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.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
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.
Should Movie Theaters Caption Song Lyrics?
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Should movie theaters caption song lyrics?
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.
