Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Fan Subtitles On TV and Movies Are Illegal (thenextweb.com)

Posted by msmash on from the making-things-complicated dept.

A court has just ruled that making fan subtitles or translations is not protected by the law. From a report: A Dutch group called the Free Subtitles Foundation took anti-piracy group BREIN to court over "fansubbing." BREIN has previously been active in taking fan subtitles and translations offline, and the Foundation was hoping a Dutch court would come down on the side of fair use. The court didn't quite see it that way. It ruled that making subtitles without permission from the property owners amounted to copyright infringement. BREIN wasn't unsympathetic, but said it couldn't allow fansubbers to continue doing what they're doing.

8 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Promoting Progress of Science and useful Arts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to the United States Constitution, the purpose of copyright is...

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

    What is the pupose of copyright in the Netherlands, and how does this ruling support that purpose?

  2. Well too bad for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    because such a stupid ruling will never be enforceable. Meanwhile anyone who is a liberal and a globalists disagrees with anyone attempting to stonewall the freedom of communication which sees different people coming together through mediums such as entertainment, where political and social aspects implicated by fan-subbing vastly outweigh BREIN's opinions and the opinions of the copyright cartel behind them using this ruling as a smokescreen precedent to censor and attack freedom of expression down the line.

  3. Question is profit by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they are selling the movie without having paid for it, that's definitely copyright violation. But the fan subtitling people do not have to do that.

    If you do it yourself and do not sell anything, that's not copyright theft.

    If you buy the right to make and sell copies of the movie, then you are legally selling the item.

    If someone else pays you for your subtitles but you only sell them a timed set of subtitles without the movie, then you are not breaking the law. If they already have (or get) the right to display/sell the movie and they combine your time subtitles, then no one is breaking the law.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  4. Copyright is for the profit of the creator by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Copyright should not preclude fansubs or fandubs until there is content in that language for sale/rent to the public. If you won't serve a market, there is no reasonable expectation for financial benefit and thus fair use precludes you from shutting out fansubs and the like.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Copyright is for the profit of the creator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It should also serve as a reminder that translations in different languages can have extremely different forms from the original due to lingual barriers,
      whereby fansubs can sometimes even more accurately translate (reconstruct for local audiences) the meanings and wordplay for non-native understanding,
      than licensed subs which sometimes are also censored or edited for sociopolitical reasons.
      So by any and all means, attempting to play copyright police with fansubbing can be dangerous or destructive depending on the nature of the work.

  5. Unusual way to be offended by Whooty+McWhooface · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So, the there is a copyright violation because people are providing a service (subtitles) for movies/shows that were released without subtitles, either in other languages or in any languages because the studios were too damn cheap to provide them?

    So, if I see a fire break out and I put it out on my own, am I infringing on the work of the firefighter that either were not called or had not yet arrived?

    Sure, you are producing a textual version of the movie, but it would be utilized in conjunction with the movie/show. It's not like someone is going to read subtitles on a movie they have not seen and feel, "Gosh! Now I don't have to see the movie at all! I can't believe Bruce Willis was actually a ghost. Didn't see that one coming.... (Sorry for the spoiler, you should have watched it by now.)

    So are they actually upset because it is now becoming public how cheap and unsupportive the studio executives are to the hearing impaired?

  6. Re:Copyright should have an availablity requiremen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is one of the cases where spread of culture and a discussion on the ownership of language and implications behind this discussion, are more important than some self-righteous copyright prick trying to play "Masters of the Universe" because he treats copyright like ISIS treats the Quran.
    This is now something bigger than the "creators" and their wallets, and i find it sad that the Dutch judicial system was too narrow-minded (or bribed) to properly
    discuss this.

  7. Former fansubber here by snarfies · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in the pre-digital days, I was part of a fansubbing group called Lupin Gang Anime. These days, I capture laserdiscs of the many titles that have never been reissued on DVD or better (https://www.otakubell.com/)

    I will continue to capture these endangered titles and put them on the internet. I will continue to do my best to preserve these titles from being lost. The only way I will stop is if I am locked up. Given the choice between following the law and doing what's right, I'll chose the later.