bizarre question

[kaigou]

but if anyone knows the answer, it'd be one of you. I'm sure of it.

There was a recent ruling in the US, I thought, as regards translations -- that the translator owns copyright. Is this true, and wouldn't that mean that if your translation is stolen and posted without your permission, you have essentially a kind of copyright holder's right to have it removed?

Just wondering how far that ruling (if I'm remembering it right) would carry.

Comments

[maire]

You'd only have that right for your translation, but that sounds correct to me.

[staranise]

I thought that was the way it's always been--it's something I encountered years ago when I was trying to get my hands on medieval sources, where the original-language text was public domain, but recent English translations were not.

[aldanise]

I think it would depend on how said translator started translating in the first place. Speaking from some work experience in Acquisitions, most publishing contracts (unless the author's both canny and determined to keep as many rights as possible) involve selling the publishing company "world rights, all languages", which means that the publisher gets control over translations.

There is a 1850-something US Supreme Court decision saying that a text translation is a completely new work that might complicate that; it's entirely possible publishers demand rights that the author can't give, but US copyright law has gotten steadily nastier since 1850, so I'd not be surprised if translators' rights have gotten slimmer. And often translations done at the behest of publishers are "work for hire" and the original-language author or the publisher owns the copyright.

Of course, if the original is public domain or the translator has bought the rights for the language, the translator definitely owns copyright.

tldr; It's complicated? Also, if you find that ruling, I would love a link to it.

[alas]

Not sure about the specifics of American law, (Australian here!) but that sounds good for most international copyright too. The only issue might be that if you've translated something without permission from the original source's creator, they might come after you if you get their attention by going after other people? But I think technically, you still own the copyright over your particular translation even against the original source creator -i.e. they can't use it without your permission either, even if they can block you from distributing it as something infringing on their copyright. (A bit off topic, sorry, but still on translator's copyright!)

[soukup]

Wait -- a recent ruling? I thought it had always been that way (translations are owned by their translators)? I am going to the library tomorrow, and while I'm there I'll see if I can't scare up a definite answer.

[kaigou]

Yep, recent -- well, maybe the past six months or so? All I can recall was something about Brazilian (either a translation out of, or into, I think), and the translator was paid like a ridiculously low amount. Then the publication went into overload reprints, and the translator argued that since he held the copyright, the publishing company was stiffing him. Part of the issue, I think, had to do with what's work-for-hire and whether translations can be work-for-hire, but I'm not positive about that, only that the eventual end was that the translator did hold copyright, and had to be reimbursed like anyone else with copyright. (And I could be totally off-base, but I think it revolved around a bestseller translation, like LotR or Harry Potter.) But if you happen to come across anything, that'd be awesome. My google fu is totally falling down on the job.

[maire]

Whether a translation counts as work for hire really depends on the contract between the translator and the hirer at the time.

(The licences that the original author signed have nothing to do with the translation's ownership, although if the translator doesn't have the right to publish a translation, then they can't do anything with their work.)

[aldanise]

I am pointlessly procrastinating months later, but I think this is what you're looking for. The recent decision wasn't about translators' rights, per se, but about the legality of putting things in the public domain back under copyright.