| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | No payment from client... Thread poster: Dan12
|
|---|
Andrew Bruch 
Local time: 23:15
Member (2004)
French to English
| copyright holders.... | Sep 8, 2015 |
I'm glad the copyright threat worked, however, I'm not sure that it is an accurate representation of the law. In the US (as opposed to Great Britain), the copyright holder is the author of the original work on which the derivative work is based. As translators, we are engaging in work for hire, creating something new wholly based on an original work. In the US, that means that the author and copyright holder, absent some formal agreement transferring copyright ownership, is the party that made t... See more I'm glad the copyright threat worked, however, I'm not sure that it is an accurate representation of the law. In the US (as opposed to Great Britain), the copyright holder is the author of the original work on which the derivative work is based. As translators, we are engaging in work for hire, creating something new wholly based on an original work. In the US, that means that the author and copyright holder, absent some formal agreement transferring copyright ownership, is the party that made the original document. See e.g. http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf. In UK, the translation *probably* comes with its own copyright protection (see http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works): again, if you have signed a contract that reserves the copyright to the original author or to the translation agency, I am not sure that not getting paid would necessarily give rise to a copyright infringement action, as opposed to a simple breach of contract action. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Is the US really that different? | Sep 9, 2015 |
Does the article you linked (link broken, but address can be copied and pasted) really support your interpretation?
A translation of a novel is specifically listed as an example of a derivative work on page 1.
On page 2, we find:
"The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously re... See more Does the article you linked (link broken, but address can be copied and pasted) really support your interpretation?
A translation of a novel is specifically listed as an example of a derivative work on page 1.
On page 2, we find:
"The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously registered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party."
In the case of a translation enjoying copyright protection, though, these changes cover the entire translation.
The translator cannot make public use of the translation without the author's consent, but that is the case everywhere in the world. The key is that the author cannot make public use of the translation without the translator's consent, but this is surely also the normal case in the US.
The only thing that really is different about the US is that is possible there to create a "work for hire" contract that treats a freelancer working for a client like an employee working for an employer (that is, the client/employer is considered the creator of the work in question for copyright purposes). However, my understanding is that "work for hire" arrangements are always the exception and not the rule and require an express written agreement.
The legal text defining a "work made for hire" is quoted in the Wikipedia article:
(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C. § 101)
The key here is "if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument ..."
I don't know if that is a normal clause in US agency and non-agency translation contracts, but in the absence of a clear written statement AND a situation in which the laws of the US apply to the agreement ("works for hire" don't exist in any other Berne Convention country), the US situation seems the same as anywhere else. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Hiring a lawyer to get the payment. | Sep 10, 2015 |
Dear colleagues,
Can some one suggest me to how can I hire a lawyer to get my payment? Any references please?
Kind regards,
Anitha
| | | | Dan12
Malaysia
TOPIC STARTER | Glad to hear you got your payment | Sep 12, 2015 |
robertin wrote:
The copyright thing worked smoothly and they finally paid my bill.
Thank you so much!
Glad to hear you finally get paid.
After this incident, I have been using some security software to protect and help proof the authenticity and integrity of my original work. Upon payment received, then I released the copyright to the client. This will help to use as evidence if I need to get a lawyer. I can also proof it to the client before I start engage a lawyer that may help to save legal fees.
| | |
|
|
|
| WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) | Aug 27, 2016 |
Andrew Bruch wrote: I'm glad the copyright threat worked, however, I'm not sure that it is an accurate representation of the law. In the US (as opposed to Great Britain), the copyright holder is the author of the original work on which the derivative work is based. As translators, we are engaging in work for hire, creating something new wholly based on an original work. In the US, that means that the author and copyright holder, absent some formal agreement transferring copyright ownership, is the party that made the original document. See e.g. http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf. In UK, the translation *probably* comes with its own copyright protection (see http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works): again, if you have signed a contract that reserves the copyright to the original author or to the translation agency, I am not sure that not getting paid would necessarily give rise to a copyright infringement action, as opposed to a simple breach of contract action.
The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) is a special agreement under the Berne Convention which deals with the protection of works and the rights of their authors in the digital environment. In addition to the rights recognized by the Berne Convention, they are granted certain economic rights.
This treaty is applied in a number of countries, and freelance translators are thereby protected for their intellectual rights.
This is a strong legal issue since civil and criminal enforcement will be applied internationally.
Soonthon L.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » No payment from client... | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
