General Breakdown of Rights

The reason, Qidian dare doing all this bullshit to WW and Volare, doe not care consequence, is because Qidian is sure they will not lost the case , because if WW or Volare sue them, Qidian can always counter-sue them for their "original sin".

Maybe Qidian could not win the case, but they will make sure it is very long and painful, so WW and Volare think it doesn't not worth it

 

we don't know the detail of the contract between WW and Qidian, but we know Qidian is dishonest from beginning

Since Qidian make sure there is room for duo-hosting, I think Qidian make sure there is room for other things

 

I mean, the contract is probably designed with some loophole, so QI can later declared they can duo-host

most of us including Ren are not lawyers, for most of the contract, we just believe the good-will, and sign it without read anything (like we click the accept button on iphones)

maybe Ren hire a lawyer, but tencent is a such Pro of ripping small company, I doubt they can detect these loopholes

 

most between-Chinese business relationship is based on personal relationship, reputation, face. The contract is just a formality

that is why Ren think he can translate more novels, even it is a just a oral agreement. Because it is usually enough between Chinese

 

Oh my... This is quite unusual... Someone that seems to actually be making a well thought post about Qidian...

Hmmmm... Thank you for that, it makes sense.

 

I know bringing popcorn to such a serious thread is rude, but I just can't resist watching debates happen. It's enjoyable, and popcorn is tasty.

 

sooo many drama threads rn to read...

 

I think you put a lot assumption here and there

here is what we really know:
1. Ren said A
2. QI said B
3. A and B are not compatible
4. QI is shit

there is no evidence from these 4 could lead to A is true

 

Its qidian. Lol
They think they owns the law and use a mafia-like method to steal everything translated in their name.
Theyre no different than agregator sites.
Dual hosting my ass.

 

This is a well worded and thought out post. But I don't think you recognise that a non-authorised published translation cannot hold copyright in the US. If it cannot hold a copyright, then the original owner is free to use the work. While not ethical and perhaps not moral, it is not illegal.

reference: uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title17-section103&num=0&edition=prelim

 

Noted.
But I wasn't basing my post off US laws.

 

The problem is that it’s hard to say there’s an international standard when the US itself doesn’t share your stance on copyright law. This especially the case on the Internet, where a lot of net real estate is in fact located in the US.

To some extent, you could argue that the US has had a track record of exporting it’s intellectual property rules. This was the entire reason why TPP (the trade deal that never passed) caused so much drama. Apart of the fact that it would be damaging to things like the doujinshi industry, it was also projected to cause medication prices around the world to go up (there are a lot of countries that don’t give a **** about US patent law and won’t pay royalties to US pharma that invented the drug).

It’s a significant moral grey area.

In either case, the stance of US law is that in unauthorized derivative works, there is no such thing as “translator’s rights”. They have no rights to intellectual property they did not own in the first place.

The picture is different if the derivative work is authorized, but in this case we are specifically talking about unauthorized derivatives. If a TV show decides they want to have their actors sing a cover of an existing song, or even mention something like McDonald’s or include a Disney logo in a scene, they must obtain the rights to do so or else risk get sued.

DCMA’s are grounded in US copyright law. Therefore, if a publisher (whether it be yen press or qidian) sends a DCMA notice to a US web host claiming there is a unauthorized derivative work that infringes on US copyright law (eg. manga scanalation), the DCMA obligates the web host to take it down.

This is the current status of the issue.

 

@Westeller, did you get a chance to look at the Berne Convention document itself? You should get it a read when you get a chance, because I was taking a look at it, and I think it's a lot more complicated than the way you represented it. Furthermore, you kind of mentioned it yourself, but the document itself contains a section allowing local laws to take precedence/reservations.

Another thing is that the Berne Convention is extremely specific about translation rights. I think something that is easy to misunderstand is that the Berne Convention is specifically written foremost to protect the rights of original authors and content creators. Derivative works and modifications of the original work actually take second seat.

I'll summarize and quote from the most important sections.

The right of translation is initially held by the author of the original work. They continue to hold this right, and may give it to whomever they wish so long as they continue to hold the rights on their original work. Since it is an exclusive right, authors may grant and revoke that right if they choose.

Not really related to the translation discussion, I quoted this here to demonstrate (as most people are familiar with), in order to make an anime adaption of of a literary work (for example), the author has the exclusive right to authorize this (or not authorize it). If the author refuses, a company does not have the legal right to make an adaption on the original work.

I thought this article was especially fascinating, because as far as I'm familiar with this history, the US originally did not want to enter the Berne Convention in its earlier iterations, because "Moral Rights" is a very strong component of US local copyright law, but this concept did not really exist on an international scale.

The fact that "Moral Rights" is included in the current Berne Convention document kind of signals to me... I have a feeling like this section was added and amended into the Berne Convention when the US signed in. I'm guessing the US must have stipulated this as one of their conditions. In either case, this article is extremely US-esque.

----------------------------------

^I need to put a section break here, because this is where the translation-specific articles start getting complex.

If somebody want's to translate a work, they must obtain a license. The license doesn't necessarily have be obtained from the author, so long as a huge laundry list of criteria/exceptions are met. For example, after three years (or whatever the local law is) have passed after the publication of the original work, anybody(*exceptions to this) can obtain a license to translate even if the author has not explicitly granted it. The corollary here is that technically, before those three years, nobody can do a translation unless the author has explicitly granted permission. This is just an example though, and this section is really complex so you should go read it yourself. There are procedures for what to if the original author is unknown, or if the original author is anonymous.

There is also the US-equivalent of "fair use" clauses in the Berne Treaty document. This is, as far as I am familiar with, the best argument protecting non-authorized derivative works in court. Off of the top of my head, non-commercial, educational, and works of satire are explicitly protected under US law. Commercial translations, unfortunately, are not.

This article breaks down what to do if the original author denies a license to a translator. The translator still has opportunity to go around the denial, and circumvent the original author to obtain a license provided certain criteria are met.

----------

tdlr;
Under the Berne Convention, the right of translation is initially and exclusively owned by authors. If somebody wants to translate their work, they must obtain a license. If a license is granted by the author, there is no issue. If the author is not available to grant a license, or the author refuses to grant a license, the Berne Convention describes exactly what limited conditions a translator can obtain a license to translate. These conditions are limited, and there are many situations where a translator would not be allowed to translate.

Once the translation is made (under a license), the translator possesses ownership of their translation (but not the original work, obviously). The original author cannot confiscate, claim total ownership, or seize the derivative translation UNLESS (as described by US-style "Moral Rights") the author believes that there has been modifications to his/her original work that displays the work in an unfaithful/derogatory light.

However, if the translation is made without a license (aka unauthorized), technically all of this is void (unless the translation was made under a fair use clause).

 

Should this thread be closed? It might not have spiraled down to ad hominem, but caution is always a good thing.

If not, continue.