Royalty for recording interpretation
Thread poster: Stephanie Diaz

Stephanie Diaz
English to Spanish
Oct 3, 2006

Hi!
I am english-spanish interpreter and a client has asked for the recording of our simultaneous interpretation of an upcoming conference.

I told him that I knew that recording of interpretation had an extra charge, that he is willing to pay, but I don't know what the rate is for that service. is it a fixed rate? is it a percentage of the usual interpreation rate? Are there other aspects to consider, like private use of the recording? public use of the recording?

Any insight on your experience will be appreciated. Thanks,

Stephanie


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Henry Hinds  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 22:55
English to Spanish
+ ...
My Practice Oct 4, 2006

My practice has always been to never worry about it. I'm getting paid for interpreting the conference. If someone is recording my voice, I've never known or even cared about it, much less would I charge extra for it.

Just try to get a decent fee for the gig. If they can hear it, they can record it, it's all included in the fee.

The above assumes that they handle the recording (equipment), etc. If it would require you to handle the technical part of it then some charge would be appropriate, but not "royalties" or anything like that.

[Editado a las 2006-10-04 00:53]


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Ariella Germinario-Lingenthal  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 06:55
English to Italian
+ ...
Italy Oct 4, 2006

Hi everybody,

in Italy, most of us charge 50% more for allowing our interpretation to be recorded. This assumes a 'professional' recording, where the equipment technician sets up everything to produce either a webcast or audio/audio to store on an audiovisual medium such as a DVD (usually for training purposes).

This is not a generally widespread practice, however, and many of us add no extra charge.

If you know that your interpretation will be ONLY used for this purpose - such as quarterly presentation of results to the business community, directly send to the Web via streaming, then I tend to charge more to start with.

Furthermore, I ask the client to sign a disclaimer.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Magda Dziadosz  Identity Verified
Poland
Local time: 06:55
Member (2004)
English to Polish
+ ...
Recording the conference - standard practice Oct 4, 2006

Hi,
from my experience, most of the conferences, if not all, are recorded "automatically", it's very frequently part of the booth technicians job - to record both speakers and interpreting. It is then usually transcribed and publish one way or another as post-conference materials. I take same approach as Henry above: if they can hear it, they can record it. I only charge extra if they later want me to edit the transcribes - but this doesn't happen frequently.

Same goes for interpreting on press conferences and interviews which are not only recorded but also broadcasted - I charge my interpreting fee and that's it, off it goes in the air

HTH,
Magda


Direct link Reply with quote
 
xxxsumill
Local time: 05:55
English to Czech
+ ...
Recording the interpretation Oct 12, 2006

[quote]Stephanie Díaz wrote:

I am english-spanish interpreter and a client has asked for the recording of our simultaneous interpretation of an upcoming conference.
[unquote]

It depends on how the recording is used. It may be used to check up on your performace. It may be used to prepare the minutes of the conference or to publish what the delegate said. Here's what the International Association of Conference Interpreters [AIIC] says on the subject.

"... Conference interpretation is an oral intellectual exercise, quite distinct from drafting a written text. Any attempt to put the content of recording of conference interpretation into written form, without considerable preliminary editing, can only yield questionable results."

and further:

"... The performance of conference interpreters is protected under international law. The Berne Convention provides protection for the interests of authors; translations are protected as original works and translators are protected as authors. When fixed in material form, of any nature whatsoever (printed, sound or audiovisual recording, records, discs, magnetic tapes, videograms, slides, films, wire, cable, transparencies, photocopies, microcards, or any similar method) the performance of the conference interpreter becomes a translation within the meaning of the Berne Convention and the exclusive rights foreseen in the Convention apply to the author.... The purpose of the rules governing copyright is the protection of the legitimate rights of the author. Thus, no one may publish the work of an author, nor exploit it in any other way without the preliminary consent of the author: the exclusive right to grant such authorization belongs solely to the author, i.e. the interpreter. "

Therefore, in my opinion, it should always attract an additional fee. In the UK, even the humblest agencies pay at least £20 for the right to record the interpretation.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Stephanie Diaz
English to Spanish
TOPIC STARTER
Thank you for your replies Oct 12, 2006

It's good to know different point of views and practices from different countries.

I don't know why here we consider the oral interpretation to be something like intellectual property of the interpreter, hence, the extra charge. It's not common practice that the interpretation is recorded without the consent of the interpreter.

Thanks!

Regards,
Stephanie

[Editado a las 2006-10-12 20:49]


Direct link Reply with quote
 
xxxdf49f
France
Local time: 06:55
charging extra for recording of interpreters Oct 13, 2006

[quote]xxxsumill wrote:
Stephanie Díaz wrote:
I am english-spanish interpreter and a client has asked for the recording of our simultaneous interpretation of an upcoming conference.
[unquote]
It depends on how the recording is used. It may be used to prepare the minutes of the conference (...).

Yes, in that case, I let the client know that I will grant him the right to do so free of charge, but I write it down explicitely in the contract.

Stephanie Díaz wrote:
Here's what the International Association of Conference Interpreters [AIIC] says on the subject.
"... Conference interpretation is an oral intellectual exercise, quite distinct from drafting a written text. Any attempt to put the content of recording of conference interpretation into written form, without considerable preliminary editing, can only yield questionable results."

and further:
"... The performance of conference interpreters is protected under international law. The Berne Convention provides protection for the interests of authors; translations are protected as original works and translators are protected as authors. When fixed in material form, of any nature whatsoever (printed, sound or audiovisual recording, records, discs, magnetic tapes, videograms, slides, films, wire, cable, transparencies, photocopies, microcards, or any similar method) the performance of the conference interpreter becomes a translation within the meaning of the Berne Convention and the exclusive rights foreseen in the Convention apply to the author.... The purpose of the rules governing copyright is the protection of the legitimate rights of the author. Thus, no one may publish the work of an author, nor exploit it in any other way without the preliminary consent of the author: the exclusive right to grant such authorization belongs solely to the author, i.e. the interpreter. "...


Yes, that's exactly the way REAL professional interpreters do things ! And yes also, an additional fee is in order. In France, we charge an extra fee as remuneration for the transfer of such copyrights to the clients, anywhere between 10 to 30%, more generally 20% of the interpreting daily fee for broadcasting (TV & radio) or web streaming (very common for corporate financial results conferences). In addition, if the recording is to be used to produce a print document (e.g. proceedings of a symposium/convention, publication of an article in professional journals or the general press...), then we reserve the right to review/edit any such printed material before publication (for an additional cost, of course).

Those persons not following this basic principle are not real professional interpreters (whether AIIC members or not).
regards - df


Direct link Reply with quote
 


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Royalty for recording interpretation

Advanced search







SDL Trados Studio 2017 Freelance
The leading translation software used by over 250,000 translators.

SDL Trados Studio 2017 helps translators increase translation productivity whilst ensuring quality. Combining translation memory, terminology management and machine translation in one simple and easy-to-use environment.

More info »
memoQ translator pro
Kilgray's memoQ is the world's fastest developing integrated localization & translation environment rendering you more productive and efficient.

With our advanced file filters, unlimited language and advanced file support, memoQ translator pro has been designed for translators and reviewers who work on their own, with other translators or in team-based translation projects.

More info »



All of ProZ.com
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs