Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
French to English translations [Non-PRO] Bus/Financial - Law: Contract(s) / in the context of a Scriptwriter agreement
French term or phrase:s'entend à titre gracieux
Ledit xxx (procedure in fil making) devra être soumis à yyy (a person) avant sa première exploitation et ce dernier pourra éventuellement refuser de bonne foi, toute image le concernant qui ne lui conviendrait pas.
La présente autorisation s'entend à titre gracieux dans la mesure où le xxx (a procedure in film making) sera exploité à titre promotionnel
Thanks P, sometimes we translators have to go via a circular route to get back to the obvious, exercising our minds en route and driving evryone else up the proverbial wall 4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
In this ST it might not be the case that anyone was under pressure to work for free; it could simply be customary to do for free additional promotional material that will help selling the main work (that wasn't done for free)?
Another point: a masterpiece loaned from one museum to another “free of charge” can include a very long list of “obligations” (additional security; room temperature, exposure to daylight and so on …)
I don't think that it would be correct to introduce the idea that YYY cannot refuse consent. It may well be that they cannot, but this is worded as though they are giving consent freely and as a matter of goodwill. That might be important, e.g. were they to change their mind at some future date.
That is the idea, the way I understand it: The present authorization implied, shall be free of charge in so far as it will be used for publicity purposes. Which in the way I see it, implies a question of copyright not being paid for the film promotion portion. Does that make sense?
Still finding it hard to get my head around all this, but I'd be very surrpised, it's an odd use of language AFAIK; it looks like YYY is giving permission by default, unless s/he has some specific objection, so I don't see how it can be considered to be an 'autorisation', or more specifically, not referred to as 'la présente...'. However, since the overall context remains far from clear to me, and I am not sufficient of a specialist in this field, this is where I'm going to have to duck out, I'm afraid, and leave it to others with more experience than I.
No problem. here's the context:
yyy is the scriptwiter of a film; xxx is a post-film documentary; yyy is being consulted by the Producer for his consent to screen it (but effectively I don't think he can refuse it, but can veto an image or two). Hope that makes sense!
patent and post 100% technical terminology as law/patents. That's the context but the terminology is some sort of technical field, not even remotely legalese. It complicates glossary searches for people when terms are listed under the wrong categories. That's why I changed s'entend à titre gracieux to a broader category.
You said in a comment below: "I presume you're saying that yyy cannot charge for giving his consent?"
I don't think this is by any means necessarily the intended meaning.
It all hinges on what 'la présente autorisation' is — normally, it would be the actual document you are working on; is that in fact any kind of authorisation/permit?
You don't explain who YYY is in relation to xxx; I'm sort of assuming that YYY is the owner / patent holder / etc., and is granting free use of the xxx procedure, as long as a) it approves the images it is being used on, and b) these are for promotional purposes only.
So I don't really think it is this 'approval of the images' that is free, but rather, the permission to use the procedure.
It would certainly help if you could clarify if my overall reading of the situation is correct or not?