| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | Who owns the translation memory? Thread poster: Francisco Pavez (X)
|
|---|
| The translator creates the TM and it is his/her intellectual property | Jul 4, 2015 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I wouldn't want to sell [the updated TM] to them and agree not to use it myself. That wouldn't make sense because of my IP rights and the fact that many phrases in segments come up in other documents later again, and I will certainly use them again.
You only own the segments that you edited. It would not be onerous to agree not to re-use the segments that the client had provided (but, as I said, whether or not that is your right is perhaps a separate discussion).
[Edited at 2015-07-04 09:42 GMT]
When you amend an existing TM, you don't typically just edit your segments. New entries into an existing TM have consequences for the entire TM and most likely change it. My stance is that when I get a TM that is created by someone else, it is I who will decide what is right and wrong in the previous TM, it is I who will make changes as I see fit and it is I who will update and therefore change the entire TM at the end, thus creating an entirely new TM. And a TM is certainly something completely different from a target text appearing next to a source text.
I would clarify before I start any work on a TM that a) the original TM was given to me as a resource and that b) I shall be free to use it and change any or no words found in it to create my own new TM. Call it a new version of the old TM, I call it a new product for which the original TM is a resource, nothing more. My new TM is my intellectual property and I will choose (before starting my work) whether I agree to sell it to the client or not.
Or see it from another angle. It is I who accepts or replaces previous TM suggestions/entries, thus building a new TM based on my knowledge. I don't just accept terms and phrases suggested by the original TM. I use my knowledge to accept or discard these suggestions. Granted, there might be entries in my new TM that are the same as in the old TM, but you can't quantify that before you start your work. In any case, my new TM might contain entries found in that other TM but that other TM is just a resource. By the way, I wouldn't agree to simply accept what the old TM suggests.
Also, I would not agree to provide TM's based on an NDA that specifies my work as "work for hire" (be very careful) or simply stipulates to "return" the TM's to the client, by which they certainly don't mean the old TM they gave you but the one you "amended" (should read: created) in the process of your work, and to which you should claim your IP rights. I personally don't recommend signing NDA's. I suggest to present your own contract.
This is a very important and, I am sure, widely misunderstood issue among translators, and it needs to be discussed. You don't want your IP sold off without your permission or without remuneration. And maybe you don't want it sold off at all. In any case, you need to be able to use such TM's in the future. So, that's why selling TMs will constitute an agreed co-use, but that co-use must be limited as well. Otherwise, your TM can be sold again and again (not that it necessarily would), but you know what I mean.
I am hoping for some more input.
Here is an excellent article that talks about this issue of "who owns the translation memory (TM): you can scroll to the last couple of pages and the conclusion to get a good idea about the importance of this issue.
http://www.mt-archive.info/05/Aslib-2009-Smith.pdf
[Edited at 2015-07-04 20:56 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 22:46
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
You only own the segments that you edited. It would not be onerous to agree not to re-use the segments that the client had provided...
When you amend an existing TM, you don't typically just edit your segments. New entries into an existing TM have consequences for the entire TM and most likely change it.
We must be using different software, then. In the programs that I use (WFC, WFP, OmT, Trados 2007, and Trados 2011), adding a segment or editing an existing one does not affect the other existing entries in the TM. You can easily test this by exporting the TM to an easier to examine format.
Still, even if your edits alter the other segments in the TM (or other aspects of the TM, e.g. an index, perhaps), you do not affect those other changes deliberately, do you?
My stance is that when I get a TM that is created by someone else, it is I who will decide what is right and wrong in the previous TM, it is I who will make changes as I see fit and it is I who will update and therefore change the entire TM at the end, thus creating an entirely new TM.
If you take an existing resource and edit it so that it becomes something new, instead of creating the same resource from scratch, then what you're creating is called a derivative work, which means that you only have copyright of that work if you also have copyright to the original work that your derivative work is based on. It is not an "entirely new TM" (as you put it) if you create it using an existing one, even if the modified one differs quite markedly from the original.
And a TM is certainly something completely different from a target text appearing next to a source text.
Well, the way I see it, apart from some meta data (e.g. creation ID, creation date/time, labels automatically added, etc), a TM is essentially a target text paired with a source text.
It is I who accepts or replaces previous TM suggestions/entries, thus building a new TM based on my knowledge. I don't just accept terms and phrases suggested by the original TM. I use my knowledge to accept or discard these suggestions.
That is true, but it's unlikely that a translator will edit segments in the TM that do not relate directly to the translation that he's creating, right? I mean, the TM may suggest something, and you use your expertise to decide whether or not to use the suggestion, and ultimately you are paid for your expertise in creating the translation. The translation is duplicated into the TM, and nothing else is added to the TM (unless the translator actually does edit the TM in addition to making a translation using the TM).
The author's argument is that since a TM contains not only the source and target text, but also lots of codes (if you view the TM in a source code viewer), the TM is therefore not simply a version of the source and target text. I'm sorry, but can only call this a silly argument. To explain, a DOCX file also contains lots of underlying code, in addition to the actual text, but no-one is claiming that although the client can own the actual text, the source code in the DOCX file somehow belongs to the person who put the text into MS Word and hit the "save" button.
If the translator was to create the TM in e.g. TMX format by hand coding it in e.g. Notepad, then yes, then the translator is the copyright holder of that source code. But the fact is that translators don't do anything creative or skilled that results in the specific source code of a TM format -- rather, the TM's codes are generated by the TM program, and the translator actually has no control over it.
[Edited at 2015-07-04 21:32 GMT]
| | | | | From the translator's point of view | Jul 4, 2015 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
You only own the segments that you edited. It would not be onerous to agree not to re-use the segments that the client had provided...
When you amend an existing TM, you don't typically just edit your segments. New entries into an existing TM have consequences for the entire TM and most likely change it.
We must be using different software, then. In the programs that I use (WFC, WFP, OmT, Trados 2007, and Trados 2011), adding a segment or editing an existing one does not affect the other existing entries in the TM. You can easily test this by exporting the TM to an easier to examine format.
Still, even if your edits alter the other segments in the TM (or other aspects of the TM, e.g. an index, perhaps), you do not affect those other changes deliberately, do you?
It doesn't matter what CAT tool you use. As I tried to point out, I would use any TM given to and accepted by me simply as a RESOURCE (and maybe I won't accept it anyway). I can use it to help build my own new TM. To what degree I use the resource is my business.
If the client wants a TM that I create while changing a source into a target text, I will have to make sure my IP rights are protected. I am not giving them away on a silver platter. And yes, you can update and change TMs.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
My stance is that when I get a TM that is created by someone else, it is I who will decide what is right and wrong in the previous TM, it is I who will make changes as I see fit and it is I who will update and therefore change the entire TM at the end, thus creating an entirely new TM.
Samuel Murray wrote:
If you take an existing resource and edit it so that it becomes something new, instead of creating the same resource from scratch, then what you're creating is called a derivative work, which means that you only have copyright of that work if you also have copyright to the original work that your derivative work is based on. It is not an "entirely new TM" (as you put it) if you create it using an existing one, even if the modified one differs quite markedly from the original.
That depends on how you defined the old TM in your contract. It's a resource for me, and I will make sure I define it that way. I am not getting caught up in being exploited or being accused of any copyright law infringements. It's safe to say that I much rather create my own TM than work and/or accept someone else's.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
And a TM is certainly something completely different from a target text appearing next to a source text.
Samuel Murray wrote:
Well, the way I see it, apart from some meta data (e.g. creation ID, creation date/time, labels automatically added, etc), a TM is essentially a target text paired with a source text.
I don't see it that way. A TM is a separate product. You might want to read the article I linked to above.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
It is I who accepts or replaces previous TM suggestions/entries, thus building a new TM based on my knowledge. I don't just accept terms and phrases suggested by the original TM. I use my knowledge to accept or discard these suggestions.
Samuel Murray wrote:
That is true, but it's unlikely that a translator will edit segments in the TM that do not relate directly to the translation that he's creating, right? I mean, the TM may suggest something, and you use your expertise to decide whether or not to use the suggestion, and ultimately you are paid for your expertise in creating the translation. The translation is duplicated into the TM, and nothing else is added to the TM (unless the translator actually does edit the TM in addition to making a translation using the TM, which would be a special case (or... a basket case?)).
If the TM suggests something and it is wrong, not just for my very instance but wrong in general, I will not want it to be left that way.
Creating the translation and creating the TM are two distinct things. In any case, when you're done translating and you have also created a TM, that TM is your work. I would not agree to "use" someone's TM, do a 20 000 word translation (or however big), and then give my client my TM for free and free to use just because he/she gave me his/her TM as a resource.
Most importantly, we need to take a very close look at this issue, from the translator's point of view.
[Edited at 2015-07-04 21:49 GMT]
[Edited at 2015-07-05 00:33 GMT]
| | | |
Samuel Murray wrote:
The author's argument is that since a TM contains not only the source and target text, but also lots of codes (if you view the TM in a source code viewer), the TM is therefore not simply a version of the source and target text. I'm sorry, but can only call this a silly argument. To explain, a DOCX file also contains lots of underlying code, in addition to the actual text, but no-one is claiming that although the client can own the actual text, the source code in the DOCX file somehow belongs to the person who put the text into MS Word and hit the "save" button.
If the translator was to create the TM in e.g. TMX format by hand coding it in e.g. Notepad, then yes, then the translator is the copyright holder of that source code. But the fact is that translators don't do anything creative or skilled that results in the specific source code of a TM format -- rather, the TM's codes are generated by the TM program, and the translator actually has no control over it.
[Edited at 2015-07-04 21:32 GMT]
I am sure the point the author is trying to make is that a TM is a) only good for you in a CAT tool, and that it's not source text segments next to target text segments. TMs used in a CAT tool will trigger matches for segments wherever they occur in a new text or farther down the old text. The use of a TM is different from that of the target text. But most importantly, b) a TM can be used to help create new translations, it is not simply limited to the one source and target text with which it was created. That's for me a very important argument for the TM as a separate entity and the point is since I created it, it is my IP. Why should I give it away and enable other people to use my expertise for free?!
So we're not talking about creating source codes, but we are talking about creating IP that is recorded in a very specific way and with codes attached to it.
[Edited at 2015-07-04 22:07 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 22:46
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| The correct logic | Jul 4, 2015 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I would not agree to "use" someone's TM, do a 20 000 word translation (or however big), and then give my client my TM for free and free to use just because he/she gave me his/her TM as a resource.
If the client's argument is that you should give them (share with them) the TM that you created from the translation because they had shared their TM with you, then I agree, that is not a valid reason for expecting the updated TM in return.
However, I get the impression that the most common argument for returning an updated TM is not as some kind of reward for the client having shared it with you in the first place, but rather because the updated TM would contain normally nothing more than that which belongs to the client anyway.
We can talk about the theoretical side of things, but the ultimate question is which expectation is the most logical one: that sharing back the TM is normal, or that sharing it back is unusual.
What I mean is this: if a client neglected to mention in the hand-off mail that the TM is part of the deliverable that he's paying for, does that mean that (a) the TM is excluded from the deal, or that (b) the TM is an obvious part of the deal? To put it differently, if a client were to ask for the TM (without having specified it in the hand-off), should the translator view this as the client simply asking for something that belongs the job anyway, or as the client asking for a freebie?
My opinion is that all files that are generated automatically by the software that the translator had agreed to use (or: that the client had requested to be used, specifically or by implication due to the files being in a given format) are part of the deliverable, and need not be specified specifically in the hand-off. At the same time, my opinion is also that unless the client specifies that a certain such file should be delivered, the translator would not be at fault if he does not keep a copy of that file after the job is done, and is unable to deliver it later when the client requests it (this includes instances where the translator edits the TM afterwards -- the translator is not obligated to send the edited TM because the TM that was generated by the software is no longer available).
| | | |
Samuel Murray wrote:
...
We can talk about the theoretical side of things, but the ultimate question is which expectation is the most logical one: that sharing back the TM is normal, or that sharing it back is unusual.
I would rather ask about what should be expected from a professional or even legal point of view.
But, to your question:
To answer that question, I believe one has to look at this issue from the following angle:
the reason TMs matter at all today (not always and not in all specific fields) is because we have CAT tools. Without CAT tools, we might use glossaries and type in words, phrases etc. that we are looking for and use the suggested translations and manually complement those glossaries/dictionaries.
A TM is a handy tool today, but it's only handy when it's correct.
Even if I didn't create a TM during a translation project, an agency or client in general can create one, using a CAT tool as long as they know how to do it. Many might say that because of that, it is perfectly normal to create a TM and give it to the client.
But the problem is, as I said before, that a TM created by you or created on the basis of your translation, constitutes, in my eyes, a distinct work, and the intellectual content is yours.
It now can either be shared with/sold to other translators, or sold off to other clients. In any case, people are making money off your intellectual content and are re-using it. What do you get in return?
If that sounds okay to you, then sharing back the TM is normal.
To me it's not.
You might say - how can you prevent the creation of a TM from your work or prohibit it?
Well, you can specify how your translation is used. But the legal ramifications are unclear and there is no way to police it, yet. We'd need a lock that prevents others from using your TM unless they contact you. (Or is there such a lock?!)
And what if the client gives it to the next, cheaper translator to continue this or another project later? What about the TM that you possibly accepted as a resource - do you know if the person who created it cared that you went ahead and used it? But I don't worry about that too much. Hopefully the translator got paid something for it. But I need to make sure that I can use it based on the contract I have with the client (agency).
In any case, I believe that you should get paid for the TM you create and give to a client. We should also specify that any unauthorized use of our TMs or creation of a TM based in any part on our target texts is prohibited.
Samuel Murray wrote:
What I mean is this: if a client neglected to mention in the hand-off mail that the TM is part of the deliverable that he's paying for, does that mean that (a) the TM is excluded from the deal, or that (b) the TM is an obvious part of the deal? To put it differently, if a client were to ask for the TM (without having specified it in the hand-off), should the translator view this as the client simply asking for something that belongs the job anyway, or as the client asking for a freebie?
The client would probably think of it as a freebie which he/she can then use as he/she chooses. Even sell it.
Samuel Murray wrote:
My opinion is that all files that are generated automatically by the software that the translator had agreed to use (or: that the client had requested to be used, specifically or by implication due to the files being in a given format) are part of the deliverable, and need not be specified specifically in the hand-off.
I see that differently. Unfortunately, translators don't really think much about TMs as separate entities (esp. that it can be used later by others). I can only recommend to raise the point of the TM before committing to a project or signing anything, and to specify its price and/or use.
Samuel Murray wrote:
At the same time, my opinion is also that unless the client specifies that a certain such file should be delivered, the translator would not be at fault if he does not keep a copy of that file after the job is done, and is unable to deliver it later when the client requests it (this includes instances where the translator edits the TM afterwards -- the translator is not obligated to send the edited TM because the TM that was generated by the software is no longer available).
Yes, or he/she can keep a copy and choose freely what to do with it.
[Edited at 2015-07-05 05:42 GMT]
| | | | | Not an issue for many it seems | Jul 6, 2015 |
John Fossey wrote:
What is the situation where the translator is required to connect to the client's server and update the client's TM in real time, as well as provide the final translation? Where do intellectual property rights fall in this case?
Even more complex is the case where an agency requires the translator to work within its remote translation environment. The translator is creating intellectual property directly on the client's servers, both in TM and target form? Who owns the copyrights in this case?
It will all depend on the contract /NDA you have signed and your status (independent service provider, subcontractor with NDA or contract, work for hire). But you are always the one creating the TM, so its really your IP.
I know people are reading this thread. But there are hardly any comments. Not an issue for many it seems. But it really should IMO.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 22:46
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I would rather ask about what should be expected from a professional or even legal point of view.
Well, the legal point is certainly what I've been talking about (i.e. the default situation), but it seems to me that you're more concerned about the moral point, i.e. what should be the situation. In other words, you want us to think critically about the value of TMs as intellectual property, and take actual steps to ensure that those resources are protected and/or valued appropriately.
Although you tried to explain it several times, I'm still not convinced that the TM is a distinct piece of intellectual property that is separable from the translation itself, and is a separate deliverable unless it is specifically stated to be so in the contract.
Still, that does not mean that translators can't make it a distinct deliverable, if they choose, but... then they have to make this known to the client beforehand, for I am also not convinced that most clients believe (as you do) that the TM is something extra.
Samuel Murray wrote:
If a client were to ask for the TM (without having specified it in the hand-off), should the translator view this as the client simply asking for something that belongs the job anyway, or as the client asking for a freebie?
The client would probably think of it as a freebie...
That is interesting, Bernhard, because I hold to the exact opposite view. I think that most clients do not consider the TM as something that should be paid for separately.
Oh, by the way, do I interpret your reply correctly, that you're saying that most clients do actually regard the TM as something that should be paid for separately, and that they believe the translator is giving them something for nothing, if the translator does not charge extra for the TM?
==
But the problem is, as I said before, that a TM created by you or created on the basis of your translation, constitutes, in my eyes, a distinct work, and the intellectual content is yours.
Yes, well, this is a point at which the debate can falter. Does the fact that an additional file has distinct form and content make that file a distinct work, if the file is generated automatically? You say "yes", I say "maybe, but it is irrelevant".
I think a translator needs grease the relationship with a client if he has the opportunity, for that would more likely result in repeat commissions from that client, and that makes monetary sense. And what better way to do so than to reply to a request for the TM with "Well, I normally charge extra for the TM, but you can have it for free this time because we did not discuss it beforehand."
In any case, I believe that you should get paid for the TM you create and give to a client. We should also specify that any unauthorized use of our TMs or creation of a TM based in any part on our target texts is prohibited.
I don't disagree with you. I foresee some practical difficulties, of course, but getting adequate remuneration for one's investment in utilities that provide value to the client is a worthy cause.
Unfortunately, translators don't really think much about TMs as separate entities... . I can only recommend to raise the point of the TM before committing to a project or signing anything, and to specify its price and/or use.
Yes, having a clause in one's terms of service dealing with TMs is a good idea for translators.
==
What about the TM that you possibly accepted as a resource - do you know if the person who created it cared that you went ahead and used it? But I don't worry about that too much. Hopefully the translator got paid something for it. But I need to make sure that I can use it based on the contract I have with the client (agency).
I understand your concern, but I think that if a client shares a resource with you that contains content that you know belongs to the client, then it can be assumed that the client has the right to share that resource with you, and that you can use that resource. It is not relevant if the client had paid for the resource. Useful resources are, after all, meant to be used in useful ways.
Take a glossary, for example: the person who created the glossary must have known that the purpose of creating the glossary (and the payment that he gets for it) is for the glossary to be used in utilities that reference glossaries. If the client doesn't specify how he's going to use the glossary that the translator created, then the translator should not assume that the client is merely curious and enjoys collecting lists of words, and does not intend to use the glossary for, well, glossary purposes.
Similarly, if a translator creates a TM and shares it with the client, then he must know that that TM is likely to be used as... as a TM is generally used, even though the contract doesn't say so.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 22:46
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| You'll have to tell Astrid that you revived the thread | Jul 7, 2015 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I know people are reading this thread. But there are hardly any comments. Not an issue for many it seems.
Well, this thread is 8 years old, and you've revived it by asking Astrid a question, but by default only the thread starter is subscribed to the thread. If you want Astrid to reply (instead of me), then you'd have to go tell her that her attention is needed here.
| | | | | When you think deeply about it... | Jul 17, 2015 |
Usually, I don't give too much thought to the topic of giving away your TMs. Actually, end clients have never asked me for a TM in my working life, they just care about receiving a translated document.
I also work for agencies and I have had some clients in this field that have asked me for my TM. I really don't give much thought to it, I just share it with them. They already have the translation anyway, they can easily re-confirm all segments and voila.
But I once had ... See more Usually, I don't give too much thought to the topic of giving away your TMs. Actually, end clients have never asked me for a TM in my working life, they just care about receiving a translated document.
I also work for agencies and I have had some clients in this field that have asked me for my TM. I really don't give much thought to it, I just share it with them. They already have the translation anyway, they can easily re-confirm all segments and voila.
But I once had a situation where I had to reconsider giving a TM to an end client for free. This client needed to update a translation, they had been working with a different LSP and decided to give up on them (I don't know why). They found me and hired my services.
They updated the original versions of their manuals and they wanted me to update the translations made by another LSP. They also wanted to translate new material, but I had no TMs to find repetitions.
If I'd had the original TM I may have had the chance to find repetitions and charge the client less for the job. So I thought...
Clients usually rely on the same translators permanently because they like their work, they want their translations to be consistent and they want to maintain the style. If you simply give away your TMs to end clients, another translator will have it easier to match your style, your terms and offer discounts to your client.
What did I do? I now use TMs as if they were benefits. I offer my services to the client, and I tell them I keep a backup file that stores all content translated. I tell them it is a free benefit and they can obtain the file anytime they want under request.
If they ask me for the TM I can assest the situation. Why do you need it? Is there something wrong? Maybe I can help you with that... ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Who owns the translation memory? | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
