الفهرس 
صفحة العنوانOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 88 |  |  |
| | | from | 88 | | |
Abstract
ومن الاهداف :<Since translation is a highly creative art, it should be placed differently and to differentiate between derivative works, over which the author holds an exclusive right, and transformative fair uses. Translation can be seen more like transformative uses that should be permitted by fair use, instead of derivative works that are completely under the control of the original author.
According to Articles 147 of the Egyptian Intellectual property law No 82/2002, the author enjoys the exclusive right to license or to prohibit any exploitation of his work in any way and in particular by means of translation. The translation may not be performed without the approval or taking permission of the author of the original work. The latter enjoys the right to prohibit the translation of his work.
In Article148 of the same law, Egyptian legislation has restricted this exclusive right to license or ban translation works so as to protect the Arabic language or to support and develop Arab culture where the protection of the copyrighted work written in foreign language ends in translating it into Arabic if This author didn`t use This right himself or through others within three years from the time of the first publication of the original work written in a non-Arabic language. Also from among restrictions imposed by the Egyptian legislation on the original author in preventing the translation of his work is what was provided in Article170 of Law No. 82 of 2002 regarding the issuance of a personal license by the competent authority to copy or translate, or together, any protected works without the permission of the author, on condition that this license not to conflict With the normal exploitation of the work or cause undue harm to The legitimate interests of the author or the owners of copyright
Whether in Articles 148 of Egyptian law No 82/2002 which allows the translation of the original work –without taking the permission of the author-3 years following its publication or article 170 which allows granting a license by the competent authority for translating the work, in both cases no mention of a different or distinguished place for translation to be dealt as a transformative fair use. It is just one of the derivative work that should be carried out following
the permission of the original author (article147), or 3 years following the publication of the work(art.148) or following the issuance of a license from the competent ministry(Art.170). Moreover, article 171 of the Egyptian law states:
“Fair Use (Article 171 of the Egyptian Law of Intellectual Property 82 of 2002) is a complex doctrine meant to facilitate certain valuable social and educational purposes. Fair use allows parts of a copyrighted work to be used without requesting permission and without violating, or infringing, the copyright. However, only a limited portion of a work is allowed to be copied. According to an article of the Fair Use Doctrine, the copyright holder cannot forbid anyone from doing any of the following:
1. Displaying the copyrighted work within a family or among students in an educational institution as long as there is no direct or indirect monetary benefit.
2. Making a single copy of a computer program by the legitimate owner for the purpose of preservation.
3. Making an analytical study of a work or using excerpts of it for the purposes of criticism, discussion, or for media purposes.
4. Copying from a copyrighted work to use in juridical or administrative procedures, taking into consideration that it is mandatory to mention the source and the author.
5. Copying limited portions of a copyrighted work for the purposes of education or illustration, taking into consideration that it is mandatory to mention the author and the title on the copies whenever possible.
6. Making a single copy of a copyrighted work by libraries that are not receiving any benefit, either directly or indirectly, in any of the following cases:
Ø Copying a published article, a short work, or a derivative work, in response to a patron request, taking into consideration that this can be done only once or can be done on disparate time intervals.
Ø Copying for the purpose of preservation or replacement.
7. Making a single copy for personal use, taking into consideration that it must not affect the copyright holder’s legitimate rights by any means.>المنهج المستخدم:the deductive analytical method ومن النتائج :1- The Researcher suggests that in contrast to an exclusive right, which is what copyright now grants to creators, a liability rule would not prohibit someone other than the creator from making a specified use of the work, but would require compensation in certain conditions. Under a liability rule regime, then, an author could not prevent a translation by asserting an exclusive right over that form of derivative work, as she can today, but he can be compensated if, for example, the translation was detrimental to her reputation, or even if it enjoyed commercial success. This kind of liability rule could introduce into copyright the kind of flexibility to deal with the different motivations for creativity and the uncertainty around translations. In this context the last item of Article 143 of Egyptian law 82/2002 clearly says:
The author and his universal successor shall enjoy over the work perpetual imprescriptible and inalienable moral rights. Such rights shall include the following:
(1) The right to make the work available to the public for the first time.
(2) The right to claim authorship;
(3) The right to prevent any modification considered by the author as distortion or mutilation of the work. Modification in the course of translation shall not be considered as an infringement unless the translator fails to indicate deletion or changes or if he causes prejudice to the reputation and status of the author.(2)
2)-To go beyond the three years granted by the Egyptian and Arab legislations where article 148 of Egyptian law says:
“The protection of an author’s copyright and the translation rig1its of his work into another language shall lapse with regards to the translation of that work into the Arabic Language, unless the author or the translator himself exercises this right directly or through a third party within three years of the date of first publication of the original or translated work.”
Furthermore, It is necessary to exceed the one year granted by the Arab convention for the protected work to be translated without permission of the author of the original work in case of not being translated during this time, or even the grant of an obligatory license for translating the protected work given by the competent national authority as Article170 of Law No. 82 of 2002 stating that “any person may request the competent ministry to grant him a personal
license to copy or translate, or together, any protected works in accordance with the provisions of this law, without the permission of the author and for the purposes set out in the next paragraph for the payment of fair compensation to the author or his successor, on condition that this license not to conflict With the normal exploitation of the work or cause undue harm to The legitimate interests of the author or the owners of copyright and the license will be issued by a reasoned decision which determines the time and spatial scale and for the purposes that meet the needs of education with all its types and levels. The Executive Regulations of this Law shall specify the cases and conditions for the grant of the license and the amounts of the fee payable not exceeding one thousand pounds for each work’’
3-) This study recommends to exceed the limits of Article 171 of the Egyptian law 82/2002 in which the Egyptian law features an enumerated and closed list of defined copyright limitations and exceptions(UK model); while it should follow the U.S. fair-use model that allows an open-ended list of permissible uses based on consideration of statutory factors; namely (1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) The nature of the copyrighted work;(3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
4)- Egyptian law shouldn`t be bound by the enumerated list of permissible uses provided in Article 171 and went further to explore other possible permissible uses, from among them translation might have qualified to be fair use. Egyptian law can also follow a model which is a combination of the U.S. and U.K. models found in the Taiwanese Copyright Act and the recently revised South Korean Copyright Act, which offer both an enumerated list of permissible uses (as with the United Kingdom) and a number of factors to be considered in determining whether the particular use is fair (as with the United States).
However, this study is more concerned with the more flexible US model and its factors, to be adopted by the Egyptian copyright law and then translation as a derivative work can be seen as transformative fair use. This US model with its non-exhaustive list of permissible uses allow other similar works (like translation) to be fair use particularly if they enjoy some or all the factors making them fair use. This comes in contrary to the Egyptian law
with its an enumerated list of defined copyright limitations and exceptions, included in Article 171 of the Egyptian law No 82/2002.
5)- This study recommends to place the translation differently and to be allowed from the first moment of publishing the original work. This is possible if translation is considered a transformative fair use – following the example of the US Fair Use doctrine 107 and the Canadian Copyright Act-not just a derivative work entirely controlled by the exclusive rights of the author, as the translation of the original work - without taking its author`s permission - in the first case (transformative fair use) will be accepted but in the second case (derivative work), will be an infringement. According to this study, Article 171 of the Egyptian IP law No 82/2002 has a problem and it should be modified.