Translation and copyright: towards a distributed view of originality and authorship
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26512/belasinfieis.v14.n2.2025.54319Keywords:
Copyright law. Translatophobia. Translatophilia. Instrumentalism. Distribution.Abstract
This paper advances the concepts of translatophobia (the fear of translation) and translatophilia (the fetishisation of translation) to elucidate the tensions pivoting around translation in the development of copyright law. It addresses one specific issue at the intersection of these terms: ‘Does copyright law contradict itself in speaking of translations as original works?’ The paper argues that postpositivist theory conceives of originality and authorship as zero-sum concepts, hence positioning the translation and the original, the translator and the author in an irreconcilable relationship. It proposes a distributed view of originality and authorship, which allows us to appreciate how the author of an underlying work maintains a stake in the work over recursive scales of transformation, while allowing the translator(s) to share out that stake as the work distributes and scales itself across different languages, modes and media. The paper points out that the conception of translation and translators in postpositivist theory is as Romantic as how the author and the original are perceived to be constructed in copyright law, suggesting that for translation studies to engage the modern copyright regime productively, it must avoid turning translation into a fetish object.
Downloads
References
Aplin, T., J. Davis. (2017). Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, M. (2019). Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bannerman, S. (2016). International Copyright and Access to Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Basalamah, S. (2000). “Compulsory Licensing for Translation: An Instrument of Development.” IDEA 40: 503–547.
Bassnett, S. e H. Trivedi, eds. (1999). Post-colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bently, L. (1993). Copyright and Translations in the English Speaking World. Translation 2: 491–559.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. 1908. Paris Act of July, 1971. Alterado em 28 De Setembro De 1979 https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/
Brecht v Bently, 185 F. Supp. 890 (S.D.N.Y.1960).
Burnett v Chetwood, 35 Eng. Rep. 1008; 2 Mer 439 (1720).
Byrne v Statist Company, 1 K. B. 622 (1914).
Cabanellas, G. (2014). The Legal Environment of Translation. Abingdon: Routledge.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. 1988. Reino Unido. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 1988/48 / teor
Cowley, S. J. 2017. Changing the Idea of Language: Nigel Love’s Perspective.Language Sciences 61: 43–55.
Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Services, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Gentzler, E. (2017). Translation and Rewriting in the Age of Post-Translation Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Goetzl, T. M. & A. S. Stuart. (1984). Copyright and the Visual Artist’s Display Right: A New Doctrinal Analysis. Columbia Journal of Art and Law 9: 15–56.
Goold, P. R. 2014. Why the U.K. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.S. Derivative Work Right.Nebraska Law Review 92 (4): 843–896.
Gorodeisky, K. (2016). 19th Century Romantic Aesthetics. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 18 June 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetics-19th-romantic/
Hemmungs Wirtén, E. (2004). No Trespassing: Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of Globalization. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hemmungs Wirtén, E. (2011). Cosmopolitan Copyright: Law and Language in the Translation Zone. Uppsala: Universidade De Uppsala.
Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc. (1989). AC 217 (PC).
Ladbroke v William Hill, 1 WLR 273(1964).
Litwin, M. (2019). Contra Instrumentalism. A Translation Polemic. The Translator. doi:10.1080/ 13556509.2020.1681740.
Love, N. (2017). On Languages and Languaging. Language Sciences 61: 113–147.
Millar V Taylor. 1769. 98 Eng. Rep. 201; 4 Burr 2303.
Okediji, R. L. (2008). History Lessons for the WIPO Development Agenda. In The Development Agenda: Global Intellectual Property and Developing Countries, edited by N. W. Netanel, 137–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollock v J. C. Williamson Ltd,. VLR 225 (1923).
Ricketson, S. (1987). The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: 1886–1986. London: Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary College/Kluwer.
Ricketson, S. J. C. Ginsburg. (2005). International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steffensen, S. V. (2014). Distributed Language and Dialogism: Notes on Non-locality, Sense-making and Interactivity. Language Sciences 50: 105–119.
Stowe v Thomas,. 23 F. Cas. 201(1853).
Suljak, N. D. (1969). Right to Translate and International Copyright Conventions. Law Library Journal 62: 47–57.
Thibault, P. J. (2017). The Reflexivity of Human Languaging and Nigel Love’s Two Orders of Language. Language Sciences 61: 74–85.
Título 17 do Código dos EUA. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17
Tymoczko, M. (2014). Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Vaver, D. (1994). Translation and Copyright: A Canadian Focus. European Intellectual Property Review16 (4): 159–166.
Venuti, L. (1998). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. Londres: Routledge.
Venuti, L. (2008). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Venuti, L. (2013). Translation Changes Everything. Abingdon: Routledge.
Venuti, L. (2019). Contra Instrumentalism: A Translation Polemic. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Walter V Lane. (1900). AC 539.
Wyatt V Barnard. (1814). 35 Eng. Rep. 408; 3 V. & B. 77.
ZAO, Askeri-ACCA v International Accounting Standards Committee Foundations. 2005. Ewca Civ 344.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 CC BY
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Given the public access to this journal, the texts are free to use but requires the recognition of the original authorship and initial publication in this journal to be properly stated.
 The journal allows the use of works published for non-commercial purposes, including the right to submit the work to publicly accessible databases. Published contributions are the sole and exclusive responsibility of the author(s).Â
