venuti

Invisibility 9exclusive right “to prepare derivative works” or “adaptations,” isvested in the “author.” 3 The translator is thus subordinated to theauthor, who decisively controls the publication of the translationduring the term of the copyright for the “original” text, currently theauthor’s lifetime plus fifty years. Yet since authorship here is definedas the creation of a form or medium of expression, not an idea, asoriginality of language, not thought, British and American lawpermits translations to be copyrighted in the translator’s name,recognizing that the translator uses another language for the foreigntext and therefore can be understood as creating an original work(Skone James et al. 1991; Stracher 1991). In copyright law, thetranslator is and is not an author. 4The translator’s authorship is never given full legal recognitionbecause of the priority given to the foreign writer in controlling thetranslation—even to point of compromising the translator’s rights asa British or American citizen. In subscribing to international copyrighttreaties like the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary andArtistic Works, the United Kingdom and the United States agree totreat nationals of other member countries like their own nationals forpurposes of copyright (Scarles 1980:8–11). Hence, British andAmerican law holds that an English-language translation of a foreigntext can be published only by arrangement with the author who ownsthe copyright for that text—i.e., the foreign writer, or, as the case maybe, a foreign agent or publisher. The translator may be allowed theauthorial privilege to copyright the translation, but he or she isexcluded from the legal protection that authors enjoy as citizens of theUK or US in deference to another author, a foreign national. Theambiguous legal definition of translation, both original andderivative, exposes a limitation in the translator’s citizenship, as wellas the inability of current copyright law to think translation acrossnational boundaries despite the existence of international treaties. TheBerne Convention (Paris 1971) at once assigns an authorial right to thetranslator and withdraws it: “Translations, adaptations, arrangementsof music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall beprotected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in theoriginal work” held by the foreign “author,” who “shall enjoy theexclusive right of making and of authorising the translation” (articles2(3), 8). 5 Copyright law does not define a space for the translator’sauthorship that is equal to, or in any way restricts, the foreign author’srights. And yet it acknowledges that there is a material basis towarrant some such restriction.