[Legales] Re: [FSFLA-Traductores] http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-transcript

Alexandre Pesserl alexandre en pesserl.com.br
Mie Mayo 2 19:32:50 UTC 2007

Re: http://fsfla.org/pipermail/traductores/2007-May/000641.html

Hello all,

Alexandre Oliva escreveu:
> On May  1, 2007, "Fernanda G Weiden" <fernanda em softwarelivre.org> wrote:
>> 2007/5/1, Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva em fsfla.org>:
>>> All this means is that whoever submits the text to the automated
>>> translator can be a copyright infringer.
>> If they publish the result, yes.

Actually, any kind of modification to a copyrighted work - including
translations - needs the authorization of the copyright holder (unless
of course such modification is in itself a copyright exception, like
parody). The publishing is just the moment when such modifications
becomes public.

The Berne Convention states:

"Article 8 - Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this
Convention shall enjoy the exclusive right of making and of
authorizing the translation of their works throughout the term of
protection of their rights in the original works."

Translations are also protected as original works without prejudice to
the copyright in the original work (Berne Convention, Art. 2 (3)) -
meaning that you need the permission of both author and translator to
use the resulting work.

> I don't think so, modification alone needs a license.  The question is
> whether automated translation is modification.

It really is not much of a subject as whether you hand-translated or
auto-translated a given text, but as whether you do or do not have a
license to do so. Automated translation constitues modification, by
any standards.

>>> As in, it's ok to commit a crime if nobody can possibly catch you? :-)
>> What I mean is that you don't have to worry for using a tool, and
>> publishing a result that is not anymore the work that tool gave to
>> you.
> My point is that your work is based on the output of the tool, so it
> is possible that you're subject to its copyright terms.

If Babelfish doesn´t state any limitations to the use of the results
produced by their tool, I can´t see how they could claim any copyright
at all. Badly comparing, it would be like Remington claiming copyright
over a typed text - you achieved the final result by using their tools...

Copyright protection can only fall upon production in the literary,
scientific and artistic domain. When you use a computer program to
translate a text, you are actually just using a tool to help you in
your work, but you - a real person - is the one actually acting out
the creative process.

>> As you said "is that grey area that if you don't step in, your enemy
>> wil"
>> I prefer to step in.

This discussion becomes more interesting if you throw in the notion of
artificial inteligence, and if an original work created by an IA
machine could be subject to copyright, and who would the copyright
holder be... But then again, I´m no Isaac Asimov and this is hardly
the appropriate forum :D

> Yup, it was when I revisited the issue with the point above in mind
> that I thought we could pursue this.  But we need Pedro's feedback,
> and we could use legales' feedback, since we're not lawyers.

Considering that the use of babelfish leaves LOTS of sortening out to
do, as it is far from a perfect translator and requires someone
actually revising the output, I´d tell you that if you have (a)
express permission from the original author and (b) express permission
from the translator, you are quite safe. Of course, every case has its
own peculiarities, and in case of doubt you should always seek
professional advice.


Alexandre Pesserl

Más información sobre la lista de distribución Legales