Reclaiming the Role of Translators — Post-editing AI-translated Texts in Denmark
Reclaiming the role of translators is what Denmark did last month by publishing a statement by the Danish Translators’ Association, the Danish Authors’ Society, and Danish Publishers. Previously, we have discussed the role of translators and the ethics (or lack thereof) of using AI for literary translations. Now we will look closely at what is possible and what governments can do to protect the profession.
A Little Background
To understand what has happened in Denmark, we need some background information. In this Nordic country, there is a culture support scheme called the public lending right (PLR), which supports authors, translators, illustrators, and composers of pieces created and published on Danish soil since 1946. This grant pays the creatives whose works are available in public and school libraries. Curiously, Denmark was the first country to pay PLR for ebooks and net audiobooks in 2018. On the Agency for Culture and Palaces website, all the information about the grant — who the recipients are and how much they get, for example — is easily available to the public. Admittedly, not every country has this type of grant, but its existence and functionality are a testament to how reality could be for other countries.
New Normal?
Humanity is living in an era where AI is taking the main stage: among many things, it can generate books and their translation in a few clicks. More often than not, the quality of these creations is dubious to say the least, so publishing houses and different actors who are using these tools need someone to edit the AI-generated text. The edition of machine- or AI-generated translation is known as post-editing, and it is a fundamental step if that translation is to be published. Usually, this task falls into the hands of translators who are eager to work with literary texts, thanks to the current boom in publishing (dare I say oversaturation in the market?), there are plenty of opportunities to land a job in post-editing. Now, this is where things get interesting…
Advocating for Translators: Reclaiming the Role of Translators
The statement published by the Danish Translators’ Association and the Danish Authors’ Society says that some people have received public lending rights money for books they have not translated; they have only edited text that a machine had already translated, and that, in those instances, there was no actual human translation present. In those cases, the “translator” should not have received any money, as the post-editing of a machine-translated book is not a proper translation. Moreover, the person doing the edits shouldn’t have had the credits of being the translator in the book or its metadata, but the editor of that version, as in the following example: “The Danish version of this book has been edited by [editor name]”.
As a result, the law changed. Now, under Danish law, no post-editing of machine-generated translation is deemed literary translation, and only original human translation qualifies for PLR compensation. The Agency for Culture and Palaces has updated its website and guidelines, and what was in the statement has become a reality.
The Danish Translators’ Association has also changed its model contract (in Danish). According to the new contract, publishing houses cannot use humans to train large language models (LLMS) without consent, and translators must guarantee their translation is actual human translation and not post-edited, AI- or machine-generated or assisted.
What Does This Mean for Translators?
By declaring that edited AI translations are not part of the PLR grant scheme, the Danish government is protecting the translators’ profession. Now, translators or anyone doing post-editing work will think twice before accepting those jobs, as the monetary benefit that existed before, thanks to the PLR grant, will be non-existent. Consequently, publishers will have difficulty finding professionals to do these tasks. In time, they might reconsider their business model and return to working with translators from the get-go.
No one knows for sure what will happen in the long term. Still, one thing is certain: Danish associations worked together to demand attention to a subject rapidly becoming part of the daily discourse, and the Danish government reacted effectively to protect translators’ work by reclaiming the role of the translator.
More Changes to Come?
This case is a clear example of the European push for stricter (or more precise) boundaries and ethical standards in the use of AI. The European Council of Literary Translators’ Associations (CEATL) has also voiced the urgent need for more transparency in the use of AI in the publishing industry and a revision of the EU Code of Practice for the implementation of the AI Act. Last month, on World Book and Copyright Day, the CEATL, the European Writers’ Council (EWC), and the Federation of European Publishers (FEP) wrote a statement calling on the EU Member States to protect human-created books, to label properly AI-generated products, and to only fund works created by humans.
Even more recently, last week, CEATL, the European Composer and Songwriter Alliance (ECSA), the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the European Guild for Artificial Intelligence Regulation (EGAIR), EWC, the Federation of European Screen directors (FERA), the International Federation of Actors (FIA), the International Federation of Musicians (FIM), the Federation of Screenwriters in Europe (FSE), the International Artist Organisation (IAO), the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the Global Union Media, Entertainment and Arts (UNI MEI), and the United Voice Artists (UVA) have all signed an open letter to the Ministers of Culture before the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council on 12-13 may asking them to protect copyright and related rights, and to ensure transparency in the use of AI.
Where Do We Go from Here?
Time and time again, we talk about how translation is more than just putting words from one language into another; it is an act of creation and interpretation, shaped by nuances, and the result is a unique text that wouldn’t exist without the translator. Now, more than ever before, the cooperative efforts of different professional associations are proving that effective change is possible, and intellectual property, copyright, and human ingenuity still have meaning in this world seemingly bombarded with AI-generated content. As professionals, our work should be respected on every front, whatever act of creation we perform, and as consumers, we are entitled to know exactly what we are buying.
For many, AI simplifies human existence, optimising time and cutting unnecessary bluff. While AI can indeed be a valuable and helpful tool, governments must implement new legislation that monitors, moderates, and limits the over-use of this tool that has raised many concerns: data privacy, security, transparency, bias and discrimination, ethics, implementation costs, and environmental and ethical costs. Whether we like it or not, AI is here to stay. One can only hope that governments implement appropriate legislation to protect the rights of professionals and consumers, aka its citizens, and to allow us to harvest the benefits of this technology, without descending into a creative and cultural dystopia on a depleted planet.
This post may contain affiliate links
