kaigou: Internet! says the excited scribble (2 Internet!)
[personal profile] 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.

Date: 8 Feb 2012 08:28 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] maire
You'd only have that right for your translation, but that sounds correct to me.

Date: 8 Feb 2012 09:17 am (UTC)
staranise: A star anise floating in a cup of mint tea (Default)
From: [personal profile] 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.

Date: 8 Feb 2012 11:20 am (UTC)
aldanise: Shuurei seated at a desk, studying, with Kouyuu leaning in behind her. (Shuurei studying)
From: [personal profile] 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.

Date: 8 Feb 2012 02:36 pm (UTC)
alas: Avatar to indicate general interest - Ooh! (Default)
From: [personal profile] 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!)

Date: 9 Feb 2012 07:24 am (UTC)
soukup: Kodama from Mononoke-hime (Default)
From: [personal profile] 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.

Date: 9 Feb 2012 08:51 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] 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.)

Date: 9 Mar 2012 06:31 am (UTC)
aldanise: Lady Murasaki sitting quietly, sad and contemplative (Default)
From: [personal profile] 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.