Fun with the NRSV Bible

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

NO copyright on translations of PD works.
NO copyright for mere translators.

Do you not think that the inevitable result of that would be "no translations of PD works"?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Format C:

OK to pay translators billions per page (nobody will say I want it for free, I hope)
OK to copyright comments, reviews, critics and exegesis of PD works
NO copyright on translations of PD works.
NO copyright for mere translators.

Who is going to pay the translator of a PD work? If they can't get a copyright on it, no one will pay for what they can legally copy. If the work is PD then the original author/publisher will not pay for a translation because under your scheme the translation will also be PD since it keeps the original's copyright period.

BOb

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How would you like to see it work then, FC?

Suppose I spend 5 years of my life converting "War and Peace" from Russian into English. Do you think that I don't have any right to sell that work commercially, and that everyone should be able to instantly copy it freely?

You have to accept the fact that if you want to see ANY translations of public domain works, nobody's going to do it without being able to get a reasonable "pay back" for their work.

What would your suggestion be?

Business come from added value.
If you put a good amount of "extras" in your work (under copyright), you'll get your payback and your copyright.

Last year I bought a copy of the "Divine Comedy" for 175€ (more than I spent for the Sony reader). And it's PD. And it wasn't even a translation.
I can copy Dante's verses from it and sell them on my own.
But I cannot copy and spread the footnotes, the comments and all the rest.


Now, imagine I'm a big Publisher.

You spent 5 years translating.
My printer and paper producers spent the same amount of time studying the best hardcover edition you can imagine.
Now I give you what I think is a fair amount for your translation, I pay the corrector, the printer, and even the taxi driver who brought you here.
I then sell that book to special edition collectors for what my sales dept thinks is a good price.

Everybody got paid, except me if the book does not sell (and that's why I got the highest percentage).
But nor you, nor the taxi driver, albeit both of you worked on it, should claim Intellectual Property on Tolstoy's ideas.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Who is going to pay the translator of a PD work? If they can't get a copyright on it, no one will pay for what they can legally copy. If the work is PD then the original author/publisher will not pay for a translation because under your scheme the translation will also be PD since it keeps the original's copyright period.

BOb

Why you still find PD works in original languages in the bookstores?
Even as ebooks?

Why they're not vanished?

The answer is exactly the same.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Why you still find PD works in original languages in the bookstores?
Even as ebooks?

Why they're not vanished?

Well, for two reasons.

1. Because you are paying for the printing, binding, layout, etc.

2. Many people don't know that these books are in the PD and don't have to pay for them if they go online and spend 5 minutes looking.

BOb

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you not think that the inevitable result of that would be "no translations of PD works"?

Not at all.
What makes you think so?

Have you an example of a book, sold in libraries in a good edition, which ceased abruptly to sell on the 70th anniversary of author's death because of copyright extinction?

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Well, for two reasons.

1. Because you are paying for the printing, binding, layout, etc.

2. Many people don't know that these books are in the PD and don't have to pay for them if they go online and spend 5 minutes looking.

BOb

The same applies for translations.
And "translation" is well included in point 1. Tranlsator's work should be paid like printer's work.
Printers do not have copyright, nor royalties. But they still print. Why?

In the example given above, the translator and the taxi driver worked together to the same thing: bring Tolstoy's words to Americans.
Why just one of them should have copyright? None of them was the creator of "War and Peace". And in front of Tolstoy they're absolutely equal.