A QUESTION ...
Here is a question for you. I will give you the answer on Friday.
The scenario is this. You run a Thai language news website and you want to publish a story that has just appeared in The New York Times. You get your staff translator to make a complete word-for-word translation of the original English story in Thai. You publish the translated story. Have you done anything legally wrong?
(It works the other way too. Assume you publish an English word-for-word translation of a story that has appeared in today's Thai Rath newspaper).
11 comments:
This really is an interesting question, because a "word-for-word translation" from English into Thai would be nonsense in Thai. As you said in your previous post, the source text has to be interpreted and cast into the target language in order to be readable. So the translated story would differ substantially from the original, although not in the pertinent details. Is that different than fair use in the same language when stories are paraphrased?
Not if you quote the NYT properly with the proper references.
When I said 'word-for-word' I meant using the same story structure and same quotes. Not a rewrite as such, but basically using everything that appeared in the original story.
Sorry for the confusion.
This is a really interesting topic. It's not something I've seen much of down south because the Thai-language newspapers here, however many faults they have, do have reporters who get out there and work their asses off.
I think it is acceptable to quote and source elements from other publications only to strengthen an article, but unless you have express permission from the publishing company, you have to do your own work.
The change in language really shouldn't make a difference, especially if you are stealing other reporter's quotes. I imagine that some Thai-language publications simply don't know that what they are doing is wrong and also, they probably don't imagine they will ever be found out.
This has been going on for years, surely, and it's only now that people like you are working in Thailand and ushering in a higher level of integrity and professionalism in the media scene that things will change. I have a lot of respect for that.
I get the feeling that this is rather a big issue that is likely to have some serious repercussions for some publications.
Looking forward to more posts on this issue.
As college students are constantly being reminded, there is a difference in quoting someone vs. lifting verbatim. One is acceptable as long as quotes are attributed and the other is called plagiarism, and results in all kinds of embarrassment.
The difference is hardly subtle. But as I mentioned earlier when this subject came up, the acceptability of plagiarism is a result of the increasingly popular belief that absolute morality is irrelevant: People do what they believe is best for them. And if plagiarizing a foreign rag is best for them, then what is the harm? Likewise, if I want to hear the latest top 40 songs on my iPod, why should I pay for it? If I want software, why shouldn't I pick up the installation CDs on the cheap at Pantip Plaza? Or get the latest movie on Silom?
Hmmm?
Hi, first comment from a regular reader here...
The difference between blatant plagiarism such as this and the purchase of bootleg media is the sheer scale of what's been taken.
The impact of bootleg media on the whole industry is an ongoing debate, but the individual purchase of a ripped DVD probably doesn't show up on the radar.
This, however, is the theft and profiteering of one single article, without any proceeds going back to or no mention of the original author. It wasn't done in some boiler room, back street operation either, but by a supposedly reputable outfit.
The name of any journalist would be instantly mud if they attempted a similar feat (translation, publication) in western rag.
hmm... a very interesting topic and one in which im very interested in.
I'm just a geek running a news website with absolutely no background in journalism or any kinds of experience in media.
I feel legal issues are on debate here, how would you prove that a Thai publication has ripped off an English publication? Has any foreign publisher sued a Thai publication for translating without permission? The outcome of such cases would probably close this debate.
Personally I wouldn't mind people translating our own generated content provided they attribute it and link it back, but then this is moral/ethical aspect. in fact id be flattered if someone used our direct quote and attributed it back.
We have considered translating Thai political stories to English, but 2 things have always held us back. 1) Is it legal and/or ethical? 2) The costs of translation involved.
Would like to know the opinion from an expert on Thai copyright regulations.
Weird question. The way you put it: ofcourse it is illegal to do such translation word to word without the copyright holders consent and approval.
This is quite universal when it comes to original work and coyrights. Then there is the legal quotings etc. but you said clearly word-to-word. I know it is clear cut case atleast in West from Thai to English.
But as you made this question with such an obvious answer for any Westerner, I smell a rat. :-) As I have followed your postings around this subject before, I am thinkin that you have now found out that there is some sort of weird Thai copyright law that allows this kind of blatant copying.
(And no,to some commentors, just mentioning that you have copied some story from some other place word to word does not make it any less illegal. The author holds copyright and the publishing company probably would want its cut too. And especially as we are talking magazines and not some blogs.)
But the fact that "sajal kayan" comments in the way he/she does, I am feeling that Thais with or without background in journalism have no glue how copyrights work. He is even wondering, which no one in west would not need to do, would it be legal to translate Thai stories to English. Ofcourse not, if you do not have the authors/publishers permission to publish the translated work.
Also just attributing does not just not cut it for most professionals who make their living out of news generating. But what I guess is that many would not start litigation processes about lets say blogs that heavily borrow with quotes and links to full texts but then comment on things and as such could be considered more "academic" discussion where quotes are allowed as no financial profit has not been meant to achieve by quoting orignal works of others.
(But as Sajal Kayan says, hes just a "geek" and sure, I would like to have my stuff also quoted WITH atributes. But someone just borrowing my texts without adding any comments or anything to it and leaving sources away, how that could make anyone even wonder IF it is legal...)
So back to your original thing: I guess you have found out that this situation you desribed is actually legal in Thailand. To which I would say: one more weirdness point to Thailand. And to Sajal Kayan: go ahead with those political translations. :)
-kv
Anonymous/kv, firstly Im not Thai so pls dont base your thoughts about Thai people based on my opinions.
I did remember a Thai person telling me that in Thailand, News stories are not copyrightable. on doing some research (One google search) i could come up with the following to verify that claim. Im too lazy to read and understand the whole text...
http://tla.tiac.or.th/ifla/Ifla99_21.htm
http://www.itd.or.th/en/node/427
(search for the word news on these pages)
so apparently that makes plagiarizing news stories from Thailand legal.
if eng->thai translation/publishing without attribution is so illegal, then how come even after Andrew points them out it still makes no difference?
I have published Sajal's reply to KV's earlier comments as he/she is obviously entitled to a right of reply.
I am pretty sure I will be able to post a legal opinion later on today (Friday) but it will be a long one, so don't say you've not been warned.
sajal: wow, fascinating find indeed!
Copyrights ofcourse are not universal and from country to country they vary but there is movements to make different countries more "in line with the big players". So my comments ofcourse stemmed from the surroundings of Scandinavia. But yes, compare WTO hassles with China and Russia for example that were all about copyrights and copyright enfocrement.
But indeed, as the topic was copyright of newspapers and journal articles...if that is so, it is too bad for journalists in Thailand then. What a weird (from my own point of view) environment to work in. That kind of lack of copyright, is there any incentive for creative journalistic work then hmm. Oh well, ofcourse people have accomodated themselves to the local laws, also those in this news biz I guess.
Oh also, I see somewhat difference (but dont know suitable word for it) in "reporting of news as they happen" type of coverage and articles with research. As the http://tla.tiac.or.th/ifla/Ifla99_21.htm you quote bolds it out "news of the day". I wonder, in the eyes of Thai law then isn't there a difference between "daily news coverage" and researched articles in journals lets say Economist. Hmm
-kv
Post a Comment