Navigating Translation Rights: Expanding Access to Global Literature in Modern Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v4n4a1204Abstract
This study aims to explore the complexities surrounding translation rights in educational contexts, with a focus on finding a balance between copyright protection and the need for greater access to foreign literature for educational purposes. Background. Translation rights present a significant challenge in educational settings, where access to foreign literature is essential for fostering cross-cultural learning and global understanding. However, restrictive copyright laws often limit the availability of translated works, creating barriers for educators and students alike. This issue is particularly relevant in an increasingly interconnected world, where access to diverse knowledge sources is critical to educational outcomes. Research Methods. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining comparative legal analysis of international copyright laws, case studies of specific educational contexts, and surveys of educators to assess the impact of translation rights on their teaching and research. The study also examined potential solutions such as alternative licensing models and the use of technology-facilitated translations. Results. The findings reveal significant disparities in translation rights across different countries, with stringent copyright laws in some regions severely restricting educational access to translated works. Educators reported frequent challenges in obtaining necessary texts, often hindering their ability to provide a comprehensive global education. Conclusion. The study concludes that reforming translation rights is crucial to promoting global educational equity. It proposes a model that balances authors' rights with educational needs, emphasizing the role of alternative licensing frameworks and technology to facilitate broader access to translated literature. Addressing these issues is vital for fostering cross-cultural understanding and ensuring equitable educational opportunities.
Downloads
References
Goldstein, P., & Hugenholtz, P. B. (2019). International copyright: Principles, law, and practice. Oxford University Press.
Peña-López, I. (2015). Rethinking education. Towards a global common good? Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232555.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press.
Patry, W. (2009). Moral panics and the copyright wars. Oxford University Press.
Venuti, L. (2017). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
Van Parijs, P. (2011). Linguistic justice for Europe and for the world. Oxford University Press.
Ricketson, S., & Ginsburg, J. (2022). International copyright and neighbouring rights: The Berne Convention and beyond. Oxford University Press.
Leaffer, M. A. (2019). Understanding copyright law. Carolina Academic Press.
Seng, D. K. B. (2021). An empirical review of the copyright limitations and exceptions for educational activities. In S. Balganesh, N.-L. W. Loon, & H. Sun (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of copyright limitations and exceptions (pp. 207–229). Cambridge University Press.
Posner, R. A. (1999). The theory and practice of citations analysis, with special reference to law and economics. University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper, (83).
Sen, A. (2014). Development as freedom (1999). In J. Timmons Roberts & A. Bellone Hite (Eds.), The globalization and development reader: Perspectives on development and global change (pp. 525–531).
Ng, V. (2015). Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton, 769 F. 3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2014). Intell. Prop. L. Bull., 20(1), 51–63.
Dreyfuss, R., & Reichman, J. (2020). WIPO’s role in procedural and substantive patent law harmonization. In I. Calboli & S. Ncube (Eds.), Research handbook on the World Intellectual Property Organization (pp. 108–130). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Oriakhogba, D. (2017). Case Comment: Delhi University photocopy case from Nigerian and South African contexts. Journal of Intellectual Property Laws, 3(1), 21–30.
Bundesministerium der Justiz. (2018). Urheberrechts-Wissensgesellschafts-Gesetz. Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I, 1204–1217. Available at: https://www.bmj.de/DE/Startseite/Startseite_node.html.
Murai, M. (2024). The current situation of Japanese copyright law regarding internet transmission of library materials–The amendment to the Copyright Act in 2021. GRUR International, 73(10), 917–927.
Mizukami, P. N., & Lemos, R. (2010). From free software to free culture: The emergence of open business. In L. Shaver (Ed.), Access to knowledge in Brazil: New research on intellectual property, innovation and development (pp. 13–39). Bloomsbury Academic.
Shaver, L. (2010). Access to knowledge in Brazil: New research on intellectual property, innovation and development (p. 160). Bloomsbury Academic.
紙谷雅子. (2003). Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F. 3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001), rehearing en banc denied 275 F. 3d 58 (11th Cir. 2001)--小説『Gone With the Wind』に基づいた小説『The Wind Done Gone』出版に対する第1審裁判所の暫定的差止命令を上訴裁判所が覆した事例. アメリカ法/日米法学会 編, 2003(1), 227–231.
Czeladzka, M. J. (2014). News aggregators and copyright—from litigation to agreement?: An example of Google News. (Doctoral dissertation, European University Institute). Available here.
Carstens, A. M. (2015). Technische Universitaät Darmstadt v. Eugen Ulmer KG. American Journal of International Law, 109(1), 161–167.
Chapdelaine, P. (2021). Fair dealing for the purpose of education: York University v The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency. Available at SSRN.
Ncube, C. B. (2015). Intellectual property policy, law and administration in Africa: Exploring continental and sub-regional co-operation. Routledge.
Štrba, S. (2012). International copyright law and access to education in developing countries: Exploring multilateral legal and quasi-legal solutions (Vol. 10). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Lessig, L. (2018). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. Communiars: Revista de Imagen, Artes y Educación Crítica y Social, (1), 99–108.
Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship. MIT Press.
Akramov, A. A., Rakhmonkulova, N. K., Khazratkulov, O. T., Inamdjanova, E. E., Imamalieva, D. I., Tuychieva, S. R., ... & Rustamova, N. R. (2024). The impact of digitalization in inheritance law. Qubahan Academic Journal, 4(3), 100–134.
Bollier, D. (2014). Think like a commoner: A short introduction to the life of the commons. New Society Publishers.
Imamalieva, D. (2024). Legal difficulties associated with the use of big data in healthcare: Civil law and cyberlaw review. Medicine, Law & Society, 17(1).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Qubahan Academic Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
