Some of the contributions in this thread make me dizzy. Taken to their logical
conclusion, they seem to mean that translators are not permitted to learn from
their own experience, and must wipe their mind clear of most relevant prior
information before they start on a new text.

What other profession is subjected to such restrictive regulations?

----- Original Message -----
From: Suzanne Topping
> > (snip) you can make a copy of a text for personal purposes, .....
> > (snip) - it's up to the
> > translators discretion to at least use the TM for "personal purposes",
> > whatever they may be.
>I would assume (with admission that assumption is dangerous) that
>"personal" means "non-commercial", and that "non-commercial" means
>"not making money from". How this applies to re-use of a project-specific
>TM is the question. Does reuse of a project-specific TM constitute
>commercial rather than personal use? I think it does.

Do you take this to mean that I must not use my own previous work, my own
terminological solutions, my own previously developed written style and
phraseology at all, except for the client for which I first used them?
An example: I have translated much material about the new building developments
in Berlin since unification. In some instances, I had to be creative about the
names used for them. The development strip known in German as "Band des Bundes"
is a case in point, and I hit on the term "ribbon of government buildings". This
was first used in a book I translated. Am I violating the client's rights when I
use the same term for another publisher? Am I violating anybody's rights by
quoting the term in this e-mail message?
If so, how about the colleague who sees my phrase in the original book and
decides to use it in a translation that he or she is currently working on? Is he
or she violating my rights, the rights of the first publisher or anybody else?
Does it make such an action more or less reprehensible if the term is stored in
a translation memory system rather than on a piece of paper or in my memory?


----- Original Message -----
From: David Pooley:
>I think it's necessary to honour agreements that are made before the job
>commences. If no specific agreements are in place, it would be ethical
>(IMHO) to ask the client's permission before re-using any of the work
>you have done for them.

Are you serious? Do you really mean ****any**** of the work I have previously
done? That statement could be followed through to absurd lengths (Who owns the
word "and"?).
Obviously I am exaggerating and misrepresenting your intention (and to some
extent pulling your leg), but it would be helpful if you could tell us how far
you would seriously go. Where would you draw the line between general use of
language and proprietary material?

This thread somehow reminds me of the guy who allegedly took out a patent on the
word "Luther" and then sued the town of Wittenberg when it used the name of
Martin Luther to celebrate the anniversary of the Reformation.

Puzzled (and possibly disenfranchised),
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Victor Dewsbery, B.A., BDÜ, MIL
D-13581 Berlin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -