Is it OK to Translate News From CNN to other languages ?

[buohcom]

HI,

I want to translate news from CNN, BBC, etc into other languages. I will keep the author , source, and link to CNN or whatever.
I will state, news came from whatever.

Its like rss feeds, but only translated.

Will this be OK?

Thank you

 

[Daniel]

Why not ring them up and ask if you can use their content, big companies such as the BBC and CNN and generally fairly easy to get hold of.

 

[buohcom]

More thoughts please. Thanks

 

[Damion]

When these agencies publish their news it's out in the open and you can't copyright a news item on it's own, you can't claim exclusive rights to publish a news item on a certain event.

You can however claim copyright on the content how it is written, you can't copy something and publish it on your own site.

What you will be doing is translating it, thus automatically rewriting it which means that you're not directly copying the content, but only the news item on it's own which will put you in the clear.

If CNN does a story about O.J. and you want to publish this news on your blog or something you can do that, only rewrite/paraphrase it, but since you write in a different language you already doing this.

My personal two cents is that you have nothing to worry about.

 

[buohcom]

Thanks Damion. I thought it would be Ok in the first place. I mean If i translate a news and post it at my site, nobody would know which source I took it from anyways.

If anybody else thinks different, please tell me. Thank you for looking

 

[jberryhill]

Damion is dead wrong on this question, btw.

He is correct insofar as the facts of a news story are not subject to copyright. Copyright covers the written expression of those facts.

He is utterly incorrect in suggesting that a translation is an independent re-write of those facts. It is not.

Copyright protects the text from several things. Most folks are pretty clear that it protects against copying. However, copyright also protects against the making of what are called "derivative works" - that is, a further copyrightable work which utilizes the original copyrighted work, albeit transformed in some manner.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1165

A French 16-year-old spent a night in jail for daring to translate Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows from English into his native language. Fortunately, the publisher isn’t pressing charges, but this story highlights an interesting wrinkle when it comes to translating copyrighted works.

Under US law, a translation is considered a “derivative work,” which authors have the exclusive right to create. For example, if someone wanted to write a sequel to Deathly Hallows, set twenty years later, they would likely be violating the derivative works right (unless the unauthorized sequel were a parody or some other form of fair use). Creating a stage play, a comic book, or a movie from Deathly Hallows would likewise be a derivative work, and the creators of these new works would have to get permission (here, accompanied by a hefty licensing fee) to create them.

 

[labrocca]

Mr. Berryhill beat me to it.

Damian you just lost a brownie point.

 

[buohcom]

jberryhill made a good point!

But
Nobody would know which news source it is being translated from. I can even say, I wrote it myself becuase I was there and I don't think newspeople can do anything about it, news is more open and free to use, I think.

There are hundreds of big news companies and a lot of them talk about the same news in almost similiar text.

After translating a news, which one will actually go after me. How are they suppose to find proof that I use their content? Unless they log Ip and track me down to my site, then yeah, they can catch me.

Overall, news is free and should be share to all others, Thats what the internet is all about!. News Can't be copyrighted.

Feel free to post your thoughts

 

[mwzd]

buohcom, you're just trying to justify it to yourself. I've yet to come across anyone (online or offline) with the same understanding of legal aspects when it comes to the web or digital rights as jberryhill.

You'll be well served in taking his advice, I'm sure that if you went to see him and paid him his regular fee, you would end up with major dent in your pocket. Don't ignore the advice just because you got it for free here on NP.

As for finding you - the technology exists - copyscape.com and these guys have really deep pockets, if they do come after you - your website and all you've invested in it could be lost, not to mention your life savings, you really have to consider...is it worth the hassle? I don't know about you but I'm slightly skeptical about laying foundations on quicksand.

 

[okapi]

I don't understand what is the relation between news and fiction.

I thank Mr jberryhill for explanation, but his examples imho weren't useful, as it's clear to me that Harry Potter's books and characters are under copyright.

I hope that in US law newss about reality and those about fictional copyrighted characters are not the same.

I think the problem is HOW the news are traslated, completely rewritten using other some other source would be good, word per word not. But what's the accurate limit?

 

[mwzd]

If you take the basic facts of a news story and WRITE IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS, should be a problem, even if you use English.

If, however, you automatically translate and publish these on your site, it is covered by the copyright - as quoted above.

I think if you read the entire thread including jberryhills post a few times, it'll be clear.

 

[Damion]

Damion is dead wrong on this question, btw.

He is correct insofar as the facts of a news story are not subject to copyright. Copyright covers the written expression of those facts.

He is utterly incorrect in suggesting that a translation is an independent re-write of those facts. It is not.

Hi John,
Thank you for you jumping in and add clarification to this matter.
However i do think you may have misinterpreted my post a little and with that that said the chance of the OP did as well.

This is my fault in not putting things in a more broad perspective.

What i was trying to say that an event that may have occurred and all the news agencies are covering, thus public knowledge by then...and one is allowed to write about that as well.

Should there be sources being mentioned or something that allowed the news agency to form the story, like citations then one can't rewrite it and claim it as your own.

So there are certainly events when you can't just copy everything exactly.

When a event has occurred and there are no references being used to form the story and you rephrase/rewrite it so it has formed it's own wording - which happens very quickly when translating to a different language, provided it's not a journalistic column, but a report on a news event...something everyone can write about because they know about it as it is covered widely already then these facts can not be claimed by anyone...or could it?

Fictive Example reported by CNN:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapper 50cent got shot at the VMA awards in front of a large audience - again 9 times, but this time the shooter is in custody as are his cohorts who aided and abetted him in the shooting.
The shooter, Kanye West went out of control when his rival got a award, but he once again was awarded nothing and pulled out a gun to then subsequently shoot him 9 times that caused rapper 50 cent to die.

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

Even if CNN was the first to publish this by a millisecond because many...many stories like these will pop up, and it's public knowledge then i don't see any reason why someone couldn't copy this and translate it into their own language and write it in their own style?

Granted and this is a very crucial part which i failed to mention and i am glad John you jumped in - is when there are elements being used, distinctively being used that clearly identifies the story to CNN such as a interview than copying the story (in it's own unique way) even with translation would be a problem.

And that is i think you tried to point out in the Harry Potter case right?

Because then it would turn into a “derivative work.

Damian you just lost a brownie point.

Ah, crap :lol:

 

[okapi]

If you take the basic facts of a news story and WRITE IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS, should be a problem, even if you use English.

If, however, you automatically translate and publish these on your site, it is covered by the copyright - as quoted above.

I think if you read the entire thread including jberryhills post a few times, it'll be clear.

I can't write in good english, but i understand well all posts except yours.

My problem is to understand the limits of the semantic area "derivative work", i said the examples were imho not useful to me as each text about copyrighted invented proper names is obviously derivative.

 

[buohcom]

In conclusion ! DOn't use automated rewrite tools. Rephrase news articles in your own words or language. And Everything is FINE. Thank you everyone for participating!

 

[mwzd]

I can't write in good english, but i understand well all posts except yours.

Yeah, I'm like that. I said should above, when I should have said shouldn't.

In conclusion ! DOn't use automated rewrite tools. Rephrase news articles in your own words or language. And Everything is FINE. Thank you everyone for participating!

Hey, you take that as how you want it. I'm not a lawyer and not offering legal advice. Plus its not my neck in wringer. How you rewrite it might have a bearing. If you quote their sources without interviewing said sources - might get you into trouble too.

Anyway, I think 'nuff said. //unsubscribe