The Business of Subtitles

[repeat]

I simply find it impossible to believe that the likes of Crit and MoC haven't also faced similar situations, that would compromise their standards

Just out of curiosity, whence exactly springs this idea that AE has or aspires to comparable "standards" with MoC or Criterion? With all due respect to the great work they've done, and not to slight them at all, but personally I have never ever considered AE in any way equal to either. Criterion and MoC are boutique labels expressly dedicated to releasing deluxe editions of handpicked films (mostly older ones, which as noted above already puts them in a different situation) - and while in some ideal world everyone else should surely aspire to a similar standard, I don't think it's fair to shit on other, differently operating labels if they "fail" to meet them.

[tenia]

one with forced French subtitles (Wild Side, who always do it).

And they just released Red River with optional subs.

However, on the whole thing, I understand how sometimes, you need to compromise in order to release something, and how the eagerness to do the release can be higher than the sadness to compromise. I'd rather have to buy a Region A BD Player than Criterion not being able to release stuff because they sit on their position and said "No, we won't region lock our disc, we prefer then not to release it at all instead".

Or the other end, I find it extremely sad, and I remember what Nick was saying at the time, that in 2013, in an era of globalisation and digital piracy, instead of trying to open their market the most globally possible, independants and labels are still stuck in an overly split market, with everyone working on their side, on their small market, and the right-holders not understanding how their policy of over-abusive contracts "Region lock this, fix the subs there" are damaging the capacity of a good release to go beyond its market frontier. A disc like Gaumont French Cancan exported well because it's Region Free and has english subs on the movie. At the time, 300 of its sales was outside of France ! For a BD that won't sell much more than 1500-2000 copies, it's something that shouldn't be overlooked.

Region lacking and subs fixing are 2 practices that should be deemed anti-concurrential, abuse of position and downgrading the end-user quality of the products. And I remember that either Australia or New Zealand had a close look on Region locking as anti concurrential.

This being said, MichaelB and others involved in movies releases have already explained extensively why consumers expectations and the reality of the market don't always meet. It is sad, but movie releasing is not a charity (though I would love to see more crowfunded restoration or releases projects).

However, I'd like to challenge TMDaines figures on region locking, because on the contrary of their former DVD releases, almost all studios releases are now region free, while independants were region locked and now usually still are.
For me, if a trend is disappearing, it is the region locking, not the subs fixing.

And I'm saying this while not really being disturbed by forced subs (in fact, I'm more annoyed on a release like Tess not because the French subs are forced, but rather because there are no english subs available, or, most specifically but because I'm French, by the pure lack of subs).

Just my 2 cents.

[MichaelB]

However, on the whole thing, I understand how sometimes, you need to compromise in order to release something, and how the eagerness to do the release can be higher than the sadness to compromise. I'd rather have to buy a Region A BD Player than Criterion not being able to release stuff because they sit on their position and said "No, we won't region lock our disc, we prefer then not to release it at all instead".

On the other hand, Criterion certainly isn't contractually obliged to lock all their releases, and yet this has been company policy since the mid-2000s, after previously maintaining a BFI/MoC-style policy of only region-locking when compelled to. I suspect they've cynically calculated that hardcore importers - and therefore those most likely to buy their releases in substantial quantities - will be multi-region, and therefore they'll lose little while gaining a negotiating advantage when dealing with other labels. (For instance, they do a fair bit of business with the BFI and MoC.)

And I'm saying this while not really being disturbed by forced subs (in fact, I'm more annoyed on a release like Tess not because the French subs are forced, but rather because there are no english subs available, or, most specifically but because I'm French, by the pure lack of subs).

The BFI release has the same transfer, and optional English HOH subs.

Although HOH subtitle provision is often the subject of considerably more controversy, simply because many labels don't do it at all - perhaps the stupidest example being Optimum's original release of Mandy, a film with obvious appeal to the hard-of-hearing community given its subject-matter. Although in this case the tsunami of negative publicity compelled them to reissue a subtitled version later.

But in cases like this it's almost invariably down to the individual label and whether or not they want to spend the extra money - I can't imagine how HOH subtitles would ever be a bargaining chip in licensing negotiations!

[peerpee]

But MoC did "compromise their standards" when they agreed to accept region-locking after claiming that their Blu-rays would all be region-free - a promise that they had to backtrack on very very quickly when it became clear that this simply wouldn't be possible without massively reducing the range of titles available to them (their Universal deal would have been a complete non-starter, for instance).

This isn't accurate, Michael.

I don't think I or MoC ever claimed or promised that all MoC Blu-rays would be region-free. It certainly was my intention to fight very hard against region-coding, we were indeed trying to release everything region-free, and I had many draining conversations with many licensors and other labels.

So no promise was ever made? and thus no promise was ever "backtracked on very very quickly". At the time (2008-2010), Artificial Eye were releasing lots of Region Free Blu-rays too, and it looked very likely that MoC could also continue to release many more region-free Blu-rays.

Instead, what happened was that other labels started complaining about it. Whereas before contracts not stipulating region coding were quite common, they now started stipulating Region B and forced subs. So I spent a lot of time arguing against forced subs instead.

We had contracts that stipulated that "Blu-rays must be released on PAL format" etc, and I'd just push ahead with region-free, because the contract was so badly termed it wasn't legally binding. This led to arguments further down the line, with licensors saying "no, but you know what we mean!", etc.

I grew tired of it all, and this was one of many reasons why I chose to leave – so I'm keen that what actually did happen isn't mischaracterised to make us look like over-promising fools!

[TMDaines]

I simply find it impossible to believe that the likes of Crit and MoC haven't also faced similar situations, that would compromise their standards

Just out of curiosity, whence exactly springs this idea that AE has or aspires to comparable "standards" with MoC or Criterion? With all due respect to the great work they've done, and not to slight them at all, but personally I have never ever considered AE in any way equal to either. Criterion and MoC are boutique labels expressly dedicated to releasing deluxe editions of handpicked films (mostly older ones, which as noted above already puts them in a different situation) - and while in some ideal world everyone else should surely aspire to a similar standard, I don't think it's fair to shit on other, differently operating labels if they "fail" to meet them.

Sorry, my intention wasn't to give AE a backhanded compliment, in comparing them to others, then insisting that they fell short. I'm a big fan of them, hence my annoyance here, and they do a great job of getting contemporary cinema out at a great price, usually with some form of extras. They're one of the best labels out there in terms of value for money.

My point was merely that I'm sure other labels, who always make their subtitles optional, have faced similar resistance from licensors, and that they have overcome it, and haven't had to cave in and change their policy.

Instead, what happened was that other labels started complaining about it. Whereas before contracts not stipulating region coding were quite common, they now started stipulating Region B and forced subs. So I spent a lot of time arguing against forced subs instead.

I'm glad you bought this up because I've been given short shrift on my speculation that labels, such as your former one, would regularly be dealing with issues with a licensor, such as forced subtitles, and have successfully dealt with it in the past.

Can I ask whether it was a regularly request or not, and whether it ever proved to be such a sticking point that you felt that you had no alternative but not to release a particular film?

[peerpee]

Can I ask whether it was a regularly request or not, and whether it ever proved to be such a sticking point that you felt that you had no alternative but not to release a particular film?

The more successful a label gets, the more that other labels in other territories start moaning about this and that to the licensor. So, yes, we did start getting asked quite regularly to force subs. It just appeared in contracts suddenly, and I had to fight each one and get it removed from the contract. Oftentimes threatening to pull out of the deal if it wasn't allowed.

It's easier to *not fight*, and I would guess that's what has happened with Artificial Eye.

I demolished the licensor's argument each time by: i.) Highlighting that ex-pat French/German/Japanese/Italians living in the UK have the right to view the film as the director intended (ie. without ingrained/forced English subtitles), ii.) We've never, ever done it before, so we're not doing it now, and iii.) Criterion have never done it either.

This sort of shit needs constantly fighting against, and I did constantly fight and win.

[MichaelB]

I grew tired of it all, and this was one of many reasons why I chose to leave – so I'm keen that what actually did happen isn't mischaracterised to make us look like over-promising fools!

Fair enough - sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "promised".

I suspect I got that impression because in late 2008/early 2009 so many people round these parts were using MoC as a club to beat the BFI with because of the unfortunate coincidence that the BFI's first Blu-ray releases were region-locked and MoC's BD debuts were region-free - and were using your much more generalised statement of intent as "evidence" that MoC cared about its customers and the BFI didn't, or some such bollocks.

As we both knew perfectly well at the time, and which has amply been backed by five years' worth of supporting evidence, the BFI and MoC had and still have identical views on region-coding, which is to avoid it whenever possible.

It's easier to *not fight*, and I would guess that's what has happened with Artificial Eye.

I imagine their main concern was getting the disc out a.s.a.p.! The crucial difference between current and back-catalogue releases is that new releases can take advantage of what might be a huge amount of favourable coverage - and, in the case of Amour, an implausible number of Oscar nominations for a foreign-language film. And I doubt they'd want to delay the release with legal wrangling given all the opportunities that that presented.

[peerpee]

It's easier to *not fight*, and I would guess that's what has happened with Artificial Eye.

I imagine their main concern was getting the disc out a.s.a.p.! The crucial difference between current and back-catalogue releases is that new releases can take advantage of what might be a huge amount of favourable coverage - and, in the case of Amour, an implausible number of Oscar nominations for a foreign-language film. And I doubt they'd want to delay the release with legal wrangling given all the opportunities that that presented.

It's a phonecall. It's someone at AE needing to identify this as a big issue which requires them to get on the phone and not let this one slip by.

AE never used to force subs. What's changed? Nothing, except AE didn't think it mattered enough to fight for.

The overriding point is: "ex-pat French living in the UK have the right to view the film as the director intended (ie. without ingrained/forced English subtitles)". This kills it dead.

[TMDaines]

That's one of the arguments that I made, but sadly they don't appear to feel about it as strongly as you and I do.

I would love to get in touch with AE and hear what they have to say from their perspective, but they don't seem to respond often these days.

On a personal level, I at least feel that my line of thought wasn't asinine and I feel somewhat vindicated now that you've shared your experience, coming from a background where you were one of the few labels to always try and deliver your product to the highest standard for the end viewer. I'm certain that battling against restrictive and unfair licencing deals is par for the course when it comes to running a home video label.

[repeat]

Apologies to American users for the Eurocentric nature of this digression, but tenia's post on the previous page made me wonder: isn't all this corporate fuckery with forced subtitles and other similar hindrances - done explicitly in order to limit the desirability of importing certain products into certain marketplaces - clearly abuse of a legislative loophole in the EU competition laws that effectively allows a company to limit competition without actually violating the principle of free movement of goods? Aren't these clauses that are described above expressly designed to that end - to limit competition? Because if you look at it that way, it is certainly not a minor issue at all (as some of the members here have suggested) - and the more it is tolerated, the more widespread it will certainly become.

[MichaelB]

I would love to get in touch with AE and hear what they have to say from their perspective, but they don't seem to respond often these days.

They have yet to respond to my Facebook comment. Unfortunately, I'm completely out of touch with whoever's running the company these days - my old Artificial Eye contacts now run New Wave Films.

[TMDaines]

Apologies to American users for the Eurocentric nature of this digression, but tenia's post on the previous page made me wonder: isn't all this corporate fuckery with forced subtitles and other similar hindrances - done explicitly in order to limit the desirability of importing certain products into certain marketplaces - clearly abuse of a legislative loophole in the EU competition laws that effectively allows a company to limit competition without actually violating the principle of free movement of goods? Aren't these clauses that are described above expressly designed to that end - to limit competition? Because if you look at it that way, it is certainly not a minor issue at all (as some of the members here have suggested) - and the more it is tolerated, the more widespread it will certainly become.

Yeah, I think you're correct. We're already getting to the stage where the DVD market is becoming pan-European. All the mainland European Amazon stores are starting to directly sell each other's stock and even British DVDs are now showing up on there too. It won't be long before Amazon UK starts selling all the European releases directly too, I'd imagine. Any challenge to this I don't think would have much of a chance because of the EU competition laws.

We've already seen similar cases with satellite TV and the exhibition of football in pubs. Some woman won the right to broadcast Premier League matches from the Greek broadcaster, regardless of the fact that Sky has the UK rights. Films and football matches are obviously two different kettles of fish and are viewed differently by the EU, but I'll be interested to see what could happen in the future.

[MichaelB]

Yeah, I think you're correct. We're already getting to the stage where the DVD market is becoming pan-European. All the mainland European Amazon stores are starting to directly sell each other's stock and even British DVDs are now showing up on there too. It won't be long before Amazon UK starts selling all the European releases directly too, I'd imagine. Any challenge to this I don't think would have much of a chance because of the EU competition laws.

...although in the UK it's technically illegal to sell something that hasn't explicitly been approved by the BBFC - or at least over the counter. I imagine Amazon gets away with it because of their offshore subsidiaries, or because they're merely acting as a go-between for the actual seller, whose location is their own legal responsibility.

Talking of "over the counter", last week I tried to buy a DVD of a film that I needed to watch at short notice as background research for a review I was writing. I walked from Oxford Circus to Leicester Square via Tottenham Court Road, calling in at every shop that sold DVDs, from HMV to Foyle's, and drew a complete blank. And this wasn't an obscure film at all - the British DVD of Carancho came out less than a year ago, on a respected indie label. Five years ago I could have tried HMV, Virgin and two branches of Border's, and I'd probably have struck lucky at at least one of them - but all but HMV are now closed, and HMV is in its death throes.

Which inevitably means that we'll be purchasing more and more online because we have no choice - and therefore much more inclined to shop around internationally.

[TMDaines]

Yeah, I think you're correct. We're already getting to the stage where the DVD market is becoming pan-European. All the mainland European Amazon stores are starting to directly sell each other's stock and even British DVDs are now showing up on there too. It won't be long before Amazon UK starts selling all the European releases directly too, I'd imagine. Any challenge to this I don't think would have much of a chance because of the EU competition laws.

...although in the UK it's technically illegal to sell something that hasn't explicitly been approved by the BBFC - or at least over the counter. I imagine Amazon gets away with it because of their offshore subsidiaries, or because they're merely acting as a go-between for the actual seller, whose location is their own legal responsibility.

Yes, I forgot about that. That may be why the majority of Europeans DVDs can't be bought through Amazon UK, but the other European Amazon stores all sell the foreign stock. You would have thought though that the German FSK system would have proved a similar stepping stone and all Italian DVDs come with that little SIAE shiny certificate of authenticity. I don't know the ins-and-outs of their systems though and whether they are mandatory.

The concept of buying nearly everything but food and clothes in stores is such a waste of time. I never bother. No wonder high streets are just filled with pound shops, charity shops and pawnbrokers nowadays. There's a certain pleasure about trawling about in a lot of Western European countries, where even small towns may have four or five well-stocked independent bookshops, but over here? Ergh. The abolition of fixed book pricing killed it off... not that I'm complaining!

[pro-bassoonist]

We've discussed this before at great length, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that this wasn't something that AE couldn't have negotiated around.

Your criticism of Artificial Eye's recent releases is not justified.

I am not in any way associated with AE, but I can confirm to you that AE were in fact not in a position to negotiate optional subtitles on the releases that you and other members have criticized. They are aware that optional subtitles are preferable, and where possible such have been included. The titles that were mentioned earlier in this thread -- Holy Motors, Amour, etc, -- had to have imposed subtitles in order to be released in the UK. I know this for a fact.

This trend of content owners requesting imposed subtitles isn't new, but in the EU it has become a rather important issue during the last couple of years. Furthermore, it affects all labels, from the top majors, such as StudioCanal, to smaller labels with much larger than AE's distribution networks, such as Pathe. Examples:

In 2010, Warner-Japan demanded that StudioCanal have imposed English subtitles on Takeshi Kitano's Outrage:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Outrage-B ... 32/#Review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2009, Fox-UK had to include imposed English subtitles on Pedro Almodovar's Broken Embraces:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Broken-Em ... 60/#Review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2011, Pathe had to include imposed English subtitles on The Skin I Live In:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Skin- ... 62/#Review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you could see, companies with much bigger resources and much greater influence on the market than AE have not been able to do what you think was possible.

And one final bit of info which I think you might find quite interesting: A couple of months ago, I was able to assist a distributor (which shall remain unnamed) that wanted to get in touch with the producer of what I believe to be a very good short documentary film. This short documentary film will be included on an upcoming Blu-ray release. Because it will be released in a different market from the one where the short documentary film was produced, the content owner demanded imposed subtitles for it. It was the only way it could have been used. In other words, imposed subtitles are nowadays requested even on certain supplemental features that appear on different releases.

[peerpee]

Some labels capitulate, some fight and win.

The practice cannot be condoned in any way.

[MichaelB]

I imagine it also relies on whether it's a buyer's or seller's market - if the UK distributor is the only company interested in handling a particular title, I can't imagine a rightsholder making this kind of thing a deal-breaker if there's a realistic chance that another deal might not be on the cards.

For instance, I can't imagine that Second Run has had to fight too many battles of this nature, and virtually all their titles have optional subtitles (I think the exception is Shinjuku Boys, where the only available master had them burned in, and removing them would have required the creation of a whole new master that was clearly way beyond the production budget for what was essentially an extra).

So conceivably, if UK distributors collectively refused to accept anything other than optional subtitles (except in Shinjuku Boys-style cases), rightsholders would have to capitulate eventually?

[TMDaines]

Pathe is a strange example considering they were one of the first labels that burnt me when I got into DVD buying, as they've long burnt-in or fixed subtitles in no obvious pattern.

StudioCanal is even worse though. Their releases, and those of the people they licence too, regularly come with fixed or burnt-in subtitles for no apparent reason.

Sorry, but I think it's disingenuous and frankly insulting to the labels who do fight to deliver the best product, to say that these films couldn't be released with optional subtitles. There's simply too many labels out there who consistently deliver them as such. It's also a slap in the face to the consumer who has the right to watch the film as intended and who may, believe it or not, have developed the capacity to speak a language over than the dominant one in his/her region.

[pro-bassoonist]

Sorry, but I think it's disingenuous and frankly insulting to the labels who do fight to deliver the best product, to say that these films couldn't be released with optional subtitles. There's simply too many labels out there who consistently deliver them as such. It's also a slap in the face to the consumer who has the right to watch the film as intended and who may, believe it or not, have developed the capacity to speak a language over than the dominant one in his/her region.

I understand your concern, as a consumer, but the reason I left the info above is to clarify that your criticism towards AE isn't justified. They do understand the market very, very well. The reality, however, is such that imposed subtitles are indeed required.

The example Michael has given above is also irrelevant because Second Run has never released a film from the same category Amour, Holy Motors, and A Royal Affair (Metrodome Video/also imposed subs) fall into -- these are very big films, Oscar winners, big festival winners, etc. When you start targeting such content -- which very clearly appeals to a much larger base of consumers as opposed to what a Second Run catalog release would -- and you happen to release in the EU, subtitle restrictions will come into play. This is the market reality. And this is the reason why even the likes of StudioCanal cannot do anything about it.

[vsski]

I must be missing something in the business rationale for forcing labels to do fixed subs.

Is it to prevent imports from or exports to other European countries and/or to protect the sales of a licensor within different markets?
It doesn't make sense to me, because if I'm a French speaker living in the UK and don't want English subs, I would import a French disc instead - and all that would do is dimish the sales of the UK label, the licensor would get their royalities presumably through the French label rather than the Uk one, which depending on the agreement may or may not be worth more to them.

[knives]

If AE releases Holy Motors at a cheaper rate French people may import seems to be the thought to this misguided thingy.

[vsski]

If AE releases Holy Motors at a cheaper rate French people may import seems to be the thought to this misguided thingy.

So then all of this is designed to suppress competition between labels and in other words screw the consumer (either on price or features or both)?

[zedz]

Is the suppression of competition / creation of import restrictions within the EU even legal?

[knives]

It's not legal, but nobody is going to do anything about it.

[pro-bassoonist]

Surely though Svet this doesn't create some kind of justification for them to impose fixed subs on the Bressons?

1. I have not seen these upcoming releases yet and do not know if there are imposed subtitles on them. In fact, I am unsure where this info is coming from.

2. I think that you are missing the point. It is not them deciding to have imposed subtitles - which is the reason why I took the time to post here. If such high-profile French films appear first in the UK, it is almost guaranteed that they are required to have them. But lets see and test the discs first instead of speculating.

(Point: If AE owned the rights to the films in the entire EU, then they could decide to do whatever they want. This is why Gaumont, for example, can afford to have English subtitles on many of their Blu-ray releases and at the same time have them coded ABC/Region-Free. And this is why some of their films appear on Blu-ray elsewhere but are locked to Region-B. They can dictate the terms).

I am not trying to debate what is right or wrong. All I am trying to clarify is that the decision to have such imposed subtitles is made elsewhere.

This is the way things are, David. One may post that region locking isn't fair, it can be fought, and so on, but at the end of the day the content owner dictates how the product you license will be released. Especially in regard to high-profile releases, new films, and big festival winners there is very little room for experiments.

As you know well, there are a number of companies that initially insisted that they will release only Region-Free Blu-rays, only to eventually realize that unless they lock certain Blu-rays they won't be able to release them. (Because if they don't, someone else will be willing to accept the content owner's terms and release them). Scorpion Releasing is the latest company to join the camp. (By the way, this was one of many reasons why the big studios killed off HD-DVD, which was a Region-Free format by default. It could not have worked with the distro system).

What Knives has posted above is absolutely true. And as I said earlier, such restrictions have been in place for many, many years, but only recently they've become an issue for some people in the EU. Imposed subtitles is just another form of region/market restricting.

Much more severe restrictions on Japanese films, for example, are done with very specific contracts precisely so that parallel imports can be prevented because Japanese releases are traditionally far more expensive than, say, U.S. or EU releases. Without such restrictions, the Japanese market will essentially collapse.

All in all, the right and wrong may seem very easy to deal with on a forum, but once you start licensing and signing contracts things become far more complex. This is all that I am trying to point out.