Mobile menu

Is it ethical to publish a group glossary entirely pasted from other glossaries?
Thread poster: Maricica W.
Maricica W.  Identity Verified

English to Romanian
+ ...
Apr 15, 2003

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


Direct link Reply with quote
 

jccantrell  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 20:40
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 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.


Direct link Reply with quote
 
Jane Lamb-Ruiz  Identity Verified
French to English
+ ...
Yikes! Apr 15, 2003

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


Direct link Reply with quote
 
Maricica W.  Identity Verified

English to Romanian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
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


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Rick Henry  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 22:40
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 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.


Direct link Reply with quote
 

sylver  Identity Verified
Local time: 12:40
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 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.

Direct link Reply with quote
 
mnamona
Egypt
Local time: 06:40
English to Arabic
+ ...
need advice May 2, 2003

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


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Igor Zabuta
Ukraine
Local time: 06:40
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...


Direct link Reply with quote
 

Igor Zabuta
Ukraine
Local time: 06:40
English to Russian
+ ...
No! May 28, 2003

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.


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 »

Is it ethical to publish a group glossary entirely pasted from other glossaries?

Advanced search


Translation news





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 »
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 »



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