Hacker News Reader

Comment by drexlspivey | Hacker News Reader

Yes you are wrong because a movie script and movie subs are not the same thing at all

In what way? The subs are the script (often translated) + timestamps. It’s the definition of a derivative work.

The subs wouldn’t exist without the original work.

Edit: Yes, it’s a subset of the script and not thee script itself, and being a pedant about that isn’t a useful point. It’s just pedantic.

Subs are not the script, they are a transcription of the finished work.

That’s just nitpicking. Even by your definition it’s a derivative work, and regardless then it’s just a translation of a subset of the script.

It is not nitpicking, it is an important distinction.

No part of the distinction is important. It's a subset.

Imagining I were to hand you a book. It's Harry Potter but missing every third sentence. You tell me "It's Harry Potter" and I'm like "nuh uh", I'd be just being a pedantic ass and not making a good point.

Script has more content (eg visuals, setting, mood, directions) - subtitles are just the noises.

If I tried to sell a novel with parts missing and translated, I’d still get in legal trouble.

If you tried to sell a translation of all the dialogue that was explicitly intended to be used with a legally purchased copy of the novel (don't ask me how, it's not my metaphor), I'm not sure you would.

But reading the script to a Simpsons episode doesn't replace actually watching the Simpsons episode.

Similarly, I might pay for a subscription to a website which has a detailed review of that episode along with screenshots. Neither replace watching it, not even close.

I do think that subs are a little bit more legally ambiguous than a review but I think you could make a reasonable argument that they're a fair use under US copyright law.

The script has its own separate copyright distinct from the full episode just like how lyrics and musical compositions have separate copyrights from a specific recording of a song.

People were writing movie scripts long before the talkies became popular :-)

Movie scripts contain much more than the dialogues. There's enough of an argument to be made that transcription is covered by fair use rights.

Scripts include things such as "Character X does Y" and "Z event happens". Subtitles are more like a transcript or written down song lyrics.

Arent' song lyrics also under copyright? Or is this depending on the country and their definition of intellectual property?

I doubt they are under copyright, if they were, cover bands or bands making covers of songs would be getting sued willy nilly.

Cover bands pay royalties to avoid getting sued.

Yes, song lyrics are very copyrighted. Most of the sites you see online offering lyrics are paying licensing fees to a stack of different rights agencies.

source: I worked in the music biz

"Script" in the movie/tv world has a specific meaning, and is very different from what the subtitles are. Subtitles are just dialog, while the script contains so much more.

Calling the subtitles "basically a script" is like saying JavaScript is basically Java.

Subtitles are sometimes truncated/edited to get them to fit on screen at a readable line length

Things like [ominous music plays] are not part of the script at all, but featured in subtitles

Reply on news.ycombinator.com