$20 for a sponsor chapter = WINNER

its only illegal if the author cares, most of the CN authors dont seem to care, if anything theyre grateful that their stories are reaching people outside of china. JP novels though, particularly anything related to LNs, those are definitely illegal, WN translations are gray area since it depends on what the author thinks.

 

@Ai chan, I've had read half of that article, I'll finish another time.

The fact that you read them fast enough doesn't certify their quality. For example, poems are difficult to translate.. And they don't have so many words.

You have to take into consideration what you pay for: the translation, maybe for a quality translation and so on.

There are differences between the prices of translators and that's because of their skills and how fast you need that document to be translated.

Not really. If, by being legal you understand to respect law, thrn ok. But, sometimes, the law specify that certain 'codes of conduct' can be source of law. Beside that, you have to take into consideration the law system.

The english system of law is a system where legal courts- judges can create law. In the continental system of law only the legislative organ can create law, judges only interpret and apply the law.

What's false? The derrivative thing?

Law is applicable on the territory of that state.

No, they aren't. It's hard to call a dictionarry as a original work. What's original, even if yoy hardly can call it that, is how the publisher manage the content, the form of that dictionary, pictures and do on -i.e. Longman english dictionarry.

You can't translate the full text but, you can translate certain phrases.

Please google the term: 'original', see how it's used in texts about intelectual property.

__------_
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You didn't read the links that I shared, did you? There is no such thing as a grey area in law. You say that in court, you'll be swatted down by the prosecutors faster than you can say, "I think?" How would you know they are grateful that their stories are being fan translated? Did you ask them?

Let's break this down into two replies from the original authors:
1) You ask them and they say OK. This is legal. You have permission to reproduce their work in English.
2) You ask them and they say NO. Translating it is illegal. You DO NOT have permission. But people do it anyway, and others think it's legal. It's not legal, it's simply that law enforcement can't be bothered so far.
3) You didn't ask them because you're afraid they'd say no. Translating it is illegal. WNs may not make any money, but they are already bound by the Berne Convention the moment it was put in tangible form.

However, the case with WN, although illegal, is permissible, only because nobody bothers to enforce laws on something that is free in the first place. That's the only line that separates WN and LN, law enforcement, not the legality. It's still literally illegal if you don't have the original author's permission. Don't make light of laws.

System of judiciary is different from written law, statutory law or legislation. Copyright Acts/Laws is still the same everywhere you go in the same country, regardless of whatever system of judiciary you use. The only difference may be in circumstances, but in the case of copyrights, everything is clear-cut. Everything is already answered, everything is already replied, everything is made clear. The Berne Convention has already taken care of any loopholes that exist in local copyright laws.

It's false because translations is not literally 'derivative work', it's only classified that way and this classification is what America use. It's actually a 'reproduction of the original'. 'Derivative work' refers to stuff that you take from the an existing material and you make something new out of it. Regardless of the terminologies, both still falls under the same law and always mentioned together, being governed by the same law, basically translating a book into another language without permission is illegal. It's a question that everyone asks, and the answer from every lawyer is always the same: It's illegal. Only when you have permission is it legal.

What is legal, is if you take a chunk of the original, recompose it and represent it as something new without the new composition having the same or relate-able sentence structure, word usage and meaning within a certain length.

For example, assuming that no permission has been acquired:
1) If you take three sentences from Chinese, then translate it into English, that's illegal
2) If you take three sentences from Chinese, then move the words around so that the sentence structure is different but still has the same meaning, it's illegal
3) If you take three sentences from Chinese, move the sentences around, switch the meaning of some words, if it's still recognizable as a copy of the original, it's still illegal
4) If you take three sentences from Chinese, take the core of the sentences, make your own words around the core and present it as three new English sentences, it's legal. You're still taking from the original, but you've modified it far enough that it's no longer the same work. This loosely falls under the term 'fair use', which is legal.

Not when it comes to copyrights and patents. Again, Berne Convention. Read it. It covers everything produced in the whole planet, except maybe Tuvalu.

Dictionary is not derivative work, it's public domain. Your example is too far separated from the argument. Dictionary words can't be copyrighted, but their arrangements can. Normally this is not a problem as every dictionary uses the same arrangements. In that case compositions matter. You can legally copy bits from every page in the dictionary, but you can't copy the entire page. Again, nobody's going to stop you from doing it. Who would enforce law on people copying dictionaries?
http://www.justanswer.com/intellect...nary-definitions-copyrighted-facts-right.html

Oooh, you want to play the google card. Let me show you the answer from a college professor in a website that offers legal consultation https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law

 

Let me clear this up, I am only targeting CN when I commented. And when I say that I read them really fast, I am implying that the novels themselves are of not-so-great quality. For example, some things are repetitive and boring (e.g. fights or build ups), so I don't need to spend a lot of time to read it thoroughly. Or the plots are linear and not thought provoking. At other times, the author simply includes "fillers", not a whole arc of filler plot but filler words. It's not even descriptive writing, or something like that. It's simply going in circles or exaggerations or something like that. Yep, I'm not the best at explaining.

When you read a novel, or manga or anime, the translations are important. If the quality is bad, the meanings are lost and might not be comprehensible. But if the media itself is of not-so-great quality, then the quality of the translations is not as important.

Here is an analogy. If the originals are the raw ingredients, the translators are the cooks, and the translations are the dish, then no matter how pretty the dish is, if the raw ingredients are near rotten, I'm not going to pay for that dish.

As for quality, I don't know. Editors are magical workers. Unless I go do some TLC-ing, I don't know and I can't judge it myself. All I know is, even crappy translations can seem just fine with great editing.

 

You also can directly quote another work for the purposes of parody or if its part of a larger academic work, where the pertinence of the quote to the paper is further explained by the author.

Edit: Also fanfics generally.

 

True, this is legal. Every college student knows this. We all have to quote a book, a saying or a sentence from whatever source material for our paperwork. What makes this illegal is if the paperwork is presented without giving credits to the original work/author.

Fanfics actually governed by the same law that governs derivative work. You still need a permission, but normally, if you're not making money out of them, most copyright holders simply let them do as they wish. Harry Trotter is parody, but it's so different from Harry Potter that the author can't be sued. If J.K. Rowling wants to sue, she can, but she will likely lose. Same with Vacant Casualty, which is a parody of Casual Vacancy, but the author can't be sued because it's different.

A recent example, Constantin Films used their copyright on Der Untergang to have all of Hitler Parodies removed from youtube and issued DMCA on people who refused. Some stated that the parodies were 'fair use', but it's legally not, because they use the footage from the film. Eventually Constantin Films backed down and allowed it, with ads instead.

 

Sorry, but what are we arguing here? Seems like some people are not content because translators are asking for money?

 

Many things.

The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or court system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies thelaw in the name of the state.​

In some nations, under doctrines of separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. In other nations, the judiciary can make law, known as Common Law, by setting precedent for other judges to follow, as opposed to Statutory Law made by the legislature.​

Quote from Wikipedia.
Ai chan, you were talking/referring to/about the difference/contrast between legal-ilegal, no?

Statutory law or statute law is written law set down by a body of legislature or by a singular legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] This is as opposed to oral orcustomary law; or regulatory law promulgated by the executiveor common law of the judiciary. Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities.​

If there can be, in the english law system, oral laws, then.. How will you 'judge' what's legal and what isn't?

We were talking about translators, no? About something that, usually, trancends local rules, about international aspects of translations.

Different words, different meanings, different results.

Isn't that paraphrasing? Isn't that the same? For example, in a scientific report?

Berne convention was ratified by that state where it is applied. It covers everything produced and which is produced in that state that recognize that convention and because of that it is bound/apply by it.

Dictionary as in...the whole book.

I'm not playing cards.. I'm serious.

That 'fair use', I mentioned that you can translate a phrase witouth having the accord/accept of the original author, no? Well, to be clearer, you can do that as long as you quote that source.

Your quoted article doesn't really explain, in a comprehensive way, the subject...and, you give me the impression that you use that word: 'college' as an argument.

Again, i do not think that, for fan fictions, if you don't win money, you must have the accept of the author.

Also, you can't add as an argument the fact that that movie company gave up. You need a court decision, to see the explanation/interpretation of that case.

 

I'm pretty sure you dont need it for fanfics. Otherwise someone would have DMC'ed a shit ton of porn by now.

 

I'm sorry @cdlevit I don't understand why you keep bringing unrelated things.

Like for example:
1) Oral laws. What does oral law have to do with fan-translation?
2) Refuting the applicability of Berne Convention in a fan-translation
3) Paraphrasing in scientific report. As far as I know, you quote in a scientific report. Paraphrasing is only in the case that some stuff is necessary, but may have irrelevant points, so you summarize it.
4) Your argument about 'fair use' being okay as long as you quote the source. We're talking about translation of copyrighted material, isn't it? How would you 'quote' the source? But then again, I already stated that in my original post, about commentaries being legal.
5) How is that not comprehensive? It answers clearly that translating an English book into Spanish without permission is illegal, among other things also explained.
6) Your last one make me stumped. I don't understand your argument. As far as I know, once one realizes someone's infringing his copyright, he first finds a lawyer, sends a 'cease and desist' notice, which acts as warning. Then if the person refuse, you give 'DMCA takedown notice'. Only once everything is ignored, then you go to court, and in the case of Der Untergang, Constantin Films will have to bring about a hundred defendants. That's as much I can answer, because I don't understand why this is an argument.

Sorry, I'm gonna go lie in bed. I'm really confused now and I need to finish 3 different short stories within 10 days. So being confused is bad for me. As I previously said, I'm a translator and an author, not a debater. I can't function when people continuously twist my words and adding irrelevant arguments. I work in clear-cut definitions, which is why I'd make a terrible lawyer or politician.

 

Why do I bring those into discussion?

Easy. You made a point out of the fact that.. Everything that isn't illegal it's legal. But, for.. Knowing what's legal you have to know, first of all, the law system of that country, the country where that original work was published.

I've never refuted the applicability of Berne convention to an translation. I've just mentioned that, for a international -treaty to be effective the cpuntry must adher/ratify it. For example, an treaty between country x and country z isn't effective in country t as long as country t didn't ratify it.
I do not know what countries ratified the Berne convention but, it wasn't mentioned what nationalities/citizenship those translators-fan translators have/had, no? So..

3. Paraphrazing? Well, there are certain phrases that can't be reproduced because of grammar and/or phrase structure. Beside that, because of the lenght of the quoted paragraph you need to summarize/cut it. Beside that, some scientific results are based on research. How and what can you quote? Nevermind.

5. You've quoted an article about a whole theme: copyright. Then you've mentioned original/derivative works, words that can be found in that article.

6. You make a point out of an .. What's that called? Agreement beside two parties. But, you gave an example out of copyright infringement. How and why shoyld I take that case as an copyright ..problem? How can I know what's what? Whose opinion should I trust? On what basis!? Maybe I miss sonething. Where there are at least two interpretations of the same text of law..which one is the correct one? Who decides that? The court.

The court is the ultimate solution and is used when the parties didn't reach an agreement but, an agreement, is an equilibrum of the choices between the parties, those parties make the equilibrum.

I didn't have the intention to twist/cut your words, nor irrelevant arguments. But, .. That's it, I should stop here.

 

It's a morally grey area, not a legally grey area. The law is pretty clear-cut about these things, and it's pretty much illegal across the globe.

 

@Ai chan mentioned that pretty much every nation on the planet has ratified these, and I'd be willing to bet my left hand that over 90% of the translators for the stuff on Novel Updates live in nations depicted in blue here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention#/media/File:Berne_Convention_signatories.svg

 

well actually yes.....a few translators have actually gotten in direct contact with the authors to ask permission, and a few have talked to authors about it period, if im not mistaken, the author of MGA actually made a video about his fans overseas (us), video in question


so yes, it seems like some authors dont actually mind the fact that their works are being translated (im not sure if i should use the word grateful, there are probably other words that fit better)


as for law, most of the works being translated are chinese right? im not really sure about chinese laws so i have no real way of telling you whether its legal or illegal, but you cant really bring US laws into it since they dont apply in this case (basically, translating a chinese book that is not licensed in the US does not fall under US law, it should fall under chinese laws)



now, i see you mentioned the berne convention, IF those laws apply to translating any works from a country that shows up as blue on that map, then yes it is probably illegal, but only if the author (who holds the copyright) presses charges


basically, if i punch you in the face, it is technically illegal, but if you dont press charges it means nothing, right? (this depends on where you live, i think some states allow cops to arrest people even if both parties dont wish to press charges)

 

China follows the Berne Convention, making it illegal in any other country that follows it as well.

 

Quite a misleading title since the $20/chapter thing is a limited time offer only... it bumps up to $40 per chapter after a few days... OOPS JUST CHECKED, now it' $50.

Besides, $20 = Winner doesn't really make a good statement... IMO, FREE = Best. Donations without obligation is also good. But Donations = Chapters is a road filled with many legal perils and possible prosecution... Though, it is a very very remote possibility...

 

While I'm not sure if DMCA'ed is quite the correct term, but yes, there has been some porn parodies that have been requested taken down/removed due to the author not approving of or being asked permission for the parody. Not everyone wants to see their characters sexualized or at least not in a manner they chose. It's just not that noticeable because you're busy surfing porn with your d**k in one hand and your brain laying somewhere in a closet I'd imagine, not being used for the time being. You might also not notice because I don't think it happens all that much, or at the very least, the DMCA's don't really amount to much. So many porn sites aren't exactly upright defenders of legality and as such I imagine fly somewhat under the radar with their collections, but then again, just my opinion.

As to why I say they have been DMCA'ed, I recall seeing a franchise parody taken down at authors request, although it was a year or two ago and I don't recall what it was. I do believe it was on Fakku though if you had the desire to research.

 

That has something to do with that country law. For example, what's the limit between parody and actual derrivative works. One good example of a derrivative work is.. A movie made after a book. In most cases, the writer can ask, if, for example, it's the case of a translation or movie for the integrity of that work to be respected.

That 'parody' term can be described as.. Pretty grey.

@LordCorwin, you've watched/had read the japanese equivalent of american adult comics. I won't write on this subject as it really isn't the place but, yes, there are parodies that win money in US and, from what I've heard, witouth the writer consent.

 

Yes, it does generally depend on whether or not you press charges (in many nations, violent crimes are actually crimes against the state though) but that's not the point.

It doesn't make the illegal act any more 'grey'. You said it's technically illegal, and that 'technically' is black and white.

 

The term, in itself, can be grey. And that it's because it can bring forth pro and cons. The intelectual property intends to protect the rights of the creator. But, those rights aren't absolute. But, if derrivative works are to be subjected to consent, why 'parodies' can't? There are derrivative works that are used to win money. Or, is that because, the author of a parody use only the characters and change the situations?