News in the Translation World

Here's a story from Drexel University's the Smart Set about the struggles involved in getting a work translated and published.
http://thesmartset.com/article/article05031301.aspx

That was fascinating, thank you.

In further news from the translation world, here is a cautionary tale about what can happen to a literary translator, even though he is doing everything to the book. The villains here are the author Alaa al-Aswany (best known for The Yacoubian Building), the agent Andrew Wylie and the publisher Knopf Doubleday. They have royally screwed over a leading translator, Jonathan Wright. Here are a few accounts of what happened. Mr Wright's account is, quite understandably, emotionally charged:

http://arablit.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/making-it-visible-jonathan-wright-on-not....

http://jnthnwrght.blogspot.fr/2013/10/why-translators-should-give-dr-alaa-al.htm....

and

http://www.complete-review.com/saloon/#jm2 ("Translation tribulations: forthcoming Alaa al-Aswany novel
")

and

http://translationista.blogspot.com.br/2013/10/when-translators-get-shafted.html

and

http://www.rochester.edu/College/translation/threepercent/index.php?id=8512

The behaviour of Alaa al-Aswany and Andrew Wylie has been appalling. Moreover it has emerged that the publisher, Knopf Doubleday, engages translators under "work for hire" contracts, meaning that, although it may credit the translator as such, the translator does not retain copyright over his/her own work. This is hardly twenty-first century practice!

Quite a story!

Ugh, that's really terrible

Yes (to both). It makes me feel sick.

What are the implications of not retaining copyright over a translation? Just financial, or does it mean the copyright holder can edit it at will? I don't recall ever hearing of a translator holding copyright--is this a new thing? Seems like it would be something at least three parties ought to share in--author, publisher, translator.

A note on chalet vs. beach house--Levantine Arabic speakers, especially those of the middle and upper classes, often use French terms even when speaking English. "Chalet" was indeed how we referred to "beach houses" in Egypt and Syria. So while I can imagine it could confuse somewhat the Anglo audience, to me the presence of that term would be very evocative of that ambience.

In the US, there's no restrictions on what the copyright holder can do to a work; the translator might have some power over how their name is used, but I doubt it would matter for most of these cases. (In countries with stronger moral rights, the translator would usually have more rights.) If it weren't a work for hire, a translator who worked with the permission of the copyright holder would have a copyright over the final work but the original author would also have a copyright in the final work deriving from the original work.

It's interesting that in the US they can't do this to most authors; if you're not writing for a collection, or "an instructional text" or a translation (or a couple other categories), it can't be work for hire if you don't actually work for them as an employee.

#7 -- A translator **should** retain copyright to their translation. There are two sets of rights involved when publishing translations - the copyright of the original work and the copyright of the translation. If subsidiary rights to a translated book are sold, the acquiring party needs to obtain rights from both of these copyright holders. Rather, that is if the translator has entered into a fair and reasonable contract, which a "work for hire" contract is not, and retains the copyright to his/her translation.

Work for hire does seem to be a bigger problem in the US than in the UK. (I've only once been offered a work for hire contract and I refused it.)

Here's what PEN America has to say to translators about work for hire provisions:

http://www.pen.org/transcription-interview/intellectual-property-workshop

#9: A translator **should** retain copyright to their translation.

A literary translator should probably think twice before signing a work for hire contract. The bulk of translation is probably technical documents, and it seems a little pointless to demand that Sony consult with you before they change their Walkman manual, and unlikely something Sony is going to agree with. On the other hand, Stanley Appelbaum apparently lets Dover keep his copyright, and as long as Dover keeps paying his paychecks, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

#10 - I should clarify that I am only talking about literary translation here. Usually contracts aren't signed for technical translations, etc - ongoing terms are usually established at the onset of the working relationship for this sort of translation. But a literary translation is a creative work which requires far more time and effort. It is quite a different matter.

If Dover is properly crediting the translator Stanley Applebaum and continuing to compensate him for the use of his work, then he is a lucky man.