Is it ethical to publish a group glossary entirely pasted from other glossaries? Thread poster: Veronica Durbaca
|
|---|
I heared about such a glossary, and the team publishes it for commercial purpose among others.
Do you find this ethical?
Thanks a lot
Veronica
| | | | jccantrell 
United States
Local time: 11:01
Member (2005)
German to English
| It would be fine with me.... | Apr 15, 2003 |
In the computer world, a company named Red Hat publishes a compendium of Linux software. The software itself, at least most of it, was developed by people having an interest in software development. It is available free on the web, so you need NOT purchase this from Red Hat. What this company does is make the whole process more convenient, and for that they charge money.
I see this as being similar, if not identical, to the case you describe. This assumes that these other gl... See more In the computer world, a company named Red Hat publishes a compendium of Linux software. The software itself, at least most of it, was developed by people having an interest in software development. It is available free on the web, so you need NOT purchase this from Red Hat. What this company does is make the whole process more convenient, and for that they charge money.
I see this as being similar, if not identical, to the case you describe. This assumes that these other glossaries are available freely on the web (I do not consider copyrighted works). What they are doing is making access to the glossaries more convenient and charging for that convenience.
Now, Red Hat does give you the unaltered version of the source software, so if John Q. Public wrote the software and put his name in it, you get to see his name. If your case edits the glossaries to remove this information, then I am less in favor of it.
My take on it from the USA. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jane Lamb-Ruiz (X)
French to English
+ ...
No, I think it is wrong. But the people that originally created the glossaries needed to COPYRIGHT IT. That way, there is recourse even if only to point out the fact. I don\'t agree that Linux/Red Hat is the same story. It\'s so easy to copyright stuff....
Always protect your work...
Cheers
| | | | | The glossaries they copy from are copyrighted | Apr 15, 2003 |
Some of that glossaries are copyrighted. 
I think that it must be a minimum personal contribution to charge for. These guys don\'t have any contribution, and both the original and \"the copy\" can be found within the same market.
Greetings,
Veronica
| | |
|
|
|
Rick Henry
United States
Local time: 13:01
Italian to English
+ ...
| I agree with Jane... | Apr 16, 2003 |
that the original(s) should have carried a copyright.
Having said that, let me add that I\'ve spent a considerable amount of time creating my own glossaries, both for personal use and for others to use. I don\'t sell them - they\'re freely available. When I originally set out to create these glossaries, I used a variety of resources, both in print and online, for both research and comparison. What I would find ethically questionable is copying the format and presentation of the orig... See more that the original(s) should have carried a copyright.
Having said that, let me add that I\'ve spent a considerable amount of time creating my own glossaries, both for personal use and for others to use. I don\'t sell them - they\'re freely available. When I originally set out to create these glossaries, I used a variety of resources, both in print and online, for both research and comparison. What I would find ethically questionable is copying the format and presentation of the original glossary/glossaries. Words, in and of themselves, are not copyrightable. If that were the case, kudoz itself would be liable, and we\'d all have to go out and buy the same One True Dictionary.
R. ▲ Collapse
| | | | sylver
Local time: 02:01
English to French
| Copyright... | Apr 16, 2003 |
Quote:
On 2003-04-16 16:27, Rick Henry wrote:
that the original(s) should have carried a copyright.
Having said that, let me add that I\'ve spent a considerable amount of time creating my own glossaries, both for personal use and for others to use. I don\'t sell them - they\'re freely available. When I originally set out to create these glossaries, I used a variety of resources, both in print and online, for both resear
... See more Quote:
On 2003-04-16 16:27, Rick Henry wrote:
that the original(s) should have carried a copyright.
Having said that, let me add that I\'ve spent a considerable amount of time creating my own glossaries, both for personal use and for others to use. I don\'t sell them - they\'re freely available. When I originally set out to create these glossaries, I used a variety of resources, both in print and online, for both research and comparison. What I would find ethically questionable is copying the format and presentation of the original glossary/glossaries. Words, in and of themselves, are not copyrightable. If that were the case, kudoz itself would be liable, and we\'d all have to go out and buy the same One True Dictionary.
R.
I agree with you but for one point. According to the US copyright office:\"When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form so that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.\"
The author does not have to declare his job to own the copyright.
Personally, I would consider that the least one can do is to ask for the original author\'s consent.
If actual terminology work and research has been done, that\'s a different matter all toghether. ▲ Collapse
| | | | mnamona
Egypt
Local time: 21:01
English to Arabic
+ ...
thanks veronica for posting this issue
i have to translate 2000 business related entries form english into arabic and i was gonna to use the dictionaries available in addition to my effort , but i don\'t know to which limit i can use these dictionaries, so i won\'t be abusing the copyrights and the efforts of others.It is unfair when one excert his effort and others uses it without a limit, so would you advice me.
mnamona or inass
| | | | Igor Zabuta
Ukraine
Local time: 21:01
English to Russian
+ ...
| as fair as using a dictionaty for translation of a text | May 28, 2003 |
mnamona wrote:
thanks veronica for posting this issue
i have to translate 2000 business related entries form english into arabic and i was gonna to use the dictionaries available in addition to my effort , but i don't know to which limit i can use these dictionaries, so i won't be abusing the copyrights and the efforts of others.It is unfair when one excert his effort and others uses it without a limit, so would you advice me.
mnamona or inass
IMHO, it is absolutely legal and fair to use any dictionaries in your case, without any constraint, as long as you use several of them and compile a new, more complete definition of a word and add at least a little of your own input. Words and their meaning belong to all people and a linguist can merely compile a dictionary, but not create it.
It is as fair as using any dictionaty for translation of a text... And I can't imagine any other approach...
| | |
|
|
|
Igor Zabuta
Ukraine
Local time: 21:01
English to Russian
+ ...
Veronica Durbaca wrote:
I heared about such a glossary, and the team publishes it for commercial purpose among others.
Do you find this ethical?
Thanks a lot
Veronica
No. I am not a lawyer, but I consider this illegal. If a dictionary is copywrited, then there is no way to republish it, completely or partially. If it is in public domain (like e.g. OPTED), it should stay in public domain, i.e. cannot be used for commercial purposes, included in commercial products. Though in the letter case you can sell your formatting or more conveniet access to it (but not contents), as long as the user can access the dictionary in original format (e.g. plain text for OPTED)free of charge and proper credits are given to the creators.
Once more, it is only an opinion.
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Is it ethical to publish a group glossary entirely pasted from other glossaries? | 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 » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
