Boards
Slightly conceptual question regarding copyright
How best to describe this...
I had an idea to do a kind of writing project where I 'translate' Francois Sagan's 1954 French novel, Bonjour Tristesse. It's a very short book (100 pages), and I thought I could do a page at a time, putting it up on a blog or something. However, I can't read French, so instead I'd be 'translating' the translation by Irene Ash, and just channeling a copy of the French. I don't know how different my version could be. Possibly very, although I'm not really aiming to modernise it or anything.
The issue is, when I idly thought of doing this, I'd presumed the book was out of copyright, being a Penguin Classic and all, but it's actually not even 60. And Sagan only died in 2008 (does that make a difference - will the book be out of copyright 75 years after that, or whatever it is?) In the UK, the only editions available are by Penguin, suggesting they own the copyright (or at least the copyright to the translation, which is presumably a separate thing?).
So I guess the issue is, if I posted a piecemeal (non)re-translated version of Bonjour Tristesse online, would I be in violation of copyright, and if so, how different would my version have to be to get around it? Publishers do parodies of each other all the time (FIfty Sheds of Grey for example), so where do the boundaries lie?
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's an appropriate video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJzwIFyZfck
i know some people that work in publishing
That’s an interesting question.
I would think you are entitled to translate it as you wish, I would be very surprised if translators didn’t often use other English translations alongside the original text, or unconsciously find themselves influenced by them at least. Besides, how could anyone ever prove you hadn’t taken the French as your jump off point?
As for the copyright, I think it is prior to 1922 – public domain, renewable copyrights after that, to expire only 70 years after death of originator. Or similar.
wait
so you can't read french so you're translating a french novel by rewriting an english edition in your own words?
At the risk of sounding like a wanky douchebag,
I'm interested in experimenting with what translation means. Ash interpreted Sagan's French to create an English version, but how much of the original is still there? In terms of the language, almost nothing except the character names. So is it even the same book? And if I interpreted Ash's English to create a different English version, inspired by the French, is that the same book? I'm also thinking about tacking a book in a language I really can't read and 'translating' that, based on nothing but guesswork and contextual clues (exclamation marks and so on).
I'm sure post-modern writers have mined this field pretty extensively, and I'd be interested if anyone had any links to anything similar.
This is sort of an inspiration:
http://www.visual-editions.com/our-books/tree-of-codes
so its like photocopying?
Isn't it more like when you want to copy a software/hardware design?
You know, you have someone go through the competitor's design and they write a sort of in between spec telling you what it has to do and how but not including any of the copyrighted code so then you give that to your coders/engineers and they use it to create the new device that copies the old one.
See the Affleck movie Paycheck.
I don't think I understand your premise very well
But, generally speaking, copyright in a literary work is life of the author plus seventy years, and translations ARE infringing acts if done without permission of the rights holder (section 21(3) of the Act, for reference).
If you'd be using the existing translation then there's an argument that you would also be infringing the copyright in that since you'd be using a substantial part of that work.
Your parody example is a bit different because that's not text which is being copied, and copyright doesn't subsist in characters or themes or plot points per se.
(sorry for relative brevity; phone)
Well, the text itself wouldn't be copied per se - it would just be the starting point.
If every sentence were to be changed in some way, would it still be infringing copyright?
What if I wrote a book that was the exact plot of Bonjour Tristesse but with different character names and a different location AND every sentence was different? But still contained all that Bonjour Tristesse DNA?
A publisher wouldn't like it, would they?
there are plenty of books (some quite famous)
that are retelling or recycling elements from other authors work
It'd still be an adaptation within the statutory meaning
And thus most likely be an infringing act (of both works).
There isn't an objective standard by which these things are analyzed. "substantial part" doesn't refer to a numerical amount but rather whether or not the author's original meaning/sentiment/artistic spirit (blame European harmonization for that wonderfully legally certain term) is still present in the allegedly infringing work. But to give you an idea, the leading European authority on this is a case in which 11 words taken from an article were deemed to infringe copyright in the article from which they were taken.
If there's a causative link between source material and an allegedly infringing work and a reasonable argument that a "substantial part" as used above are present then you're probably in trouble.
That's what I thought would be the case.
So if I want to pursue this project and ever make any of it public I'll need to pick a different book.
Hmm.
or
write to Penguin stating very clearly your university credentials, your wish to explore the conceptuality of 'translation' using a text they own the copyright to and see if they want to get behind you/give you the green light/help you
you must be able to use the old alma mater network to help you here
^ just because something's an infringing act doesn't mean that it's VERBOTEN
You just might need someone's permission to be safe.
Ha, I'd have a better chance thanks to what I now do for a living.
Anyway, surely it would be the Sagan estate that would need convincing.
nah, I think it would be the publisher
whether that is Penguin or whether they licence from a French house or whether the copyright is split between different territories and administered by the estate or the original publisher I do not know - perhaps that would be the first thing to ask penguin
the estate may not even have any power of veto of use - just collect royalties - it's impossible to tell
I'd do a little investigation if I were you, both your current work and your Cambridge contacts should be able to help, surely
On further investigation
the original copyright is owned by Éditions Julliard, which is owned by Presses de la Cité, which is owned by Group de la Cité, which is a part of Editis, which is owned by Vivendi Universal
good luck!
.
Sounds like you're looking for an excuse not to do
Just begin and then handle any problems on the way as you encounter them
You're right, there's nothing to stop me doing it for my own pleasure.
But if I want to put it out there for discussion then maybe it would make sense to tailor the project to something that doesn't have these issues.
isn't part of the journey of any project
making adjustments along the way?
there might be some fair use defense
depending what you do with it
i wouldn't bother. its rubbish.
je suis, je suis, je suis....
is there any reason you chose this particular book?
Just something about it that appeals to me.
But I have many half-formed ideas that don't pan out.
Woah, that Foer book looks amazing
Have you read it?
Flicked through it in a shop,
it's a beautiful thing. It's on my wish list, though I imagine it's not something you can really 'read' as such.
Man, you sound boring.
Maybe think about getting into a sport or something.
i know french
pay me. you get the credit.
problem solved.