1. Introduction

It is highly appropriate that the subject of Copyright should be discussed in this building. UNESCO administers world-wide copyright conventions. The world authority responsible for copyright, or more accurately for intellectual property rights, is the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Geneva (see Bibliography). It is one of the 16 special agencies in the United Nations Organisation and has 128 member states. One of the standard reference booklets on copyright is "The ABC of Copyright", published by UNESCO (see Bibliography) and, not being qualified in legal and copyright matters myself, I shall quote extensively from that booklet in this paper. I have also chosen to reflect on the matter of copyright based on the smallest knowledge unit, the concept, i.e. the individual term.

In a world of instant global communications, technology is advancing in leaps and bounds. Today's knowledge is passé tomorrow. Yet not all advances are new. Most of them are further developments of existing or past ideas. To copy someone else's idea is an infringement of that person's intellectual property rights. To improve, adapt or even replace a former idea is not an infringement as a rule.

When the idea is in written form, it is difficult - and sometimes impossible - to detect what is original information, i.e. intellectual property and what belongs to the general language and, therefore to the general domain. Terminology, dealing with 'terms' - most often words - in context is very often buried in such written records. The reader of a text has the right to quote the text and its terminology at any time, providing that the source is stated. This identifies the intellectual ownership of the property.

Today, many manufacturers employ computer specialists to form pronounceable names for products - names which do not exist as words in any language as yet and are therefore unique. Such new names are usually automatically registered as trade names. They may then only be used to describe that specific product from that specific manufacturer. Nevertheless, in the course of time, even such terms often become generic terms and are used indiscriminately, irrespective of the product in hand. To give an example: One of the earliest vacuum cleaners invented was from Hoover. The English language now boasts the verb 'to hoover' meaning to run a vacuum cleaner over the object of the verb. Hoover did not invent the vacuum cleaner but was one of the major manufacturers. It is extremely unlikely that the Hoover Company would ever succeed in litigating against the use of this verb unless it could be proved that the use of the verb was detrimental to the interests of Hoover. Quite the opposite is usually the case, however. By using the verb 'to hoover' in connection with a rival product simply serves to remind the reader of the rival product from Hoover. A current example is Velcro. This fastener system has no other name in English and has to be paraphrased instead. Other examples are Scotch Tape, Sellotape, Aspirin, etc.

Terms used in advertising - particularly in advertising slogans - remain in the public consciousness in connection with the product advertised. Any other use of that specific word in advertising is bound to trigger a reaction in the mind conjuring up the image of the original product and would really only succeed for another product if used sarcastically or to denigrate the original product. That is why the law more or less prohibits the use of advertising slogans by others. Fair comparison is allowed. Mockery and slander are not allowed - not even by insinuation.

Copyright law plays an important role in the complex world of modern communications since it is there to protect authors and other creators of intellectual property. It is also designed to encourage the creation and dissemination of original works to the general public.

It should also be borne in mind that terminology within a company or organisation is part of that organisation's intellectual assets and also deserves protection in this respect as well.

It is reasonably easy to protect intellectual property in the form of poetry, literature and the presentation of scientific information, easier than it is to protect individual words or terms.

2. What is copyright?

Copyright is a legal premise ensuring that authors and creators of intellectual property are protected against unauthorised use of their property by others. It has been supplemented in the course of time by the term 'moral rights'. Copyright law varies from country to country but there are in the meantime many international conventions. Other forms of protection are patents, trademarks or also design protection laws for industrial drawings.

In many countries, published works lose their protection after a period of time, usually 50 or 70 years.

As already stated, copyright is based on the right of the author, i.e. the creator of the original idea, to prevent others from making unauthorised use of that original work. The old rule of thumb was that a written work must contain at least 85% original material and ideas to be regarded as an original work. (This leaves open the implication that up to 15% can be borrowed, copied or even stolen.) Related to terminology, this takes on a form which is almost ludicrous at times. If we take a specialised list of terminology published in the form of a dictionary, the claim that at least 85% of the terms in that book are original would be very hard to substantiate. Apart from the difficulty of 'proving' where a certain term originated in the form it now has with the meaning it now has, it is completely impossible to know whether anything else has ever been 'published' containing that certain term in the same or similar spelling with the same or similar meaning. In other words, divorced from context, the intellectual ownership of terms is very hard to prove.

3. How is copyright defined?

The customary dictionary definition of 'copyright' is 'the legal right of the author or creator of the intellectual property to prevent unauthorised use of that intellectual property or to prevent the reproduction of that property in any form without the express permission of the author or creator'. 'Reproduction' here is very widely cast in its meaning and includes recording, printing or otherwise replicating the original property. Photocopies, fax copies and copies of videos and cassettes, records, etc. are obvious infringements of the rights of the original authors. By analogy there are many, many more.

The basic right of the author, his or her moral right, is to control the presentation or publication of the original work to the public. There is also, however, the author's economic right. This covers revenues obtained from publication of the original work and is the central feature of copyright law. Intimately connected with this right is the right to exploit the original work. These exploitation rights very often form the basis of the author's income.

Bearing in mind that terminology work, i.e. the effort of creating and recording terminology, is a highly skilled and time-consuming intellectual exercise, it is only fair that the terminologist should have some economic benefit from the fruits of his or her labours. Yet the general perception is that terminology should be free, be given away on demand. It is often referred to as a 'by-product' of some other activity (technical writing, translation, etc.) and not a 'product' in its own right, i.e. an economically exploitable commodity. Is it any wonder that there are so few terminologists around?

Like 'truth' and 'quality', whose existence is easiest to demonstrate when absent, 'copyright' is a hazy concept which constantly has to be redefined to cover new developments and to take account of modern considerations. Related to the individual term, it is - with very few exceptions - an extremely difficult adventure.

4. Information

Based on the experience of compilers of dictionaries, who have often been accused of plagiarising the work of others by including terms from other dictionaries in their work, terminologists have usually tried to steer clear of all discussions relating to copyright. Nevertheless, there was, as may well be imagined, a serious need to explore the matter more closely and a crying need to establish guidelines or standards.

In 1992, the German Terminology Society (DTT e.V.) held a symposium in Cologne dedicated to and entitled "Terminology as intellectual property" ("Geistiges Eigentum an Terminologien", Cologne, 11 - 12 September 1992) (see Bibliography). The proceedings of this interesting symposium are still available in German. The subject of copyright was addressed from many different sides and a lively discussion ensued. One speaker even attempted to have a resolution passed committing the DTT to ensure implementation of the rights of legal ownership due the creators of terminology. Whilst I would certainly support the general premise, I cannot see how this could be adequately implemented in practice.

From 31 August to 4 September 1998, a conference took place in Budapest (Hungary) under the title KnowRight '98: 2nd International Conference on Intellectual Property Rights and Free Flow of Information. More than 700 contributions from 86 countries were presented on the subject, of which 350 were published in the proceedings. (Proceedings of the XV. IFIP World Computer Congress, edited by Klaus Brunnstein, Peter Randle and Peter Paul Sint and published by the Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft (OCG) in 1998) (see Bibliography).

In the Preface to these Proceedings, The Chairman of the Program Committee, Klaus Brunnstein, pointed out that "in technical and economic terms, intellectual property rights and the free flow of information are sometimes in conflict. ... information is an essential ingredient of any socio-cultural, technical and economic process. Consequently, free access to and free flow of information is even more required than before to advance the development of human knowledge as well as proper functioning of social and political organisations. On the other hand, information may be regarded as an asset ... whose value may be comparable to the value of a machine or product. ... Consequently, the production, storage and distribution of information requires adapted if not new forms of intellectual property protection."

The proceedings of these two conferences contain many enlightening nuggets of information on copyright, and the subject matter is presented from various points of view to enable the entire depth of the matter to be examined more clearly. Anyone seriously interested in the copyright of terminology would be well advised to study these publications since they are to the best of my knowledge the only definitive works published in this sector.

At the DTT Cologne conference in 1992, Gerhard Budin proposed implementation of the code of good practice - copyright on terminology which was being elaborated in English at the time of the conference in Cologne. Such practice would be most welcome.

5. What does the future hold in store for terminology?

It does not take much imagination to believe that the need for new terminology will increase in the future. With the increase in cross-border trade and commerce (e-commerce, etc.), terminology is bound to be generated. This will catch on quickly and be used in general in such swift succession that the originator will almost never be identifiable. The legal ownership of such intellectual property will become ever less likely to be proven. Terms on an Internet web site today can be on everybody's lips tomorrow. Not only is this unlikely to be sanctioned - it is generally applauded as an added form of free advertising. The question of copyright can almost be excluded from any consideration of future developments in this sector.

Am I being too defeatist? I think not. Indeed, it is a kind of challenge to be able to leave one's mark on eternity in the form of terminology - even if no-one knows it was your effort which produced it, i.e. your intellectual property.

Unless the use of terminology in all forms of documentation can be codified (e.g. in manuals, etc.) in the same manner as it is in advertising, there is little chance of copyright on terms. Copyright of terminologies, i.e. specific fields of information - particularly where a new process or invention is involved, could be covered by the current laws and conventions - but only until the next 'improvement' or 'further development'.

I can only pity anyone foolish enough to hope to make a fortune by selling terminology. I have met many terminologists, but none of them would qualify for the description 'rich'. Apart from that, I have not found many people, organisations or institutions even remotely interested in terminology to the extent that they would be prepared to pay for it.

The future is unfolding before us at such a tremendous pace that there is little if any time for such niceties as identifying who coined a term, where and when. My main regret is that these 'terms' are thrown into the arena with little or no preliminary effort and are very seldom accompanied by a definition. This leads to the chaotic situation in which A picks up a 'new' term in the morning and passes it on to B in what he assumes is the correct manner and so on and so forth. No-one raises any doubts as to the appropriateness or correctness of the 'term' being used. Yet there is absolutely no guarantee that the term will have the same meaning that same evening once it has passed through several stages of communication. This accelerates the creativity of the language but is lethal in technical documentation etc. unless it can be traced back to its source. This is where buzz-words are born. Yet few buzz-words can stand up to scrutiny when their definition is analysed. Why? Because buzz-words are used as Humpty-Dumpty words, they mean what the consensus wants them to mean. Anarchy? Not yet, but discipline is called for when the term is likely to resurface in court as the subject of litigation.

Slogans such as 'Terminologists of the world unite!' are inconceivable at present and, until they are, we shall just have to carry on the way we have in the past, doing our quiet best, respecting other people's intellectual property rights, ensuring that the term has a proper definition and is accessible for the reader. The secret of good terminology work, like many others, translation for example, is that it is at its best when it is NOT evident.

Copyright of terminologies is an issue and deserves much better treatment than it has received in the past. On the other hand, terminology has such a weak lobby, that it is unlikely that anything much can be achieved in that direction without a lot of preliminary effort by the terminologists themselves. Those who have examined the matter in hand are capable of identifying and appreciating good terminology practice. This practice leads to good terminology and good terms which will stand up to scrutiny in a court of law. There is just the possibility that we might get there one day........

Bibliography:

UNESCO: The ABC of Copyright, 1981 (2nd impression 1983), ISBN 92-3-101889-2

Arntz, Reiner, Felix Mayer and Ursula Reisen (Eds.): Geistiges Eigentum an Terminologien (Terminology as intellectual property), Akte des Symposions (Proceedings of Symposium), Cologne, 11 - 12 September 1992), in German. Copies available from John D. Graham,
[email protected] or Fax.: +49-2066-370 999.

Brunnstein, Klaus, Peter Randle and Peter Paul Sint (Eds.): Proceedings of the XV. IFIP World Computer Congress from 31 August to 4 September 1998 in Budapest (Hungary) under the title KnowRight '98: 2nd International Conference on Intellectual Property Rights and Free Flow of Information; Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft (OCG), 1998

The address of WIPO is
34, chemin des Colombettes or P. O. Box 18
CH-1211 Geneva
Switzerland

Tel.: +41-22-730 9111
Fax.: +41-22-733 5428

WIPO also has an office at UNO in New York.