
Netflix Caught Using “Pirated” Subtitles in Finland - Garbage
http://torrentfreak.com/netflix-caught-using-pirated-subtitles-in-finland-121019/
======
ender7
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> skip to the beginning
of the credits to see "Subtitles by HaruHaruSubs", a fansub group.

~~~
w1ntermute
> 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/>

1: <http://www.d-addicts.com/forum/viewtopic_77984.htm>

2: <http://blog.dramafever.com/2009/04/we-got-boys-over-flowers/>

3: <http://www.hulu.com/companies/311>

------
k3n
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).

~~~
rcfox
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
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>

[2] <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>

[5]
[http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#...](http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P85_10661)
(Article 2, Item 3)

~~~
ANTSANTS
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.

------
true_religion
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
Does Netflix actively subtitle anything? I thought I'd read that they only get
subtitle files from the video rights holder.

------
afhof
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-w...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/netflix-settles-with-
deaf-rights-group-agrees-to-caption-all-videos-by-2014/)

