Q. Is translating a book into a new language considered copyright infringement?
A. If the original book is under copyright protection, permission from the copyright holder must be obtained in order to translate it into a new language -- even if you fully plan to credit the original author.
Yes, this seems rather counter-intuitive -- why would anyone object to their work being exposed to an entirely new market? What author wouldn't appreciate the free advertising?
There are two main ideas at work here:
- The decision to expose a copyrighted work to new markets is for the author him- or herself to decide -- not you.
- Translating the book may detract from the author's ability to capitalize on that author's own work.
A translation is considered a "derivative work," and copyright law expressly grants the author (or copyright holder) exclusive rights to his or her own derivative works (with certain exceptions, including Fair Use).
But I'm making the translation available for free -- I'm not selling it. Doesn't that make it Fair Use?
This is a commonly used excuse for infringing on someone else's copyright; it stands to reason that if you're not making money yourself on someone else's work, nor are you claiming to be the original author, there's no harm done. Right?
Wrong. Say you have a German author, and you'd like to translate his novel into English. If you were selling the translation, yes, you would undoubtedly be infringing on an existing copyright. But even if you're simply giving the translation away, you may be affecting your German author's bottom line and ability to capitalize on his hard work.
Consider the legality of making MP3s of popular music available for free. Sites that host improper streaming or downloading do not claim to be the author. Many are not making money directly from the downloads (though they may be enjoying ad revenue on the site itself). Obviously, the problem is neither of these things -- the problem is that someone who freely downloads an MP3 is not likely to then purchase the legitimate copy. They already have their music.
With a translation, the same logic stands: if the author later decides to release a translation to a new market, he would certainly be able to make the case that due to your unauthorized translation, sales of his official translation might suffer -- and you probably don't want his projected lost sales coming out of your pocket.
Notes on translating a translation
If the original work itself is in the public domain (think Beowulf, Dante's Inferno, and the like), it's completely free for you to translate or distribute however you like. But translations other people have done are in a completely different category.
Derivative works carry their own copyright. Here's an example. Seamus Heaney is responsible for the excellent Beowulf translation present in English teachers' beloved Norton anthology. If you'd like to translate the original text of Beowulf, it's all yours; while the original date of authorship is impossible to pin down (it was passed down orally, initially), historians' best estimates put Beowulf origins somewhere in the 9th or 10th century, give or take a hundred years or so -- well out of copyright protection by now. But beware: using Seamus Heaney's translation will land you into copyright infringement territory, as his translation was copyrighted in 1999.
Think of it like a photograph. Someone can take a picture of the Grand Canyon, and you're free to take your own picture of the Grand Canyon, but using someone else's picture of the Grand Canyon is copyright infringement.
SOURCES (accessed 1/6/12):
"Beowulf History," Beowulf.org
"Fair Use," US Copyright Office
Sarah Kolb - Business incorporation and copyright registration specialist. Freelance book editor. Senior content editor/writer.
