Re: CLUEBAT: copyrights, infringement, violations, and legality
[Paul Hampson] If I write a book, isn't it mine to control who reads it? But if you publish it, you have no right to control who reads it.
Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files (Was: google translating gpl2+ licenced documentation...)
[Holger Levsen] Hi, debian-edu-doc is a gpl2+ document, which is translated into several languages. Now Petter had the idea to feed this into google translations, using http://freetranslation.mobi and committed the results back into the debian-edu-doc svn repository. This is an interesting legal question, with many facets. Here is some more background information. The URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/ contain this information: FreeTranslation.mobi Simple. Fast. Mobile. Enter a word or phrase: [] [langauge] to [language] Tip: You can enter freetranslation.mobi/en-es/ (or any other language pair) followed by the word or phrase to quickly pull the translation (e.g. freetranslation.mobi/en-es/love). Translations Powered by Google A Yup.mobi Site © FreeResources.mobi Why .mobi? I wrote a small perl script to process through a .po file and pass all completely untranslated text fragments to this service and store the resulting translation (if it succeeded) as a fuzzy translation in the .po file. The translation then need to be reviewed by a human before it is used to generate the documentation in question. I checked in rough translations in debian-edu-doc after first running this new tool for en-nb and manually checking a few of the new translations. There are no terms of use that I have found available from the freetranslation site, nor any clear proof that it is using Google Translate. The Translations Powered by Google can be an indicator, but it could also mean that the site uses Google cloud services for all I know. If the site uses Google Translate, it is not possible from that page to know what kind of agreement exist between the freetranslation.mobi developers and Google. In any case, I believe that I as a user of URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/ only have to consider my relationship with that service and the information presented by that service on their pages, and not what kind of contracts exist with its internal subsystem contractors. So as far I can tell, the Google Translation terms are irrelevant to me for my use of URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/ , and only the implicit access rights passed when I put text in the form and get text back is relevant in this case. It is still an interesting question to consider. It is not quite clear who get the copyright if a computer translates. I believe that I only gave URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/ the right to translate the text I presented to it and that it gave me the rights to use the text in return. The fact that the strings translated (individually, but also overall) are only small quotes and fragments of the entire document, I suspect fair use can also be claimed here, if the small text fragments in question can be said to be copyrightable in the first place. I have found a few interesting documents related to this topic. No idea if they present valid legal points, but interesting reads anyway. Check out * URL: http://en.flossmanuals.net/open-translation-tools/ch057_machine-translation-and-copyright/ * URL: http://cjlt.dal.ca/vol6_no3/gow.pdf * URL: http://blog.fxtrans.com/2009/11/is-google-translate-accurate-enough-for.html Anyone know more relevant discussions? I would guess this interest the translation community quite a bit. :) Since I wrote the autotranslate tool, I have discovered the pology and apertium free software tools also capable of translating text. In this context it is also interesting to discuss who get the copyright of translations done by such tools. :) I'll follow this list for a while via Gmane, so no need to CC me. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flty1u7yqb@login1.uio.no
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate
[Petter Reinholdtsen] There are no terms of use that I have found available from the freetranslation site [David Prévot] As any other work, unless properly stated compatible with $license, you can only only assume “Copyright $stuff, all right reserved” Well, there are two arguments against this understanding which I believe are both valid. First of all, short texts (like single sentences) are rarely copyrightable, and I only gave the translation service short texts and got equally short text back, which would most likely would still not be copyrightable if they started out as not copyrightable. If the individual texts are not copyrightable, we can use them and there is no legal issue for us. The combination could be copyrightable, but only fragments of the original text were submitted for translation and it would be a judgement call if the amount of fragments as a whole was copyrightable. Second, assuming the original texts were GPL2+ licensed, the translation service created derived texts which are still GPL2+ licensed. To distribute GPL2+ derived text they must follow the GPL2 licence and make the new text GPL2 too. Are you claiming the translation service violated the GPL? How? If the translation service didn't violate the GPL, the resulting text would be GPL and there is no problem for us to use the text. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2fld385myvr@login2.uio.no
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate
[Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore] Regarding the license requirements of Google Translator, I would say they already have the rights to use, host, store, reproduce, modif etc. under the GPL-2, so that should not be a problem. Despite the wording of the agreement, your obligation of ensuring Google is free to do what it wants to with that piece of text is duly fulfilled. Ah, interesting point. So even if one accepted the terms of Google Translator, which I do not, and used it directly instead of URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/ , this part would then not be a licensing problem. But it seem irrelevant for this discussion, as I was using URL: http://freetranslation.mobi/ and not Google Translator. As for the resulting translations, it is undisputed that they constitute the product of a computer algorithm, generated in a completely automated manner. Actually, it depend on the method used. If the translations are not synthesised but instead copied from a translation database of equivalent string pairs, there could be a human translator behind both the strings in the database and thus also the resulting translation. But most likely there are several matching translations for a given string, so there is also some algorithmic logic involved in picking the right one and your argument might still hold. The paper available from URL: http://cjlt.dal.ca/vol6_no3/gow.pdf have more on this issue. That is not, for the purposes of intellectual property law, an intellectual work or human creation, thus falling outside of the scope of copyright protection. At least this is my understanding of the Berne Convention (1971), the TRIPS Agreement and the national laws of the jurisdiction I am licensed to practice law in. You might be right, or there might be more complex legal arguments involved in determining who got the copyright of a machine translated string. But I believe determining who got the copyright is irrelevant in this case, as long as the license of the original text is not violated and the resulting text will thus also be GPL licensed. The alternative is to claim that the translation service is violating the GPL, which to me seem a bit strange as I fail to understand how it could do it by sharing the resulting string with me. Everyone is welcome to disagree, though. This is just my two cents. Thank you very much for your input. I do hope Holger and David can explain a bit more why they believe there is a licensing problem here, as I fail to see the problem they try to point out. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flobrmc2sz@login2.uio.no
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate
[Charles Plessy] Dear Petter, are you sure if http://freetranslation.mobi/ actually respects Google's terms of use? Eh, no. Holger is the one claiming http://freetranslation.mobi/ is using Google Translate, not me. I do not know how http://freetranslation.mobi/ is implemented. I just assume it is following the law, and if it is not it is a problem only for the creators of http://freetranslation.mobi/, not for us. Being closed source, it is not possible for instance to see if it accesses the translations through Google's API or if it acts more like a rogue proxy. If you want to use freetranslation.mobi regularly, I would recommend to ask Google for a clarification. Why ask? I fail to see why I should assume http://freetranslation.mobi/ are breaking the copyright law or any agreement they have with any subcontractors / suppliers of services. I assume they are a legal service until proven otherwise, and even if they are breaking the law or any agreements with suppliers, I fail to see how that would be a problem for us. Second, why should one ask Google, when I do not really know if http://freetranslation.mobi/ uses Google Translate? We could just as well ask Microsoft or any other translation service. And given that we do not know the terms of a possible agreement between http://freetranslation.mobi/ and a possible supplier, why should we assume such agreement is violated? Third, what should we ask them? Are you breaking the copyright law by using GPL-ed text in violation of the license? It seem like a strange thing to ask anyone without any proof of any wrongdoing. In any case, that you respect freetranslation.mobi's terms of use does not make you free from Google's terms. I fail to see this. If this was a problem for us, then Google would be the one breaking the law and violating the copyright. I give http://freetranslation.mobi/ a GPLed text, and by law and license get a GPLed text back. You seem to claim that http://freetranslation.mobi/ is also giving it out under an non-GPL license to others, and if that is the case, it would only be a problem for http://freetranslation.mobi/, not for us. For the resulting translations, however, I think that I agree that there is no copyright claimed on them, and that they can be freely added to the original project. I am pleased to see that we seem to agree on the conclusion. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2flobrme9xw@login2.uio.no
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
[Clark C. Evans] It seems Petter is arguing that he might be able to work around the copyright law by only translating a small piece at a time and then assembling the translated pieces. The most important argument is not this, but the fact that that there is no terms of service for http://freetranslation.mobi stating otherwise, make me assume this service is following the law and license of the texts it is given. If I ask a random person on the street to translate a GPLed text fragment, and the person give me a translated text fragment back, will the resulting text fragment still be GPLed? Assuming the text fragment was copyrightable in the first place, I believe it will be, as otherwise the translator would be said to violate the GPL and I fail to see what action involved could possibly violate the GPL. Instead of a random person, I hand it to http://freetranslation.mobi. You seem to claim that I would not get a GPLed text fragment back because the random person ask his friend for help with the translation, and there might exist a agreement between the random person and his friend that allow the friend to violate the GPL. I believe such agreements are irrelevant for me. If such agreement exist between the two, they would be the ones violating the GPL, not me, and we could sue them for GPL violatins if we wanted to. Did I misunderstand your argument? You also seem to assume that Google Translate is involved when http://freetranslation.mobi is translating text. I do not know if this is the case, and you have not presented anything making me believe you know this either. I suggest that the developer may want to *contact* Google tell them what you wish. They may be willing to accept the input under the terms of the GPL and produce output under those same terms. Especially if the output is reviewed and alternative, corrective phrase translations submitted back to Google under terms which they could use to improve their translation service. Given that I do not intend to use Google Translate, I fail to see how contacting Google to ask about http://freetranslation.mobi is interesting. Just asking might be seen as slanter against http://freetranslation.mobi, as it involves claiming that http://freetranslation.mobi is breaking the copyright law. As I said above, I assume http://freetranslation.mobi follow the law until proven otherwise. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120325064944.ge...@login1.uio.no
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
[Ken Arromdee] The translator would be violating the GPL, but since this is fair use, violating the GPL this way would be legal. What is the translator doing in the example we are discussing that is violating the GPL? Please explain more, as I failed to understand what you mean from your terse comment. Which action is violating the GPL? -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120326154325.gb7...@login1.uio.no
Re: Using freetranslation.mobi to translate .po files
[Ken Arromdee] The translator is creating a derivative work (his translation) and distributing it. This is one of the rights of the copyright holder and the GPL only gives him permission to do this if he puts his derivative work under GPL. Since he did not put this derived work under GPL, the GPL grants him no permission to distribute it, and he would be in violation of copyright if it wasn't for fair use. Right. Then I understand your argument. But I fail to understand how you conclude that the translator did not put his derived work under GPL. I on the other hand believe that the translator here implicitly put this derived work under GPL, because not doing it would be in violation of the GPL. I believe assuming people follow the law and the license is a better assumtion to make than to assume that they break the law and the license. I guess this is based on my trust in other people to try to do what is legal and right. Why do you believe the translator in this case is not following the law and the license, and thus do not believe the translator put his derivative work under GPL? -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120326182304.ge7...@login1.uio.no
