3 ms·

This is confusing, first we have: > To cater to the local audience, on some of its programming the company displayed “unauthorized” fansubs. Unlike regular sub

by 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/

by k3n 14y ago

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/