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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OK, you pounced on the word "any" ... lol



The point I really wanted to make was that the customer-supplier

relationship will probably govern whether you re-use the translations you

have done and to what extent.  I don't think that anyone can stop the

translator from re-using but the good will of the customer may disappear.



I don't think anyone would (or could?) begrudge the re-use of terminology

but translation memory is different.  However, I don't think it's possible

to split terminology and translation memory easily!



As to how far I would seriously go .... well it really depends how well I

know you ;-)



Leave my leg alone



David



----- 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

----- Original Message -----

From: "Victor Dewsbery" <dewsbery@...>



> 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?



There -are- no regulations for this issue, which is in part why it is so

hotly debated. It's all up to you. You can do what you want.



> 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?



Interesting question. One of my clients is a translation house which

specializes in marketing materials and brand identification. They do a lot

of work in selecting the right terms for specific markets when it comes to

items like brand names, product names/descriptions, and tag lines. Their

customers pay for this research, and when the terms are eventually selected,

I'm pretty sure they want to consider them their own. (of course some of

these items get trademarked.)



Another client is a leader in a specific technology, and selecting the right

descriptive term for a new device has been a difficult, expensive, and

touchy issue.



In these types of situations, I could see how -some- clients could be

sensitive about the reuse of newly developed terms that they paid for.



In the case that you cite, I don't think the situation is the same. You came

up with a descriptive phrase that doesn't apply to a client product.



It's tricky. The best thing to do (I think) is find out what your client

considers confidential or proprietary, and make your best effort to not

reuse those specific chunks of text.



> 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?



No. The evolving technology has made reuse and sharing easier, which has

escalated interest in ethical issues. Similar to what you hear about the

ethical issues related to the internet. Similar concerns about privacy have

always existed, and unethical people have always been able to get to private

information, but the web has escalated it.

----- Original Message -----

From: "David Pooley" <DPooley@...>



>I don't think anyone would (or could?) begrudge the re-use of terminology

>but translation memory is different.  However, I don't think it's possible

>to split terminology and translation memory easily!



As you can tell from my previous note, I don't know if I agree with this.

Companies in some highly competitive industries may introduce new terms that

they don't want readily shared (or cheaply shared) by their competitors.



Lets pretend that Company X created a new self-cleaning computer screen, and

spent a lot of money to determine what the best term for the device in

various markets was. Maybe in France it would be called a "wiper screen", in

Japan a "sanitizing CRT", and in Russia a "pristine display." All of these

names could have been selected after doing market research to find out what

the optimal phrasing is to get the most positive consumer response.



Having gone to the time and expense of figuring this stuff out, the company

would not be particularly happy if the translation agency or translator goes

on to a job with their competitor, and blithely applies these terms to their

competing product.



As for the technology that goes into the product, the company may have

developed cutting edge methods for squirting cleaning fluid out of custom

designed pumps. Terms for these technological components may also be

considered proprietary, for the same reason.



Granted, this may sound like an extreme case, or an unlikely scenario, but

that's how many companies feel.

Hi again David, a couple of interspersed comments:



----- Original Message -----

From: David Pooley

>

>The point I really wanted to make was that the customer-supplier

>relationship will probably govern whether you re-use the translations you

>have done and to what extent.  I don't think that anyone can stop the

>translator from re-using but the good will of the customer may disappear.



Done responsibly, it could work the other way. I regularly get enquiries from

potential new clients, and often they ask for references. I normally tell them

that I work with TM - if they don't know what that means, I speak of databases

that help me by automatically retrieving previous terminology and sentences for

me to review when I work on a translation job.



When potential clients ask for references, they want to know what sort of texts

I have worked on, what sort of terminology and sentences I am used to handling.

They want to know that I have developed a certain routine (what's that?) in

certain areas.



My use of TM enables me to use tried and tested wording in a number of areas.

For example, contracts generally contain a clause about what happens if any

provision in the contract is not legally valid. A couple of days ago I got a

100% match on a sentence in this clause although it was the first job I had ever

done for a new client. In other words, I had developed a solution for this

sentence for another client yonks ago, and it happened to fit the current text.

I do not consider that in any way unethical.



However, if the 100% match had concerned proprietary (and perhaps confidential)

information about the products, services, pricing policy etc. of the clients

concerned, I would have had to be much more careful. This comes down to my

professional judgement, it is a question of ethics.



I do not jeopardise the good will of anybody by re-using text blocks about

invalid provisions, places of jurisdiction etc. that I have previously used in

somebody else's text. In fact, my ability to retrieve solutions which I created

by careful thought in a previous job represents a definite advantage in the

professionalism of all my work and a benefit to all my clients (even the first

one).



>

>I don't think anyone would (or could?) begrudge the re-use of terminology

>but translation memory is different.  However, I don't think it's possible

>to split terminology and translation memory easily!



OK, here's an anecdote you could use to hang me with.



A few months ago I did some work for two publications, each of which contained a

number of articles and essays about buildings in Berlin. In one text I noted a

surprising number of 100% matches and fuzzy matches, although the material

consisted of long prose sentences. I checked, and found that the same author had

written for both publications, and that much of his material was identical or

very similar.



I told both publishers what had happened. Neither seemed to regard it as a

tragedy, as the two publications were different in their general thrust and just

happened to overlap at this one point. Neither of the publishers questioned my

right to use a number of identical sentences in the two translations. (In fact,

one asked me to give them a discount because I had done the work before!!!)



Anyone fancy picking the ethics of the incident to pieces?

It certainly did no harm to the good will of either publisher (at least, not for

me - I don't know how they regarded the original author).



>

>As to how far I would seriously go .... well it really depends how well I

>know you ;-)

>Leave my leg alone



Only if you stop giving me the come-on !!!!!



Regards,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Victor Dewsbery, B.A., BDÜ, MIL

D-13581 Berlin

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bravo to Victor,

I think he show just the right kind of sensibility that this sticky issue

presents.



-----Original Message-----

From: Victor Dewsbery [mailto:dewsbery@...]

Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 8:35 AM

To: catmt@egroups.com

Subject: Re: [catmt] TM Ownership





Hi again David, a couple of interspersed comments:



----- Original Message -----

From: David Pooley

>

>The point I really wanted to make was that the customer-supplier

>relationship will probably govern whether you re-use the translations you

>have done and to what extent.  I don't think that anyone can stop the

>translator from re-using but the good will of the customer may disappear.



Done responsibly, it could work the other way. I regularly get enquiries

from

potential new clients, and often they ask for references. I normally tell

them

that I work with TM - if they don't know what that means, I speak of

databases

that help me by automatically retrieving previous terminology and sentences

for

me to review when I work on a translation job.



When potential clients ask for references, they want to know what sort of

texts

I have worked on, what sort of terminology and sentences I am used to

handling.

They want to know that I have developed a certain routine (what's that?) in

certain areas.



My use of TM enables me to use tried and tested wording in a number of

areas.

For example, contracts generally contain a clause about what happens if any

provision in the contract is not legally valid. A couple of days ago I got a

100% match on a sentence in this clause although it was the first job I had

ever

done for a new client. In other words, I had developed a solution for this

sentence for another client yonks ago, and it happened to fit the current

text.

I do not consider that in any way unethical.



However, if the 100% match had concerned proprietary (and perhaps

confidential)

information about the products, services, pricing policy etc. of the clients

concerned, I would have had to be much more careful. This comes down to my

professional judgement, it is a question of ethics.



I do not jeopardise the good will of anybody by re-using text blocks about

invalid provisions, places of jurisdiction etc. that I have previously used

in

somebody else's text. In fact, my ability to retrieve solutions which I

created

by careful thought in a previous job represents a definite advantage in the

professionalism of all my work and a benefit to all my clients (even the

first

one).



>

>I don't think anyone would (or could?) begrudge the re-use of terminology

>but translation memory is different.  However, I don't think it's possible

>to split terminology and translation memory easily!



OK, here's an anecdote you could use to hang me with.



A few months ago I did some work for two publications, each of which

contained a

number of articles and essays about buildings in Berlin. In one text I noted

a

surprising number of 100% matches and fuzzy matches, although the material

consisted of long prose sentences. I checked, and found that the same author

had

written for both publications, and that much of his material was identical

or

very similar.



I told both publishers what had happened. Neither seemed to regard it as a

tragedy, as the two publications were different in their general thrust and

just

happened to overlap at this one point. Neither of the publishers questioned

my

right to use a number of identical sentences in the two translations. (In

fact,

one asked me to give them a discount because I had done the work before!!!)



Anyone fancy picking the ethics of the incident to pieces?

It certainly did no harm to the good will of either publisher (at least, not

for

me - I don't know how they regarded the original author).



>

>As to how far I would seriously go .... well it really depends how well I

>know you ;-)

>Leave my leg alone



Only if you stop giving me the come-on !!!!!



Regards,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Victor Dewsbery, B.A., BDÜ, MIL

D-13581 Berlin

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hi again, interesting discussion!



Suzanne Topping wrote:

> ...

> Lets pretend that Company X created a new self-cleaning computer screen, and

> spent a lot of money to determine what the best term for the device in

> various markets was. Maybe in France it would be called a "wiper screen", in

> Japan a "sanitizing CRT", and in Russia a "pristine display." All of these

> names could have been selected after doing market research to find out what

> the optimal phrasing is to get the most positive consumer response.

>

> Having gone to the time and expense of figuring this stuff out, the company

> would not be particularly happy if the translation agency or translator goes

> on to a job with their competitor, and blithely applies these terms to their

> competing product.



Here we have another twist among the bends: Typically I am the one who

comes up with the swedish terminology, often making them brand-oriented

to give each customer their own special flavor in the market, but

stickin to a general teminology where it makes sense, so the end user

won't get flummoxed each time he/she changes product supplier. Well, in

these cases _I_ am the source, right? My customer should ask _my_

approval, before they let any other translator, or their headquarters in

the respective country use TM content or terminology containing _my_

work, right? Just theorizing, but I think it puts light on where the

limits are.



BR,

Gudmund Areskoug

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gudmund Areskoug" <fta@...>

>

> Here we have another twist among the bends: Typically I am the one who

> comes up with the swedish terminology, often making them brand-oriented

> to give each customer their own special flavor in the market, but

> stickin to a general teminology where it makes sense, so the end user

> won't get flummoxed each time he/she changes product supplier. Well, in

> these cases _I_ am the source, right? My customer should ask _my_

> approval, before they let any other translator, or their headquarters in

> the respective country use TM content or terminology containing _my_

> work, right? Just theorizing, but I think it puts light on where the

> limits are.



Perhaps my outlook is American, because it seems that many of the

translators I've talked to have a similar opinion to Gudmund's. But my

experience says that if someone employs you to produce an item, the item

belongs to them, not to you.



I'll use as an example my former work as a tech writer. When a company

contracted me to write a user's guide or other piece of work, the resulting

documents belonged to them, not to me. I had no claim for who they asked to

work on it in the future, and I'm sure that many pieces I wrote were later

edited and updated by other writers without my knowledge or consent. I

wouldn't expect to have to give it. I was hired to produce something for a

client. The item I produced belonged to them, and was therefore theirs to do

with as they chose.

I have followed this thread for a few days and I would like now to add some

comments on TM's.



I have been a sworn translator in Spain for more than 20 years. In this time

I have worked as an in-house translator, as an independent, free-lance

translator, as a main contractor, as a sub-contractor, etc. And it seems

clear to me that, in a professional deal with a client, the translator

should deliver just what he is being requested to deliver, provided that

both parties have reached an agreement on the services to be rendered and

the consideration for them.



Thus, If a client of mine orders a translation (just a translation, at XXX

money units per hundred or thousand words), I will deliver the translation

requested. As a "by-product" I will surely produce a small glossary at the

least. Maybe a translation memory, provided that the original document is

suitable for the purpose. But all those by-products will be mine and I will

see how to use them according to ethics and to the codes of conduct

generally accepted in this profession. After doing a few translations for

the same client and in the same field, I could explore some 'commercial'

posibilities. For instance, I could offer to prepare, based on my own

glossaries and on additional research, a specific glossary for the client.

Or I could tell them about translation memories and offer to compile one for

them (on the basis of my own one(s) and maybe incorporating some new pairs

or some corrections or changes). In any case, these would be different

transactions that should be agreed separately on the basis of reasonable

consideration.



Let's now look at the issue from another point of view. I'm in charge of a

large translation assignment (be it as an in-house or external project

manager, or just as a contractor who has to share the contract with some

other translators to meet the deadline). If the original document is

suitable for the purpose, I would ask all translators to build up, share and

deliver specific translation memories--and would pay for it! Or I would

compile a glossary and send it to all translators involved--and this would

be a factor to be accounted for at the time of agreeing the translators'

fees. In the case of the translation memory, provided that I have bought it,

next time I had to do a similar translation I could share the translation

with the same translators or with other ones using TM technologies, because

I would have a translation memory that could be used for all of us. And, as

in the case of the preliminary glossary, this would be a factor to be

accounted for at the time of agreeing the translators' fees.



In fact, I would say that a deal is a fair deal provided that the buyer gets

what he is paying for and the seller gets an appropriate consideration for

all what he is delivering. I would not mention issues such as intellectual

property, as they are dealt with differently from one country to another,

and even in the same country depending on whether you aree translating

something subject to intellectual property rights (in which case the

translator might be entitled to intellectual property rights on his work) or

not.



Best regards



Pedro Satué

Sworn Translator (EN>ES) / Traductor Jurado

Satué & Rowe, S.L. - Seville, Spain 

Phone/Tel.: +34 954 094 094

Facsimile/Fax: +34 954 094 093

Mobile/Móvil: +34 659 910 903

<mailto:pjsatue@...>

 

Partner of Lexía Intérpretes y Traductores (Lexía, AIE)

<mailto:lexia@...>

Hi again,



maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough:

as I said, I was theorizing - it wasn't an opinon, but a possible

opinion. And of course the finished translation belongs to whoever paid

for the product, the tricky question is if the TM and the terminology

does so too. In the US, it seems you actually could patent the

electron... ;-). So where does general terminology start and

intellectual property end? I don't think we'll get a straight answer,

other than the one I (and others) offered: use trust and respect.



Using "special flavor terminology" for other customers than the original

one who paid for it would in my view be disrespectful, to make that

point clear.



Best regards,

Gudmund Areskoug



Suzanne Topping wrote:

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Gudmund Areskoug" <fta@...>

> >

> > Here we have another twist among the bends: Typically I am the one who

> > comes up with the swedish terminology, often making them brand-oriented

> > to give each customer their own special flavor in the market, but

> > stickin to a general teminology where it makes sense, so the end user

> > won't get flummoxed each time he/she changes product supplier. Well, in

> > these cases _I_ am the source, right? My customer should ask _my_

> > approval, before they let any other translator, or their headquarters in

> > the respective country use TM content or terminology containing _my_

> > work, right? Just theorizing, but I think it puts light on where the

> > limits are.

>

> Perhaps my outlook is American, because it seems that many of the

> translators I've talked to have a similar opinion to Gudmund's. But my

> experience says that if someone employs you to produce an item, the item

> belongs to them, not to you.

>

> I'll use as an example my former work as a tech writer. When a company

> contracted me to write a user's guide or other piece of work, the resulting

> documents belonged to them, not to me. I had no claim for who they asked to

> work on it in the future, and I'm sure that many pieces I wrote were later

> edited and updated by other writers without my knowledge or consent. I

> wouldn't expect to have to give it. I was hired to produce something for a

> client. The item I produced belonged to them, and was therefore theirs to do

> with as they chose.

>

>

Hi Suzanne,



> Lets pretend that Company X created a new self-cleaning computer screen,

and

> spent a lot of money to determine what the best term for the device in

> various markets was. Maybe in France it would be called a "wiper screen",

in

> Japan a "sanitizing CRT", and in Russia a "pristine display." All of these

> names could have been selected after doing market research to find out

what

> the optimal phrasing is to get the most positive consumer response.

>

> Having gone to the time and expense of figuring this stuff out, the

company

> would not be particularly happy if the translation agency or translator

goes

> on to a job with their competitor, and blithely applies these terms to

their

> competing product.



Don't you think these cases, brand names and the like, are already protected

by trade-mark and copyright laws? In a way, this problem is beyond that of

translation: any brand name is protected before being launched and is public

from the very moment is launched to the market.



My point is: I feel that these particular cases go beyond the scope of

typical translation problems and are already dealt with by laws and

contracts. Any brand name, original or translated or re-created (like

Gudmund's), can be properly protected and cannot be treated the same way as

regular text.



By the way, Gudmund, about the activity you describe.



> Typically I am the one who

> comes up with the swedish terminology, often making them brand-oriented

> to give each customer their own special flavor in the market, but

> stickin to a general teminology where it makes sense, so the end user

> won't get flummoxed each time he/she changes product supplier.



Don't you think this activity is more than translating? Most companies hire

people to do this even in their source language, the same way they hire

someone to prepare ads, etc.



Best regards,

Antonio

Hello Antonio, hi everybody,



quite right about those brand names.



"Antonio S. Valderrábanos (OB)" wrote:

> By the way, Gudmund, about the activity you describe.

>

> > Typically I am the one who

> > comes up with the swedish terminology, often making them brand-oriented

> > to give each customer their own special flavor in the market, but

> > stickin to a general teminology where it makes sense, so the end user

> > won't get flummoxed each time he/she changes product supplier.

>

> Don't you think this activity is more than translating? Most companies hire

> people to do this even in their source language, the same way they hire

> someone to prepare ads, etc.



Yes, it should be someone elses work, at least to check everything

through before releasing the product. But that's in the best of all

worlds. Typically, they just dump whatever the translator came up with

into the product - not even spell-checking things, and off into the box

it goes... Maybe it's stupid to feel responsible (the poor users...),

but I can't help doing so.



An example: I had an indirect customer who switched to a cheaper

translator. Cheap doesn't have to mean bad. In this case, however, a

friend of mine happened to buy a product out of that product line for

private use. Since he knew I was into translations, he asked me if I

usually did such a bad job as the manual he got to go with the product

(of course, he didn't know that I had been translating those very

products). I borrowed the manuals from him, and had a shock: No spell

cheking, wrong and inconsistent terminology, unfinished sentences,

untranslated segments, misleading translation segments that showed a

lack of technical understanding, whole downright confusing passages of

text. After doublechecking my archives (in a cold sweat, I assure you),

I was relieved to find I hadn't done that piece of work.



A few weeks later, someone at the (big) company had reacted, and wanted

me to work as an auxiliary to correct that particular manual and to

check things out every now and then before they went into print - but at

laughable time limits and pay. I helped them out on that one, and told

them no thanks - either I make proper, consistent translations for them,

or they maintain them themselves. I can't say I'm perfect, but I can't

help at least trying to do a good job.



I guess I'm not the only one with similar experiences.



BR,

Gudmund