Subtitles, Lip Synching and Covers on YouTube - 13 views

started by Ang Yao Zong on 25 Aug 09

#1 Ang Yao Zong on 25 Aug 09

http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090812-160713.html

This article on the Asiaone website discusses the copyright ownership of different elements in user-generated content on the popular video sharing website, YouTube. These "fan videos" usually consist of users either lip synching to the lyrics of popular songs, adding subtitles to original music videos (think "Indian Micheal Jackson" or "fan subs" of foreign-language videos) or singing their own versions of popular songs ("covers").

The issue of contention here is with the copyrights attributed to different owners within a single "fan video". In subtitling, the copyright of the subtitles (if not related to the original lyrics) reside with the creator of the video (sub-titler). However, the copyright of the video's visual content resides with the record company.

In lip-synching, the copyrights of the lyrics and musical content of the song reside with the record company, while the visual content of the performance resides with the people who performed in the video. According to the article, "the copyright of the music and lyrics reside in the composers of the original song while the copyright of the performance and any new arrangement or orchestration of how the song is played would belong to the cover musician." (Koh & Low, 2009)

Question:

In the case of the inclusion of subtitles for a foreign-language video, the copyrights of the video's visual content belongs to the original producers, but the subtitles are derived from the interpretation of the sub-titler.

By preventing users from creating their own "fan subs" to foreign language videos and sharing them on YouTube, are we suppressing the freedom of expression of these individuals? The addition of sub-titles by an individual can also be argued as an action that create benefits to the online community, since more users would be able to enjoy the video and understand the story content (from a teleological perspective).

However, the benefits gained by the online community would be at the expense of the potential losses suffered by the film producers. Since the Internet is often described as a public space, film producers could actually sue these "sub-titlers" for publicly screening the video without permission.

On the other hand, the main reason why many film companies are concerned over the uploading of content onto YouTube is due to the loss of potential income. Would this constitute egoism since the companies seemed to be more concerned over their own revenue than the impact of the video on society?

For example, if "An Inconvenient Truth" was produced in French, would the copyright claims by the film's producers (against uploading on YouTube with added subtitles) actually be preventing the greater public from understanding the dangers of global warming?

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><a href="http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090812-160713.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090812-160713.html</a> This article on the Asiaone website discusses the copyright ownership of different elements in user-generated content on the popular video sharing website, YouTube. These "fan videos" usually consist of users either lip synching to the lyrics of popular songs, adding subtitles to original music videos (think "Indian Micheal Jackson" or "fan subs" of foreign-language videos) or singing their own versions of popular songs ("covers"). The issue of contention here is with the copyrights attributed to different owners within a single "fan video". In subtitling, the copyright of the subtitles (if not related to the original lyrics) reside with the creator of the video (sub-titler). However, the copyright of the video's visual content resides with the record company. In lip-synching, the copyrights of the lyrics and musical content of the song reside with the record company, while the visual content of the performance resides with the people who performed in the video. According to the article, "the copyright of the music and lyrics reside in the composers of the original song while the copyright of the performance and any new arrangement or orchestration of how the song is played would belong to the cover musician." (Koh & Low, 2009) Question: In the case of the inclusion of subtitles for a foreign-language video, the copyrights of the video's visual content belongs to the original producers, but the subtitles are derived from the interpretation of the sub-titler. By preventing users from creating their own "fan subs" to foreign language videos and sharing them on YouTube, are we suppressing the freedom of expression of these individuals? The addition of sub-titles by an individual can also be argued as an action that create benefits to the online community, since more users would be able to enjoy the video and understand the story content (from a teleological perspective). However, the benefits gained by the online community would be at the expense of the potential losses suffered by the film producers. Since the Internet is often described as a public space, film producers could actually sue these "sub-titlers" for publicly screening the video without permission. On the other hand, the main reason why many film companies are concerned over the uploading of content onto YouTube is due to the loss of potential income. Would this constitute egoism since the companies seemed to be more concerned over their own revenue than the impact of the video on society? For example, if "An Inconvenient Truth" was produced in French, would the copyright claims by the film's producers (against uploading on YouTube with added subtitles) actually be preventing the greater public from understanding the dangers of global warming?</div>

...

Cancel
#2 Jody Poh on 25 Aug 09

I think that companies concerned over this issue due to the loss of potential income constitutes egoism. They mainly want to defend their interests without considering the beneficial impact of the video on society.

However, this is mainly so because of the way modern society and capitalism (or at least what society thinks of capitalism, according to Stallman) is structured. Unless there can be a change of mindset of society as a whole, I am afraid restrictive copyright laws will always be an issue and will be here to stay.

Ang Yao Zong wrote:
> http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090812-160713.html
>
> This article on the Asiaone website discusses the copyright ownership of different elements in user-generated content on the popular video sharing website, YouTube. These "fan videos" usually consist of users either lip synching to the lyrics of popular songs, adding subtitles to original music videos (think "Indian Micheal Jackson" or "fan subs" of foreign-language videos) or singing their own versions of popular songs ("covers").
>
> The issue of contention here is with the copyrights attributed to different owners within a single "fan video". In subtitling, the copyright of the subtitles (if not related to the original lyrics) reside with the creator of the video (sub-titler). However, the copyright of the video's visual content resides with the record company.
>
> In lip-synching, the copyrights of the lyrics and musical content of the song reside with the record company, while the visual content of the performance resides with the people who performed in the video. According to the article, "the copyright of the music and lyrics reside in the composers of the original song while the copyright of the performance and any new arrangement or orchestration of how the song is played would belong to the cover musician." (Koh & Low, 2009)
>
> Question:
>
> In the case of the inclusion of subtitles for a foreign-language video, the copyrights of the video's visual content belongs to the original producers, but the subtitles are derived from the interpretation of the sub-titler.
>
> By preventing users from creating their own "fan subs" to foreign language videos and sharing them on YouTube, are we suppressing the freedom of expression of these individuals? The addition of sub-titles by an individual can also be argued as an action that create benefits to the online community, since more users would be able to enjoy the video and understand the story content (from a teleological perspective).
>
>
> However, the benefits gained by the online community would be at the expense of the potential losses suffered by the film producers. Since the Internet is often described as a public space, film producers could actually sue these "sub-titlers" for publicly screening the video without permission.
>
> On the other hand, the main reason why many film companies are concerned over the uploading of content onto YouTube is due to the loss of potential income. Would this constitute egoism since the companies seemed to be more concerned over their own revenue than the impact of the video on society?
>
> For example, if "An Inconvenient Truth" was produced in French, would the copyright claims by the film's producers (against uploading on YouTube with added subtitles) actually be preventing the greater public from understanding the dangers of global warming?

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I think that companies concerned over this issue due to the loss of potential income constitutes egoism. They mainly want to defend their interests without considering the beneficial impact of the video on society. However, this is mainly so because of the way modern society and capitalism (or at least what society thinks of capitalism, according to Stallman) is structured. Unless there can be a change of mindset of society as a whole, I am afraid restrictive copyright laws will always be an issue and will be here to stay. Ang Yao Zong wrote: > <a href="http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090812-160713.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090812-160713.html</a> > > This article on the Asiaone website discusses the copyright ownership of different elements in user-generated content on the popular video sharing website, YouTube. These "fan videos" usually consist of users either lip synching to the lyrics of popular songs, adding subtitles to original music videos (think "Indian Micheal Jackson" or "fan subs" of foreign-language videos) or singing their own versions of popular songs ("covers"). > > The issue of contention here is with the copyrights attributed to different owners within a single "fan video". In subtitling, the copyright of the subtitles (if not related to the original lyrics) reside with the creator of the video (sub-titler). However, the copyright of the video's visual content resides with the record company. > > In lip-synching, the copyrights of the lyrics and musical content of the song reside with the record company, while the visual content of the performance resides with the people who performed in the video. According to the article, "the copyright of the music and lyrics reside in the composers of the original song while the copyright of the performance and any new arrangement or orchestration of how the song is played would belong to the cover musician." (Koh & Low, 2009) > > Question: > > In the case of the inclusion of subtitles for a foreign-language video, the copyrights of the video's visual content belongs to the original producers, but the subtitles are derived from the interpretation of the sub-titler. > > By preventing users from creating their own "fan subs" to foreign language videos and sharing them on YouTube, are we suppressing the freedom of expression of these individuals? The addition of sub-titles by an individual can also be argued as an action that create benefits to the online community, since more users would be able to enjoy the video and understand the story content (from a teleological perspective). > > > However, the benefits gained by the online community would be at the expense of the potential losses suffered by the film producers. Since the Internet is often described as a public space, film producers could actually sue these "sub-titlers" for publicly screening the video without permission. > > On the other hand, the main reason why many film companies are concerned over the uploading of content onto YouTube is due to the loss of potential income. Would this constitute egoism since the companies seemed to be more concerned over their own revenue than the impact of the video on society? > > For example, if "An Inconvenient Truth" was produced in French, would the copyright claims by the film's producers (against uploading on YouTube with added subtitles) actually be preventing the greater public from understanding the dangers of global warming?</div>

...

Cancel

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group

Start a New Topic