Translation Copyright
Matthew Endo
For example, there is a technical manual copyrighted by the manufacturer
of the item. If you translate the English into Japanese, who owns the
copyright of the Japanese version?
What are the issues involved?
--
Matt
ma...@gol.com
Bryce
went into the work. But language? I think the translated version has the
same copyright protections.
Any lawyers in here?
"Matthew Endo" <ma...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:1g4eg0r.1mk...@yahoobb219000172012.bbtec.net...
Ryan Ginstrom
The copyright is the translator's but the copyright holder of the
original work has to authorize the use of the translation. So in
effect, both the permission of the original author and the translator
are needed in order to use a translation.
In the real world, however, a contract for the translation of a
technical manual will have some clause stating that copyright to the
translation is transferred to the payer upon delivery (if the
translator writes the contract, sometimes that will be upon payment
<g>).
So the fact that the translator has copyright to his or her
translation really only applies to literary translation. For instance,
if Mike sent his translation of "Father Fudger" to the publisher, they
could not turn around and sell his translation without his permission.
OTOH, Mike couldn't sell his translation without the permission of the
copyright holder of the original work.
This issue becomes important in Japan come tax time. It is actually to
your advantage tax-wise to *not* be the copyright holder, because if
your income from the translation is derived from royalties rather than
"for hire" work, you'll end up paying a lot more taxes on it.
Transferring copyright upon delivery/payment is enough to convince the
boys down at the tax office that you are in the latter group.
---
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom
Fabian
> I think it's the work, not the language. You own the sweat and blood
> that went into the work. But language? I think the translated version
> has the same copyright protections.
>
> Any lawyers in here?
I thought the work is their copyright, the translation is your
copyright. However, they retain the rights to the work regardless of teh
language. So while they can't do anything with your translation without
your permission, equally, you can't do anything with the translation
without their permission.
A translation of something in the public domain is copyrightable. That
is, that particular translation is. You culdn't prevent someone doing
their own translation into the same language and copyrighting that. But
taking PD stuff this way is an evil on a par with Disney.
Disclaimer: IANAL
--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk
Michael Cash
My understanding of it is that there are two sorts of rights involved
here. The translator owns the rights to the translation, unless there
is some agreement giving those rights over to someone else. But the
translator can't do diddly-squat with the translation without the
permission of the copyright holder of the original. Intellectual
property transcends such mundanities as language. Since in a
translation the intellectual property content would (presumably) match
that of the original, then the owner of the original still maintains
rights to it. The translator gets rights to his target language
rendition of it. Neither the owner of the original nor a third party
can rip off your translation just because you don't own the rights to
the original intellectual content. Unless there is some sort of
agreement between the two parties you sort of end up with a Mexican
standoff. They can't use your translation, and neither can you.
That comes from spending an entire evening googling around and wading
through countless mind-numbing pages on international copyright law.
When I got through, the above was the understanding I brought away
from it. Of course, there exists the very strong possibility that, as
in so many other cases, I am entirely full of shit on this.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Bryce hu kiteb:
>
>> I think it's the work, not the language. You own the sweat and blood
>> that went into the work. But language? I think the translated version
>> has the same copyright protections.
>>
>> Any lawyers in here?
>
>I thought the work is their copyright, the translation is your
>copyright. However, they retain the rights to the work regardless of teh
>language. So while they can't do anything with your translation without
>your permission, equally, you can't do anything with the translation
>without their permission.
>
>A translation of something in the public domain is copyrightable. That
>is, that particular translation is. You culdn't prevent someone doing
>their own translation into the same language and copyrighting that. But
>taking PD stuff this way is an evil on a par with Disney.
There also exists a provision allowing for publishing (a word with a
very wide meaning when it comes to copyrights) translations of works
which are *not* in the public domain when the target language is some
obscure language spoken only by a tiny handful of people in some
blighted hellhole which literature and other aspects of modern
civilization have chosen to pass by without so much as a wave.
Fabian
> There also exists a provision allowing for publishing (a word with a
> very wide meaning when it comes to copyrights) translations of works
> which are *not* in the public domain when the target language is some
> obscure language spoken only by a tiny handful of people in some
> blighted hellhole which literature and other aspects of modern
> civilization have chosen to pass by without so much as a wave.
I think that falls into teh category of "we, the copyright holder,
choose not to follow up this legal case because teh total net worth of
all speakers of that language worldwide is less than paying our lawyers
for one week."
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Michael Cash hu kiteb:
>
>
>> There also exists a provision allowing for publishing (a word with a
>> very wide meaning when it comes to copyrights) translations of works
>> which are *not* in the public domain when the target language is some
>> obscure language spoken only by a tiny handful of people in some
>> blighted hellhole which literature and other aspects of modern
>> civilization have chosen to pass by without so much as a wave.
>
>I think that falls into teh category of "we, the copyright holder,
>choose not to follow up this legal case because teh total net worth of
>all speakers of that language worldwide is less than paying our lawyers
>for one week."
That is precisely the reasoning for it, although they dress it up to
make it appear as though they are performing the greatest act of
selfless benevolence since Christ climbed up the cross. But it is
actually a provision in international copyright conventions.
Bryce
"Michael Cash" <mike...@sunfield.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:bs99rvofakrev9bme...@4ax.com...
Hey, but at least you found the time to do that. That is comendable!
>
Michael Cash
<fuk...@takethisout.hotmail.com> belched the alphabet and kept on
going with:
Oh, don't misunderstand. I didn't spend an evening googling to answer
his question. This was from some earlier research I was doing for
myself.
Bryce
Oh! Misunderstando!
Brett Robson
Ryan's reply didn't turn up on my server, he must be a spammer. But I think he
is slightly wrong.
Unless specified otherwise, when you are paid to do specific work the person
that pays then owns the copyright material. For instance if I write programmes
for someone on a contract basis, I can't incoporate any of that work in another
contract.
This is the case in most jurisdictions, I don't know for sure that Japan is the
same but it wouldn't make sense if it was.
.
----
"No country hides itself behind the paper screen of cultural elitism like Japan,
which, considering they've bought their entire civilisation from other people's
hand-me-downs, is a bit of a liberty."
Ryan Ginstrom
news:bp4cc...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Unless specified otherwise, when you are paid to do specific work the
person
> that pays then owns the copyright material. For instance if I write
programmes
> for someone on a contract basis, I can't incoporate any of that work in
another
> contract.
This is essentially correct, however IMU the agreement must make it clear
that the work is "for hire," as it is possible to be paid on delivery for a
translation, and still retain the copyright (e.g. in the case of an
advance). The clearest way to do this is to just write that all copyrights
are transferred upon delivery.
One area that is fuzzy to me, however, is "secondary works" -- eg glossaries
and translation memories -- compiled in the course of the translation, using
the original work as a source. There is a kind of trend in the tanslation
industry for translation purchasers to demand that their contractors use
some kind of translation memory tool, then turn over their translation
memories along with their finished translations.
This trend is still pretty weak in the Japanese-to-English market (but
strong in the E->J market), but I suppose it's just a matter of time until
the trend catches up here as well.
--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom