23

The question largely does not come up in the US, but it does in some officially bilingual jurisdictions such as Canada. If someone ventures to paraphrase law of the US into Farsi or Spanish, that could be a kind act on their part, but it has no official status: only the law as enacted has legal weight. Though India is officially multilingual in many ways, ...


9

While the original question is about U.S. Law, conventions on international treaties (which are often drafted in multiple languages) are informative as to how this question is dealt with in other contexts. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is a UN convention on international treaties. Article 33 discusses (briefly) how treaties with multiple ...


9

I can't answer for the Indonesian law specifically. But in general, under most international copyright schemes, a translation is considered a copyrightable work. This means that even if the original work (in this case, the Quran and Hadith) is in the public domain, derivative works based on that public domain work can still be copyrighted by their creators. ...


8

Yes because the translated song is a derivative work. 17 U.S. Code § 103 (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works Derivative works is defined in § 101 A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation... FWIW, § 102 says (a) ...


7

Making and sharing and using subtitles for movies is not legal. It is copyright infringement. I paint this statement with a very broad brush. The movies are copyrighted (they are original and fixed in tangible form). (17 U.S. Code § 102(a)) 17 U.S. Code § 106(2) provides that the owner of copyright has the exclusive rights to prepare and to authorize to ...


4

U.S. law defines a derivative work in 17 USC §101: A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, [...] abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. Similarly, the Copyright Act of Canada reserves exclusively for the ...


4

(EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) is available in 24 languages. It wouldn't be practical for everyone communicating with EU citizens to be obliged to translate to all of them. Article 12 in Chapter 3 section 1 specifies : The controller shall take appropriate measures to provide any information referred to in Articles 13 and 14 and any communication under ...


4

According to Wikipedia, the organization that holds Vatican copyrights has the following policy: [N]ews organizations can quote from the pope's speeches, encyclicals and other writings without charge. They can also publish full texts free provided they cite Vatican copyright ... but if a text is published separately ... payment is due. You say that no ...


4

A translation is a devivative work - the copyright owner has the exclusive right to these So, yes, translation is prima facie copyright infringement. Strictly speaking, if you translate it, it's a derivative work because you exercised creativity in making the translation; what Google translate does is not a derivative work, it's a copy because there is no ...


4

The first copyright law dates from 1710, so it's not true that Chekhov wrote before any copyright laws. Any work from prior to 1924 isn't necessarily safe to use (it depends on when the author died). It is in the US but will complicate things if you publish internationally. Unless you translate with something like Google translate, translation is definitely ...


4

Copyright includes authorization of derivative works such as translations, so you must have permission of the copyright holder to create a translation. You could be sued for creating the unauthorized translation for your friend. If you attempt to further distribute the book, the chances of getting sued increase substantially. That path probably includes your ...


3

What is the equivalent for “Consideration” (English common law) in Spanish speaking countries? Prestación. Perhaps not all Spanish speaking countries adopt a one-word term, but the notion of consideration definitely exists in civil law. It is quite mistaken to presume that the concept is unique to common law systems. The Civil Code of both Spain (see art....


3

For a particular poem(s) the copyright term in ROK is Life + 50 years. In copyright, these are measured as calendar years so it will enter the public domain on 1 January 2019. That is, unless you plan to use it in a country that doesn't observe the rule of the shorter term (like the USA) - in those countries it may still be under copyright based on the term ...


3

It depends on how much you "copy" (including translate). If you were to have a list of 250 or even 1000 challenging words that appear in the movie, and even list the words in the order that they first appear in the movie, then there is no question of infringing on their copyright. If you create a transcription or translation of any part of the movie, then ...


2

Translating a work gives you a "thin copyright" in the translated text, but the underlying copyright still holds, so you need permission from the original copyright holder. (As well as anyone they have given exclusive rights to, such as a publisher. The publisher may also already have exclusive translation rights into French.)


2

It's not your license. It's the MIT's license, for example. What all these licenses have in common is that they allow the user to use the software in the way that copyright law allows, and then give the user certain further rights. So all the users of the software can use it just fine without being able to read the license terms, as long as they don't do ...


2

There are basically two choices: pick a language, or use both. If you use both (the contract includes versions in both languages), you also need to anticipate the possibility that the versions are not absolutely identical, in which case a specified version prevails. Either approach requires hiring a good legal translator, and the bilingual contract approach ...


2

I don't know of any country in which doing such a translation without permission from the copyright holder would not be an infringement of copyright. To be more positive, making such a translation would infringe copyright in every country that I am aware of unless one had permission from the copyright holder. If done with permission, the translation would ...


2

As far as I know, it is standard to not translate official citation abbreviations, so UrhG stays UrhG, and RT is RT. If a citation is of the form "Act 2 of 12 May 1961" that would be translated, rather than "Lov av 12. mai 1961 nr. 2". RT I 2006, 2, 3 officially uses your translation of the title, and all English citations of the law that I can find use the ...


1

You need the valid permission of the copyright holder. The publisher may actually be the copyright holder, if the author sold the book including the copyright, so then obviously you need permission of the publisher. The author could have signed a contract that gives the publisher the exclusive rights to create French and Italian translations, so you could ...


1

It depends It depends what rights the author sold to the publisher and what rights they didn’t. The author would need to review their contract to see who has the right to authorise translations.


1

Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts. Consideration may be thought of as the concept of value offered and accepted by people or organisations entering into contracts. Anything of value promised by one party to the other when making a contract can be treated as "consideration": for example, if A signs a ...


1

Any song or other music composed and published in the 1830s is very likely to be in the public domain by now, although it will depend on the exact laws in your country, and, in some countries, on the year in which the author/composer died. In the US if it was published before 1924 it will be in the public domain now, but the rule is different in different ...


1

You seem to be assuming that if the translator has copyright in a translation (which he may or may not have), the original author has no copyright in it. This is not correct; it is possible for both parties to have copyright, so that publishing requires an agreement between the two (and presumably a division of royalties or other income). Though I am no ...


1

You do not breach a trademark by using your own name. If your name happens to by Disney and you want to open a film studio, you can call it Disney and no one can stop you.


1

Translation of documents for use in courts isn't the subject of a formal occupational licensing regulation system. Translators can be certified as experts in particular cases and many courts have local rules governing the certification of translations for live translation of court proceedings, as the court system of legally obliged to provide translation ...


1

They both need to know and understand what they're signing, so I imagine that there needs to be two contract translations? The best practice is to only have one "official"/signed contract in only one translation. The other party can read a translated version and sign the original. If you have two executed versions of a contract, each with a different ...


1

Generally, it is a derivative work. You may be able to avoid copyright issues if you do the following: Employ two teams. First team creates specifications based on the original work for the new translated code. Then a lawyer can review the specifications to remove anything that could be considered copyrighted. Then an entirely different team, which does ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible