What if the iconic end to the film “Fight Club” featured the lyrics to The Pixies’ “Where is my Mind?” scrolling across the bottom of the screen? What if the words to Redbone’s “Come and Get Your Love” distracted from Chris Pratt’s beloved dance scene at the start of “Guardians of the Galaxy?”
While such subtitling may alter the viewing experience for some movies, one lawsuit claims that in the future, song lyrics should be captioned or at the very least, films should include a warning to deaf consumers explaining the lack of captioning. Numerous advocates for improved accessibility for the deaf and hard-of-hearing agree.
Will future DVD, theater and streaming releases include song lyric subtitles?
The law requires that individuals with hearing disabilities are given equal access to entertainment, and the litigation contends that movies that don’t include captioning for song lyrics violate this regulation. The lawsuit claims that movie studios’ failure to provide subtitles for song lyrics takes away from deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers’ experiences. Could this lawsuit change the way that studios approach captioning in the future? Not if the studios’ arguments against such requirements succeed.
Studios’ arguments against song lyric subtitles
The defendants outlined three reasons why the lawsuit filed by members of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing should fail. Sony, Warner Bros., Universal, Disney, Paramount and Buena Vista Home Entertainment filed dismissal motions explaining their arguments.
For example, they state that although studios are required to offer captioning, no reasonable consumer would understand that to apply to song lyrics in addition to conversation. While the lawsuit alleges false advertising, the studios argue that the reasonable viewer’s understanding of captioning requirements absolves them of misrepresentation. This argument addresses the allegations that the studios are guilty of false advertising, but does not speak to claims that the lack of lyric captioning is a breach of civil rights legislation.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 & the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 each offer studios guidelines concerning captioning requirements. The former legislation mandated that “manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and providers of telecommunications services” provide equal access to people with disabilities. The latter, meanwhile, explains closed captioning requirements for video that is distributed via the Internet and programming devices. The Federal Communications Commissions’ outline of the regulation repeatedly mentions television, but does not address movies.
This is what the studios’ argument points to – that their film productions are not regulated in the same way as television is. The defendants’ dismissal motions note that closed captioning rules apply to broadcast television, but not to DVDs, streaming or theaters. The defendants claim that they are allowed to caption music included in movies as they see fit, and are not required to include subtitles for the lyrics of every song used in films.
In their dismissal motions, the studios also reference a 2006 settlement on DVD closed captioning that seems to acknowledge that all song lyrics do not require closed captioning. This prior ruling, combined with their arguments against false advertising and civil rights violations are what the studios are banking on to push dismissal of the lawsuit against them.
Music is important to movies, and the lyrics sometimes are part of the reason why. Other times they are just a component of the song. Either way, it seems some civil rights groups feel that lyrics should always be subtitled in future film releases. Whether the court decides the studios’ have a legitimate argument against such a notion remains to be seen.
Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
