of their Korean TV [1]. I'm curious what the legal status is of text-only subtitle work. Unlike the translation of a book, translated subtitles are not the complete work. They're also a creative work in their own right. Ironically, many fansubs are of higher quality than official subs, especially when it comes to idiomatic expressions in the source language. [1] e.g. http://www.hulu.com/watch/290239#i0,p0,s1,d0 http://www.hulu.com/watch/290239#i0,p0,s1,d0 skip to the beginning of the credits to see "Subtitles by HaruHaruSubs", a fansub group.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > I've also seen Hulu using fansubs for some of their Korean TV [1]. Hulu wasn't "caught" using fansubs - they have a legitimate deal with DramaFever[0][3], which in turn gets the subtitles from K-drama fansubbing groups like Haru2subS (the group you mentioned) and WITH S2: > DramaFever has been working closely with the broadcasters as well as fansub groups such as WITH S2 to make dramas available with high quality subs.[1] > Today we are presenting a drama that needs no introduction: Boys Over Flowers. We are proud to be the first to legally release this online for our US audience along with the amazing subtitling from WithS2.[2] As for this: > Ironically, many fansubs are of higher quality than official subs, especially when it comes to idiomatic expressions in the source language. It makes perfect sense when you consider that official subbers are required to make the subs as accessible as possible, to create a broad audience. On the other hand, fansubbers translate how they want to. Although this might put off some newbies, most watchers get acclimated to and eventually come to expect the fansubbers' approach. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the anime fansub community. 0: http://www.dramafever.com/ http://www.dramafever.com/ 1: http://www.d-addicts.com/forum/viewtopic_77984.htm http://www.d-addicts.com/forum/viewtopic_77984.htm 2: http://blog.dramafever.com/2009/04/we-got-boys-over-flowers/ http://blog.dramafever.com/2009/04/we-got-boys-over-flowers/ 3: http://www.hulu.com/companies/311 http://www.hulu.com/companies/311
- pandaman 14y ago
  I am not a lawyer. There is a concept of "derivative work" and copyright protection extends to derivative work. A translation[1], for example, is a derivative work regardless of being complete. So subtitles fall under the same copyright as the original work and distributing subtitles without the copyright holder permission is an infringement of his copyright[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work#Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work#Definition [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansub#Legal_and_ethical_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansub#Legal_and_ethical_issues
true_religion 14y ago
I always wondered about Netflixes subtitles. I've noticed that in many Korean, or Anime shows they use the fansub instead of hiring their own translators. For one show in particular City Hunter (episode 20 I think), I saw for a split second the words "Our subs are not for rent or resale", which I seriously doubt would be there if Netflix had paid for the subtitling. I think they generally take fansubs then remove the credits. And in the case I noticed, they failed to do so on one episode.
- shardling 14y ago
  Does Netflix actively subtitle anything? I thought I'd read that they only get subtitle files from the video rights holder.
afhof 14y ago
I feel bad for Netflix right now. First they get sued for not having subtitles for movies they didn't make[1], and now it looks like they are scrambling to get subtitles up. [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/netflix-settles-with-deaf-rights-group-agrees-to-caption-all-videos-by-2014/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/netflix-settles-w...

29 points by Garbage 14y ago

k3n 14y ago

This is confusing, first we have: > To cater to the local audience, on some of its programming the company displayed “unauthorized” fansubs. Unlike regular subtitles, fansubs are created without permission from content owners and often used alongside pirated content. But then: > “It’s nice to see that the texts are used, but they [Netflix] did not ask permission,” they [DivX Finland] wrote, adding a link a clip from the Netflix video where DivX Finland’s credits are clearly visible. So DivX Finland made an authorized derivative work -- from content which Netflix has licence to -- and DivX Finland is calling out Netflix? IANAL and certainly not Finnish, but wouldn't Netflix just need to make a call to the rights owner of the work in question? I wouldn't think the original content [Andromeda (2000–2005)] would be public domain or that this would be considered "fair use" or not. It would seem like DivX Finland should just be happy that they haven't been sued YET...but now they're drawing attention to themselves (even though they were getting free advertising).

VBprogrammer 14y ago
DivX Finland were clearly being facetious. They of course know that their work is on the wrong side of legal but to see it used commercially must have made them laugh.
- dscrd 14y ago
  It's also very amusing for the real translators who have been F'd in the A seriously in Finland for the last few years.
rcfox 14y ago
While DivX Finland didn't have permission to produce translations, many countries consider translations to have their own distinct copyright. Translation is a creative process, rather than a mechanical one. (This is why you can't pass that French course by pushing everything through Google Translate.) Also, generally when you start making the claim that so-and-so are just getting free advertising, you're arguing in the wrong direction 99% of the time. ;)
- antiterra 14y ago
  In the US, there was Pickett v. Prince [1], wherein Pickett made a guitar out of Prince's symbol and Prince copied the guitar. Both the trial court and the appellate court agreed that Pickett had no copyright because he had no permission to make the derivative work. Pickett's argument was based largely on an interpretation of 17 USC 103(a) [2] that implied he could own the copyright on the portions that were non-infringing, and the court soundly rejected this argument. Internationally the wording is similar: From a translation of the Finnish Copyright Act [4]: "Art. 4. A person who translates or adapts a work or converts it into some other literary or artistic form shall have copyright in the work in that new form, but his right to dispose of it shall be subject to the copyright in the original work" The Berne convention states: "(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice [3] to the copyright in the original work." I haven't read any Finnish caselaw. However, I expect it to be incredibly rare for a functional legal system to determine the act declares it acceptable to create derivative works sans permission in a manner that inhibits the owner's management of derivative works. (With the exception of mechanically licensed derivatives, such as song covers.) [1] http://openjurist.org/207/f3d/402/ferdinand-pickett-v-prince http://openjurist.org/207/f3d/402/ferdinand-pickett-v-prince [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103 [3] "Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges" - West's Encyc. Of American Law [4] http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=127088 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=127088 [5] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P85_10661 http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#... (Article 2, Item 3)
  - ANTSANTS 14y ago
    Interesting. IANAL, but I was under the impression that an important part of the Berne Convention was to give authors the right to approve translations in other countries, ie so that an American company could not translate and sell copies of Crime and Punishment without getting the approval of (and therefore compensating) Dostoyevsky. This the interpretation I've seen repeated amongst many fan translation groups, the implications of which vary amongst mediums from "we don't have a legal right to anything we translate, but we'll try to voice our disapproval anyway," typically said by manga scanlators to the giant, quasi-legal online manga sites who they have little power over, to "we may not have a right to our translation, but we do own the rights to our code, and we will use that ownership to send DMCA takedown producers of pirate 'reproduction' cartridges" in the translation hacking scene. In response to the, uh, great grand parent post, even if they are not legally entitled to protection for their unauthorized derivative works, I think they are justified in their feelings of ownership toward them. People in the various fan translation scenes put a hell of a lot of their own free time into their works; even if the law does not support it, in a "common sense" kind of way, I find it difficult to believe that they do not have the moral high ground here.
k3n 14y ago
s/made an authorized/made an unauthorized/

ender7 14y ago

I've also seen Hulu using fansubs for some of their Korean TV [1]. I'm curious what the legal status is of text-only subtitle work. Unlike the translation of a book, translated subtitles are not the complete work. They're also a creative work in their own right. Ironically, many fansubs are of higher quality than official subs, especially when it comes to idiomatic expressions in the source language. [1] e.g. http://www.hulu.com/watch/290239#i0,p0,s1,d0 http://www.hulu.com/watch/290239#i0,p0,s1,d0 skip to the beginning of the credits to see "Subtitles by HaruHaruSubs", a fansub group.

w1ntermute 14y ago
> I've also seen Hulu using fansubs for some of their Korean TV [1]. Hulu wasn't "caught" using fansubs - they have a legitimate deal with DramaFever[0][3], which in turn gets the subtitles from K-drama fansubbing groups like Haru2subS (the group you mentioned) and WITH S2: > DramaFever has been working closely with the broadcasters as well as fansub groups such as WITH S2 to make dramas available with high quality subs.[1] > Today we are presenting a drama that needs no introduction: Boys Over Flowers. We are proud to be the first to legally release this online for our US audience along with the amazing subtitling from WithS2.[2] As for this: > Ironically, many fansubs are of higher quality than official subs, especially when it comes to idiomatic expressions in the source language. It makes perfect sense when you consider that official subbers are required to make the subs as accessible as possible, to create a broad audience. On the other hand, fansubbers translate how they want to. Although this might put off some newbies, most watchers get acclimated to and eventually come to expect the fansubbers' approach. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the anime fansub community. 0: http://www.dramafever.com/ http://www.dramafever.com/ 1: http://www.d-addicts.com/forum/viewtopic_77984.htm http://www.d-addicts.com/forum/viewtopic_77984.htm 2: http://blog.dramafever.com/2009/04/we-got-boys-over-flowers/ http://blog.dramafever.com/2009/04/we-got-boys-over-flowers/ 3: http://www.hulu.com/companies/311 http://www.hulu.com/companies/311
pandaman 14y ago
I am not a lawyer. There is a concept of "derivative work" and copyright protection extends to derivative work. A translation[1], for example, is a derivative work regardless of being complete. So subtitles fall under the same copyright as the original work and distributing subtitles without the copyright holder permission is an infringement of his copyright[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work#Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work#Definition [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansub#Legal_and_ethical_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansub#Legal_and_ethical_issues

true_religion 14y ago

I always wondered about Netflixes subtitles. I've noticed that in many Korean, or Anime shows they use the fansub instead of hiring their own translators. For one show in particular City Hunter (episode 20 I think), I saw for a split second the words "Our subs are not for rent or resale", which I seriously doubt would be there if Netflix had paid for the subtitling. I think they generally take fansubs then remove the credits. And in the case I noticed, they failed to do so on one episode.

shardling 14y ago
Does Netflix actively subtitle anything? I thought I'd read that they only get subtitle files from the video rights holder.

afhof 14y ago

I feel bad for Netflix right now. First they get sued for not having subtitles for movies they didn't make[1], and now it looks like they are scrambling to get subtitles up. [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/netflix-settles-with-deaf-rights-group-agrees-to-caption-all-videos-by-2014/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/netflix-settles-w...