Re: Question about Alternative Means

On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Sam.Choi@kp.org wrote:
> Our problem is that we did not create the video and do not have copyright
> of the video.  It would legally questionable for us to modify them.

Although you might not have the right to modify the video itself,
you can use an accessible player. For example, I am a (non-blind)
user who still uses the accessible YouTube player at
<http://tube.majestyc.net/>, because the controls are keyboard
accessible (JavaScript rather than Flash).

Additionally, I don't believe that captioning video violates
copyright; it's adding services, rather than modifying the
original video. And it would certainly qualify as fair use even
if you did have to modify the video in order to add the captions!


> Why is a transcript not adequate?

Well, like I said, I am a sighted user who can't use many
controls. I'd be extremely frustrated to be told that I'm not
allowed to see video; I have to watch the captions instead.

> I am not an attorney, but when I read
> the actual law, it seems pretty clear.  In the case of undue burden on
> development or remediation, an alternative means to the content is
> sufficient.

Are you concerned with the law, or with accessibility?

Even within the confines of the law, switching to an accessible
player or adding captions (relatively trivial once you have a
transcript!), hardly counts as undue burden.

> So ... in my layman's translation of this ... if we provide an elevator or
> ramp (the transcript)

The transcript is not an elevator. Instead, it's telling people
that they can wait downstairs while you go and get them this
thing they need from upstairs. (A fairly common practice in
stores built in old construction around here, by the way.)

-Deborah

Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 18:05:20 UTC