To think translators shouldn't be paid royalties?

[Thisfeelslikearipoff]

I'm a published author and one of my books is about to go into another language. This book has been published in several languages already and I am familiar with the international translation process. To my astonishment, for the first time, this translator has tried to make her being paid royalties from book sales a part of her contractual agreement.

My immediate instinct is that no, she shouldn't be claiming royalties here. That is not to diminish her role in any way; I fully acknowledge the effort involved in translating thoughts and concepts from one language to another, and I fully acknowledge the obviously crucial nature of the translators role in a translation. A translation involves several individuals and entities doing their part in a professional manner. There is the author, the translator, the publisher, the distributor, the PR and media company etc etc. Everybody's role is crucial.

After I got this request I did some research and found that yes, for some people this actually is a thing, and I even came across a bizarre argument on a translators website where translators were forcefully asserting that they ought to be "fighting for our rights" to be paid royalties on book sales!

My take on it is this - the translator deserves to be properly compensated for their work, but only once. I really am feeling put out by this, and honestly the financial aspect is the least of what bothers me. I am annoyed that she feels she has a right to royalties on my work. She did not come up with these thoughts and concepts; her role is to bridge the gap between one language and another. AIBU to think she shouldn't be paid royalties on each copy sold?

translation is essentially an admin job

Google translate?

Lol. This poster has probably never learned another language.

I can see why a skilled translator may be in a position to demand a royalty in addition to their fee. Or you can go with a less proven, or possibly less skilled flat fee translator.

I don't know where the idea that translators who charge a flat fee (which is most translators) are less skilled came from. I have never heard this expressed anywhere outside this thread.

Does the translators royalty get deducted from your royalty? Can you negotiate that it comes out of publishers share? (I work in copyright but not in books.)

The translators royalty would get deducted from the overall royalties, so yes it would ultimately impact on the authors royalties, but we are only talking small amounts here, and in any case it really is not about the money.

It really is not about the money.

It really, really is. That's literally the only thing it's about. It's about the money. You aren't signing away your copyright, you aren't signing away your creative work, you aren't signing away anything. It's just about how this person will be paid for her work. You are making an absolute mountain out of not even a mole hill.

Well, sound engineers aren't paid royalties and their involvement is extremely key in a good sounding output. Most guitarists/singers etc wouldn't have a clue about multiband compression or gain staging, etc.

Ugh, I see my post has been deleted for use of an idiom. I rephrase:

OP, you are being tight-fisted.

I disagree.

A book may have taken years to write and may be based on a lifetime of experienced. Besides, we don't give contractors shares in a company for their work.

Well here's someone who knows fuckall about the publishing industry.

I'm also a published author. HTH.

I still think translators deserve recognition.

When your book is translated it increases the market size of your book. You have done nowt to contribute to the additional growth. Of course recognition, including financial should be factored into contracts. You need each other, you all take a cut.

Ugh, I see my post has been deleted for use of an idiom.

No, your post was deleted for use of a vulgar insult.

you are being tight-fisted.

If I was self-publishing I could see your argument there. I'm not.

I still think translators deserve recognition.

So do I, but I don't think they deserve royalties.

It really, really is. That's literally the only thing it's about. It's about the money.

It isn't, and if it were I probably wouldn't give royalties a second thought because the translators flat-fee is so high it will almost certainly outstrip any royalties at the rate of 1-3%.

It really, really is. That's literally the only thing it's about. It's about the money.

It isn't, and if it were I probably wouldn't give royalties a second thought because the translators flat-fee is so high it will almost certainly outstrip any royalties at the rate of 1-3%.

I must admit, I don't see what else it's about. What difference is there between the two forms of remuneration other than ... remuneration?

Oh, and the fact that your username suggests that you're being ripped off!

rip-off
noun [ C ] slang
US /ˈrɪp ˌɔf/

an act of cheating someone by charging too much or not giving anything of value for money spent

I must admit, I don't see what else it's about. What difference is there between the two forms of remuneration other than ... remuneration?

The difference for me @GoatyGoatyMingeMinge (I LOVE your username btw! ) is that requiring a fee for your services, irrespective how large, is a reasonable expectation. The translator here has decided to hit my publisher up with her fee to the maximum possible extent. That's fine; she gets to put a value on her own work.

Regardless how fantastic a job a translator does, their work rests on the authors work; their role is to provide a linguistic interpretation of the authors work. Yes there is artistry involved, but a translation is not an original work, so in my view she ought to be paid a one-off fee for her translation services rather than a royalty payment for each book sold. It's the nature of the work involved that distinguishes between the nature of the payment.

Fair enough - @Thisfeelsopportunistic would probably have suited me better!

You seem to be entirely missing the point that in some territories it can be the norm or even obligatory to include royalties. You haven't told us which country you are dealing with though and you have called the move "opportunistic" and "bizarre". You obviously just wanted people to agree with you!

OP I have pointed out at length that your opinion matters not, it’s a question of legality. In some countries you would be breaking the law by not paying royalties. So by definition in those places royalties are industry standard. Everyone here working in publishing talking about flat fees are talking a bout translation into English where work for hire without royalties is a possibility. That is not the case in much of the rest of the world.

But feel free to carry on ignoring me and my twenty years of professional experience eh?

And I don’t understand why if you’re such a publishing expert your absolute first reaction wasn’t to put the translator in touch with your publisher, whose job it is to handle this stuff.

Ha and this will blow your mind: in Germany if your work becomes an unexpected best seller your translator can sue you for an increase in royalties :-)

Ok, it's simple. Translator gets:

A) a larger flat fee
B) a smaller or no flat fee and royalties

Under B) translator shares the risk that the book might not sell, but also enjoys the benefit of good sales. Under A, the translator gets a flat fee but misses out if the book sells well.

It's a matter for negotiation and a question of whether there is enough money to pay upfront or whether need ro wait for income from sales etc.

You need to acknowledge that the translator has contributed to the work. She isn't asking for 100% of royalties, she is asking for a small % which reflects her input.

I just picked up three translations of the first line of The Odyssey by Homer.

Fagle translation: “Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns.”
Fitzgerald: "Sing in me, Muse, and through me tell the story of that man skilled in all ways of contending"
Wilson: "Tell me about a complicated man. Muse, tell me how he wandered and was lost."

One line. Completely different interpretations of the character. Different stories. Written in the original iambic pentameter. Try and do a line of that and come back. It's a creative process, it's a rewriting. Copywrite law tends to agree. People who think it is easy, admin, etc are ignorant. It is one of the most intellectually challenging things to do when done well. Obvious that this an extreme, but it is to show your argument doesn't hold water.

Also, unless you're using an audio recorder, it'd be damn hard to write a book without lifting a finger!

Sarahandquack is right. You didn’t write the book in French or whatever. The translator did and that book is a separate legal entity with a claim to copyright and royalties on sales, just like any other book.

To the poster that thinks translating is an admin job:

A judge has a little think and then writes his or her thoughts down in a judgment. Is that admin?

Did Madeline Miller deserve royalties for The song of Achilles? It’s not like she made up the characters or anything.

I has a job with the President of China once and he used a translator to communicate his thoughts and ideas at a conference. Translators are well paid, but he didn't get a cut of the President's salary.

That said, I do understand in this situation why a translator would ask for royalties.

I'm not sure on this one. I can see both sides.

Fucksake interpreters are not literary translators. That’s like saying dentists are gynaecologists.

As an author you take the risk that you put an enormous amount of work into something and may never sell your work, the publisher takes the same chance on you which is why you both get royalties.

The translator is being offered a guaranteed payment regardless of if your work sells anything in the translated language.

If the translator was taking the same risk then I would expect to pay royalties, but they aren't, it sounds like you are still being charged at a higher rate.