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?

The fact that OP is handling this herself makes me suspect she is using translators from Babelcube or reedsy or similar, in which case they are amateurs / beginners. That’s not to say they will do a botch job but it does mean they are not au fait with mainstream industry practices.

We used to have a wall full of books about idioms, sayings from different English speaking countries, every bit of grammar (both languages), encyclopedias, thesaurus and more.
All of you who think it's easy, or even admin job, go and try to translate a page of some novel. 🤷🏻

Translators, not interpreters obviously, certainly deserve royalties.

If it’s a literary work, YABU. It’s not just about the meaning of the words. In any event, YABU.

If the book has already been published in one language and has been a success, the translator is not taking as much of a risk as the original author and publisher, so this should be taken into account.

It is, which is why typical translator royalties are 1-3% and not 8-15%.

My instinct is that it’s not unreasonable. A translation is a work or intellectual property in its own right imo. Of course the original concepts / structure etc are yours, but translation isn’t simply a mechanical process (otherwise you would just use google translate...).

You obviously don’t have to agree to it, but I don’t think it’s an outrageous expectation. I can see the reasoning behind it.

The question being, is it fair?

Do you get paid royalties on your work? Do you think you should only be paid once for your book(s)?

Translation is a skill not everyone has, even people who can speak, read and write in several languages do not always have the skills.

Sometimes a book, poem, story is translated by several people, but one translation is the 'best' and that version becomes a best seller should that translator be paid the same as someone who did a poor translation.

Depending on the book / poem there are a lot of skills beeded, how do you translat, "Daigon Ally" from harry Potter, do you leave the name as 'Daigon' or do you use 'diagonally' .

But the translator only has creative input in the way that an editor does. An editor doesn't get royalties.

I think a translator has about the same (or more) creative input as a voice artist for audiobooks, and it's pretty standard for them to do a royalty share.

If it's not already I think it will become more popular for translators to do royalty split.

I don't think this is a bad thing.

It's not true that a translator and an editor's work have equal creative input. I am an editor. I don't have to agonise about every singe word, or try to recreate names and place names that have subtextual meanings, reword idioms that imply social status, regional accent, or rephrase sentences where the alliteration or onomatopoeia significantly adds to the mood and rhythm and flow of the prose. A good translator will take on all of these challenges.

My work is creative in that it shapes and tones and adds a final polish. But it doesn't have to start again from scratch in the way a translator and make as many creative choices and decisions as the original author must.

I take it you’re not bilingual? A good translation can elevate a trashy novel to a work of art just like a bad one can reduce a literary masterpiece to rubbish. Plot lines and an element of setting/characterisation/themes is all you really give a translator to work with. They’re generally not particularly valuable. In literature it’s the way something’s written rather than the actual content that counts. Saying otherwise is the equivalent of saying that the second painting is equal to the first:

I don't think they should have equal royalties. But they should have royalties. Your book would not exist in their language territory without their creative input. You didn't have to do anything at all to make it available in that language. No work was incurred except a few email exchanges on points of confusion. The work that made those sales possible was all done by someone else.

OP, when I read "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 first thought was 'ok, this person is not a seasoned negotiator because people make all sorts of outlandish demands in the media industry and you hear all sorts of weird contractual asks all the time if you're doing this day in, day out'.

And my second thought was that this is exactly why creatives should hire agents to negotiate their commercial contracts - because a good agent knows what the industry norms are, they know where their client sits in the market in terms of their negotiating power, they know what alternative contractual gives they could offer to placate the other party and they have all the arguments for taking a certain contractual position at their fingertips.

Then I see that you don't have an agent and you've come onto MN to suss out what other MNetters think might be the industry norm and why they might think that, to help you in justifying your position to the translator. Which doesn't strike me as a particularly wise way to go, but that's obviously up to you.

And then, you start dishing out snarky comments to posters such as:

"it is about royalties. You'll need to understand the difference if you want to take part in a conversation about publishing."

and

"This point is so blatantly obvious I'm surprised anyone thinks it's worth making"

You're asking for help with something where you're clearly out of your depth and fumbling about in the dark, and then your shoot down other posters because they don't have as much industry knowledge as a professional talent agent would!

You're not going to get professional advice here - if you want that, go to a professional.

I am a translator.
When I translate business documents, websites etc, I charge a flat fee. The translated document is the property of the company and they can do what they like with it.
I have translated 2 non-fiction books. In both cases, I received a flat fee in advance plus 1% royalties. Neither book was a bestseller! I own the translation copyright as my translations are original works and I am therefore legally entitled to the copyright.
I also took advice from the Society of Authors and my fee / royalties / copyright etc was in line with their recommendations. This is gradually becoming industry standard.
Translator royalties are neither cheeky or excessive; they are an acceptable part of the compensation for doing this particular professional job.

Just to add, it seems like a pretty standard ask and in my experience it's common for contributors to a work (especially where their role involves a creative element that couldn't be provided in the same way by just anyone) to ask for a back end position - whether they think they'll get it or not, it doesn't hurt to ask.

I find the easiest way to deal with it is to stand firm and state 'that definitely won't be happening but let's increase your fee by x'. If you start to justify yourself on why there's no backend, you'll open yourself to objections and will get in a tangle.

You're not going to get professional advice here - if you want that, go to a professional.

Have you RTFT? She's had intellectual property lawyers and professional translators telling her. She just doesn't want to hear it. I was on the board of the professional translators' association for ten years FFS, I know what I'm talking about.

My gut instinct is that the translator shot could royalties cause there's more to translating a novel than merely translating text - they're having to make your story read correctly in another language. If they do it bad, you won't sell as many in that language...they do it well, and you'll sell more. They're critical in the book selling in a foreign audience.

I have to say I am staggered that there have been 215 posts on this thread, who knew translator royalties were such a controversial topic

Agree with burneyfanny - @Thisfeelslikearipoff has had a lot of free expert advice in this thread and has been fairly rude in response.

I wouldn’t want to be her translator, to be honest.

Yabu. To be able to translate effectively whilst keeping the right feel of the book is a considerable skill. You wouldn’t have those international sales without the translation, so a percentage of the royalties absolutely makes sense.

BurneyFanny yes, I have RTFT.

I appreciate you've put a lot into this thread and I'm not saying that you're not a professional industry expert. However, this is an anonymous forum - it's not the same as the OP visiting your office and getting advice from you in your professional capacity.

And anyway, I was talking about getting advice from a professional agent with negotiating the contract. Someone who can act in the OPs interests and advocate on her behalf.

Fair enough. I bet Margaret Atwood doesn’t handle this shit

I only read the first post. I am in part a copyright lawyer.

It can be whatever people choose to negotiate in most countries.

English law has always provided a separate copyright in the translation although you cannot use that translation without the owner of the original work's consent (unless agreed otherwise). Of course most contracts we do say the translator gives up any copyright to the publisher (usually, not the author but it could be to the author).

If you as the author have the power to decide who gets royalties then assert that right. If you have given up copyright to the publisher or they control other forms of licensing then you won't have much power. If you want a solicitor on MN to look at any of this for you I am sure lots of those posting above or I could help.

If OP thinks translators getting royalties is ridiculous, she'd blow her top if she realises narrators also get paid royalties. And they're only reading the damn thing.

Of course most contracts we do say the translator gives up any copyright to the publisher

But you’re talking about translation into English. In other systems author rights are inalienable.

I once read an awful translation into French where the translator had given up on the original writer's (tbf, occasionally tortured syntax) and just left entire paragraphs out. I know because I was so confused at points that I downloaded the original English to compare the pages side by side.

I wonder now if that was someone who had no expectation of receiving royalties, either because it wasn't in their contract or because they realised the book was complete tosh.