My ears pricked up (well, my eyes) when I saw a tweet by the relatively new blog Slator, ostensibly about NMT (Neural Machine Translation).
Head of at law firm says NMT not sufficiently developed for use in much of their work
So I clicked through, and was pleasantly surprised to find an article which contains interesting insights into a law firm that respects the legal translator’s role.
It is my sincere pleasure to announce that the closing keynote of the conference #W2D2017 Legal Translation to the Next Level will be delivered by Henry Liu, President of the International Federation of Translators and Special Advisor to the Chief Justice of New Zealand. His talk is entitled “The Case Against Plain Language“.
We are delighted and most grateful for the mark of support that this shows for the conference initiative.
Apparently,¹ thanks to an Arabic>French translation of a recent press release (Google Translate strikes again), the Tunisian Minister of Culture became a laughing stock when announcing a new legal framework for artists and designers.
The European Commission has recently published a report on Translation and intellectual property rights.
The law firm Bird & Bird LLP was commissioned for the study, which aims to provide an overview of some of the main intellectual property right issues relevant to the domain of translation, including in the field of machine-aided translations.
On Sunday I had a “Duh” moment when I saw an article entitled “Free machine translation can leak data“, published in TCWorld, a magazine for international information management. I think I can safely say that this doesn’t take any legal translator by surprise (!), nor indeed any other reader of this blog.
This guest post is published under a GNU version 2 licence, and comes from the Open Translation Tools Manual (more about that in a forthcoming post). It was written by Ed Bice in 2009, with modifications by Thom Hastings also in 2009. Despite being 3 years old, I think it brings up some very interesting topics for discussion. I look forward to reading your comments!
American copyright law considers a translation a derivative work. As such translators must obtain permission from the copyright or derivative right holder of the source language text. With regard to online translation, we expect that as Machine Translation (MT) and Hybrid Distributed Translation (HDT- strategies combining human and machine translation) come of age significant changes will need to be made to the legal framework to accommodate these technologies.
In this post, I would like to give you a taster of the controversial subject of machine translation (MT). Full references are given below so that you can read further if you are interested.
Potentially, MT could, inter alia, reduce costs, widen access to content, process large volumes of data in order to identify items of interest, make translators’ work more interesting by taking over repetitive tasks, and facilitate communication, for example in social networks or where very unfamiliar languages are involved. The key caveat is that users be clear about the limitations of MT with respect to the translation skopos (or purpose).