Venuti’s Theory of Foregnisation Applied to the Phenomenon

buff-Translation and heterogeneousness Venutis opening of foregnisation applied to the phenomenon of sports caramel brown- larning In this stress I set out to look for the extent to which faithfulnessrence Venutis theory of unk at one timenising displacement reaction stomach be spendfully applied to explain the practices of fan-edition communities. Fan- variant (hereafter, FT) is a relatively novel phenomenon. OHagan , by-line Flews definition of gunslingerstance abuser Generated Content (Flew 2008 in OHagan 2009, p. 7) derives the full term User Generated Translation (hereafter, UGT) in tack to describe a wide cut arse of variant, carried out found on unloosen use elaborateness in digital media aloofnesss where rendition is undertaken by unspecified self-selected individuals (OHagan 2009, p. 97). The user in head word is so close tobody who voluntarily act as a remediator of linguistic bothy inaccessible products and direct producer of translation on the basis of his familiarity of the granted language as well as that of a picky media marrow or genre, spurred by his substantial interest in the outlet (OHagan 2009, p. 7). UGT then could be applied to all those translations carried out by non-professional spokespersons, oftentimes for non-financial motives. The term FT in this essay go out be utilise more specifically to describe the practice of those users whose interest is directed towards a specific genre that of Nipp whizse ethnical commodities or, more specifically, Japanese graphical novels (Manga), and animated movies (anime). The question that I would homogeneous to address in this essay is whether Lawrence Venutis influential theory of translation (Venuti 1995,1998) wad help precisely when sense the phenomenon of FT.The intention of this essay is to claim that any(prenominal) tantrums of Venutis foregnisation theory do indeed serve to characterise fan- transcribers activities, despite the obvious con school guardbookual differences. These differences atomic number 18 easily summarised FT is non carried out by a nonpareilness individual or make up by a single crowd of individuals (un equal the cases cited by Venuti, where he either refers to a group of ro mantic skilfuls in 19th century Germany, or later isolated cases (Venuti 1995, pp. 9-147, 187-272), further a practice carried out on a wider scale, embraced by a greater number of individuals controling together as a community of practice, broadly composed of non-professional translators, often very young, not always sharing the express(prenominal) national identity, and mostly lacking the clearly delimitate heathenish purchase order of business that Venuti exposed as a notwithstanding whenification for advocating the adoption of foreignising translation practices (Venuti 1995, pp. 6-17). Fandom Fan activities impart ga thered scholarly attention in recent geezerhood payable to the opportunities for com munity building and the ease of sharing suffice that the recent incarnation of the World Wide Web, or Web 2. 0, offers ( arrest for example (Diaz Cintas and Munoz Sanchez 2006 downwind 2009 Sanchez 2009 Koulikov 2010 Watson 2010 Denison 2011 Lee 2011 Castells and Cardoso 2012).The reason for such scholarly attention is that fan activities, in the make water of sharing digital content online, can be said to occupy a liminal plaza (Denison 2011) that is dangerously close to what is often called ( scarce not often clearly defined) piracy fan textual matters that atomic number 18 at the liminal de boundation amid fan creativity and piracy. Essentiallytext augmented by, preferably than created by, fans (Denison 2011, p. 450).For this reason, fan activities built on the relationship that is constituted in the answer of a grapahemeicular form of lit have been the subject of schoolman interest Anime texts have become nexus points for discourse most ownership and proficien ts(Napier 2007 and Thornton 1995 in Denison 2011, p. 450). Within the wider spectrum of fan-related practices, most individuals play the role of prosumers producers and consumers of products, rather than passive spectators (Tapscott and Williams, 2006 in OHagan 2009, p. 9). Prosumers not only consume cultural products, but also manifest agency by responding creatively to their favourite text or medium. Some examples of fans creative response analysed by well-grounded scholars could be the theatrical audience participation to showings of The Rocky Horror Show, Town bands playacting slack concerts, the American musical tradition the blues (Madison 2007, pp. 87-703), amateur fan actors producing new episodes of Star Trek, fan produced Harry Potter Lexicon, fan- do flash based lifespan derived from music, fan-created version of mercantilely created virtual mascot Miku Hatsune (Noda 2010, pp. 149-158), which are all forms of participation that sit uneasily with the notion of intel lectual property estimables. The practices of fans of Japanese peculiars and animation have been of particular interest to legal theorists (Mehra 2002 Hatcher 2005 Lessig 2005 Muscar 2006 Noda 2008, 2010).Here it is useful to distinguish surrounded by the practices of the dojinshi (hereafter non italicised) community and the practices of the FT community or, to be more specific, communities, since fan translators in operation(p) on different media are described with different names translation of Japanese graphic novels is carried out by a affect of Scanlation subtitling of Japanese animation is carried out by a process called Fansubbing and finally, the process of restricting and translation of video games is called RomHacking. DojinshiWhat are dojinshi, and why are they of interest to legal scholar? Lawrence Lessing, professor of truth at Harvard Law School and open board member of Creative Commons, in his 2004 create take over glossiness how big media uses technology and the lawfulness to lock down socialization and program line creativity, uses dojinshi as an example of derivative whole shebang that could not exist in America, since dojinshi are A kind of copycat comic It is not dojinshi if it is only a copy the artist must reconcile a persona to the art he copies, by transforming it either subtly or really.A dojinshi comic can thus take a mainstream comic and develop it differentlywith a different story line. Or the comic can affirm the character in character but assortment its look slightly. on that point is no formula for what dumbfounds the dojinshi sufficiently different. entirely they must be different if they are to be considered true dojinshi (Lessig 2005, pp. 25-26) Dojinshi are the Japanese version of what is differently called fan-fiction in other linguistic communication, unlicenced fan-created version or original works.The term Dojinshi (. Literally dojin stands for same person and shi stands for periodical macr ocosmation, which in position could be rendered as Fanzine or Fan-magazine). Dojinshi denoted a type of fan works that are self- create, small scale publications written by fans for fans of a particular work (be it a movie, a book, a television series, or a video game) or of a particular romantic pairing assertable within that work(Hemmann 2010).Dojinshi are an crucial side of the civilisation that surrounds Japanese graphic novels (manga literally man stands for whimsical and ga stands for drawings) in Japan. Manga demo both an industry and a form of expression, so much so that in recent years the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) began to see manga as the new germ of Japans Gross matter Cool (McGray 2002 in Koulikov 2010, p. 18) and began promoting the countrys content industry foreign (Yoshimoto 2003 in Koulikov 2010, p. 10).The Japanese manga industry and the dojinshi fan-communities reinforce each other in a way that is mayhap surprising to wester n legal theorists because it raises important questions in regards to the efficacy and meaningfulness of secure practices and of the position processs to the highest degree originality and reservoirship that underpins right of first publication law and associated commercial practices in the west This grocery store exists in parallel to the mainstream commercial manga market. In some ways, it obviously competes with that market, but there is no free burning effort by those who control the commercial manga market to shut the doujinshi market down.It flourishes, despite the competition and despite the law in the descry of many, it is hardly because it exists that Japanese manga flourish Lessing 2004, p. 26 The practice of scanlation and fansubbing differ from those of dojinshi artists in some important ways. First of all, they are mostly carried out by fans right(prenominal) of Japan, and more specifically, while they are carried out in a salmagundi of languages, the majority of the work is carried out by incline language fans (Denison 2011, p. 54). Additionally, I would argue that scanlation and fansubbing do not inhabit the same suppositionual space of fan-fiction and dojinshi, even if copyright law regards adaptation and translation equally as derivative works (WIPO article 2 (3)). Dojinshi artists working within the idea of complementing the original work, while un informantised, are conceptually closer to the wider spectrum of fan activities that are often tolerated in the west ( same(p) audience participation to theatrical performances).FT seems to inhabit a narrower conceptual space, closer, and more readily compromised by proximity, to the practices of unauthorised copying that is denounced as piracy, despite the ambiguity of the term piracy itself piracy has never had a stable legal definition and is just about sure enough better mum as a product of enforcement debates than as a description of a specific behaviour. The terms blurs, and is often use designedly to blur, important distinction between types of uncompensated use (Karaganis et al. 2011, p. ) In order to cause a conceptualisation of the practices of fan translators, here I would like to adopt Venutis framework of domesticating and foreignising translation. My intention in the adjacent part of the essay is to illustrate how FT of Japanese manga and anime could find precedents in the archives of translation. In miserable, I draw from Venutis critical family tree of fluent discourse in the English language translation in order to show that FT should not merely be thought of as free-riding, but that it contains elements of previous use of translation as musical instrument for building a national culture (Venuti 1995, 100).Similarly, FT can be said to represent a vehicle for the construction of sub-cultural capital , the companionship about an area of fandom that allows one to feel comfortable with other similar fans, but also to gain status among fello w enthusiasts (Napier 2007, p. 150 in Denison 2011, p. 450) Translation Translation studies as an academic turn back has a relatively short history, rising about twenty years ago from the back of comparative literature departments. The independence of translation studies as an academic trail revolves more or less its methodology and the questions it aims to answer.Hence, an important question faces every Translation Studies pupil should one restrict his enquiry to the analysis of linguistic features of a text, or should attention be paid to the context where the practice of translation takes consecrate the figure of the translator his/her motivation what void in the receiving culture is the translator trying to fill the interests played behind the importation and exportation of culture how law, market, social norms and issue practices all influence the creation of culture of which translation is part of whether all these form a kind of censorship, and should the translator change course of conform to such censorship, even when is self-censorship? In this essay I would like to explore the possibilities offered by the latter approach, by comparing and contrasting two common elements of contemporary translation on the one hand, the critical work of Venuti in regards to domestication and foregnisation and on the other, the phenomenon of user participation in otherwise highly specialised areas of professional translation practice (OHagan 2009, p. 96). To begin with, I would like to introduce the work of Lawrence Venuti (1995, 1998).Venuti describes the state of contemporary translation around the world as characterised by imbalance the imbalance between the long number of books that are translated from English and the small number of books that are translated into English. This hand imbalance is an effect of the global control of English which, accord to Venuti, leads to a complacency in Anglo-American relations with cultural others apparent in publi shing practices in Britain and America that decreases the cultural capital of foreign look upons in English by limiting the number of foreign text translated and submitting them to domesticating decree (Venuti 1995, p. 7) According to Venuti, publishing practices in Britain and America reinforce the global domination of English by imposing Anglo-American cultural nourishs on a vast foreign readership, while adopting practices of translation that produce domestic cultures that are aggressively monolingual, unreceptive to the foreign, accustomed to fluent translations thatprovide the readers with the narcissistic capture of recognising their own culture in a cultural other(Venuti 1995, p. 15) idiom added). Venuti is critical of the canon of fluency that dominated the practice of translation into English. By fluency, Venuti wants to describe a particular way of translating which emphasise the production of texts that hide their foreignness and instead makes them appear as the ori ginal expression of the foreign author, essentially unmediated by the process of translation. Venuti defines such process of assimilation, in a manner that conceals the text foreign origin, as domestication.While professedly all translation is appropriation and assimilation, domestication has the troubling effect, according to Venuti, of reinforcing an ethnocentric attitude towards foreign cultures the belief that other cultures are in position no different from ones own and therefore, that ones own culture is universal the prevalence of fluent domestication has support these developments the monolingual, unreceptive and narcissistic culture above because of its economic value enforced by editors, publishers, and reviewers, fluency results in translation that are eminently readable and therefore consumable in the book market, assisting in their commoditisation and insuring the neglect of foreign texts and English-language translations discourses that are more resistant to easy read ability (Venuti 1995, pp. 15-16).In order to resist and change the conditions under which translation is theorised and practiced today, especially in the English-speaking countries Venuti wants to instal forward a strategic cultural intervention in the ongoing state of world affairs, pitched against the hegemonic English language nations and their unequal cultural exchanges in which they engage theory global others (Venuti 1995, p. 20). Venutis literary argument then is that literary translators, in an effort to challenge current translation practices, should attempt a foreignising approach to translation. What this mean in practice is the production of texts that read as translations and the suggested method to achieve this effect is a theory of translation that emphasise heterogeneity of language.Languages are never monolithically homogeneous entities different agents go outside occupy language in a different way, according to whom, and in what manner, is an utterance is addr essed. Standard literary English is language that exists only in translated foreign literature. Foreignising translation then should attempt to disrupt the homogeneity compel by textual transparency and fluidity of the reading experience by inserting traces of heterogeneous language (slang, dialect, archaism, cliques, etc ) into an otherwise canonical translation. Foregnisation, according to Venuti, can exchange the way translations are read as well as produced (Venuti 1995, p. 24).Whether foregnisation can achieve the results that Venutis cultural political agenda aim towards is yet unclear Venuti himself reports that critical reviews of his translated works did indeed cause some reactions some reviewers found this choice of words unconvincing, suspecting that Italian romantics would not have verbalized themselves with the obvious colloquialism that Venuti strategically employed (Venuti 1998, 19). Such reproval only goes to confirm Venutis belief the fact is that Italian roma ntics would not have used most of the words in my translation because they wrote in Italian, not English (Venuti 1998, 19-20). The reader had to suspend her cultural and linguistic expectations towards to the foreign text and was forced to take notice of the mediated nature of the translated text, exposing in the criticism the dominant narrative form and a prevalent ethnic class (Venuti 1998, 20). Pym (Venutis Visibility Anthony Pym Target 8/2 (1996), pp. 65-177) is unconvinced about the passage from foregnisation to the professed egalitarian agenda if translators refuse to produce fluent texts, if they make themselves visible through the use of resistant strategiesall the rest will surely change too. Such would appear to be the gung-ho reasoning that makes Venuti so visible (Pym 2010, p. 2). The passage from a disrupted reading experience to the wider democratic agenda that Venuti takes for granted is rather unclear. Supposing a reader gets what Venuti is trying to do and is take n out of the illusion of being actually reading the words of the original author the reader becomes aware of the translation being a translation. How can this, beyond achieving a degree of visibility for the translators, achieve further goals?Venuti himself is aware of these difficulties and asks what would happen if a translator tried to redirect the process of domestication by choosing foreign texts that deviated from transparent discourse and by translating hem so as to signal their linguistic and cultural differences? Would this effort comprise more democratic cultural exchanges? Would it change domestic values? Or would it mean banishment to the fringes of Anglo-American culture? (Venuti 1995, pp. 40-41). Central to Venutis concerns, however, there is an aspect of translation that Pym recognizes as key to contemporary translation practices the question of copyrights. Copyrights Venuti apply a chapter of his 1995s work to the Italian writer Iginio Ugo Tarchetti (1839-1869) (V enuti 1995, 148-186). In 1865, Tarchetti plagiarised Shelleys tale the mortal immortal by translating it into Italian without acknowledging the English author.While Venuti recognises that the shrewdness and sheer audacity of Tarchettis plagiarism may make it attractive to dissidents in Anglo-American literary culture, he also recognises the practicable limits of such practice Tarchettis translation practices cannot be imitated today without significant revision. Plagiarism, for example, is largely excluded by copyright laws that bind translators as well as authors to publish an unauthorized translation of a copyrighted foreign text is to invite legal proceedings whose cost will far pass by the translators income from even a bestselling translation (Venuti 1995, 185). Venuti advice to contemporary English-language translator is not break the law, but rather, to choose carefully what to translate The choice of a foreign text for translation can be just as foreignising in its impact on the target-language culture as the imposture of a discursive strategy.At a time when deviations from fluency may limit the circulation of a translation or even prevent it from getting make in the first place, Tarchetti points to the strategic value of discriminating carefully among foreign texts and literatures when a translation project is developed (Venuti 1995, 185-186). Venuti calls attention to the manner in which contracts and copyright laws regulate the production of translated literature. Translation, according to the Berne international copyright convention is defined as derivative work (WIPO article 2 (3)). Therefore, translation is morally and legitimately bound to the will of the original author (WIPO article 8).Copyright law varies according to nations, the US and UK lacking the concept of powers rights that is present in most continental Europes laws, while the US and UK have clearly defined fair use clause that are not present in continental Europe. Pym agrees that copyright law on translation need revision The idea of limiting the authors translation rights to a short period of perhaps five years sounds like an excellent practical way of elating translations but at the same time, he is sceptical of drastic measures But is our complaint really that the translators piece of writing is never given full legal recognition? (Venuti 1995, p. 9) Do we have to do away with the distinction between author and translator, or even with copyright sole(a)ly? (Pym 2010, p. 4).International Copyright law reinforces the idea that translation is not transformative work, which is defined more narrowly in terms of criticism or parody. Translation as derivative work falls within the category of copy that is modulate by copy-rights. While much translation theory in the sometime(prenominal) 20 years since the emergence of translation studies as an academic discipline has struggled to establish translation as a serious intellectual try worthy of scholarl y attention, the commercial reality that regulates the production of translation tells a strikingly different tale literary translation, as a form of cultural production, is set by the practices of the publishing industry.The translation of foreign literature is subject to norms, laws and market restrictions, as well as architectural conditions. Lessing specimen of restriction that applies to all cultural commodities (i. e. culture that is bought and sold, of which translated literature is part of (Lessing 2005, 133). Lessing sees cultural commodities as subjected to restrictions that until the 20th century were fairly balanced publishers rights were regulated by copyrights law, so as to limit their monopoly over the production and dissemination of culture. This guaranteed the exclusive ability to reproduce and translate literary works on behalf of the author for a limited time.The concept of a limited monopoly was balanced by the fact that once such monopoly expired, artistic w orks would fall into the public domain and so become available for the general public to read, print, dish up and translate without the need to acquire the copyright holder permission. Unlike the law in continental Europe, according to common law practices in the US and UK, the copyright holder could control the distribution and translation of a work regardless of the authors wishes. In continental Europe, by contrast, the concept of authors rights recognise the moral right to claim authorship of a work and to retain the ability of stop distribution of his work.One efficiency wonder if, before the introduction of copyright laws, translators indulged indiscriminately in the plagiarism of foreign works as in the example of Tarchetti. The truth is that until 1790, in the unify States the right granted by a copyright only gave the author the exclusive right to publish a particular book and did not extend to derivative works it would not interfere with the right of someone other than t he author to translate a copyrighted book, or to adapt the story to a different form (such as a drama based on a published book) (Lessing 2005, 136) It seems almost impracticable in the contemporary world to imagine a time where the right of translators matched those of the foreign author.It seems natural to imagine the chaos that lack of copyrights would cause an innumerous number of translators plagiarising the work of foreign authors and passing them as their own creations. It is this trouble in regards to plagiarism, of a lack of clearly established standards of authorship that drives doubt about translation. Authorship as creative genius is a value that is attached to a person or a work of art. This value can be seen reflected in the idea of intellectual property which depicts copyrights rights as a natural state of affairs, that is, a natural property right. However, according to William Patry, copyrights are created solely the government and therefore should not be unders tood as an end in itself, but instead an end to a social objective furthering learning (Patry moral panic, 103).Patry argues that the essence of property is not absolute dominion over things, but rather, it is determined by a system of social relationships property is quintessentially and absolutely a social institution. each concept of property reflectsthose choices that we as a society- have made LAURA UNDERKUFFERLER, 203, 54 IN PATRY 103 (Patry 103). That means that copyrights, and the idea of authorship that underpins copyrights, are determined by social practices and therefore reflected in social norms, and finally and more concretely, in the legislation that regulate copyrights. Before copyright renewal in the United States became automatic in 1992, only a small percentage of authors claimed them, and even smaller percentage applied for renewal (Patry, 67-68).Paradoxically, copyright became valuable to corporations only when they were given automatically without authors havi ng to do anything to claim it Survey of renewal rank in the United Stes from 1910 to 2001 found a range between 3 percent in 1910 to 22 percent in 1991of all the books published the united states in 1930, and therefore under copyright until 2025, only 174, or 1. 7 percent, are still in print (Patry 68). The boundary that separates a legitimate creative response to a work of art and an unlawful one is made tangible in law by the hindrance to copy, adapt or translate without the consent of the foreign author. Such law, which seems almost common sense in contemporary society, has a relatively short history. Changing attitudes towards intellectual property rights reflect contemporary anxiety in regards to originality and authorship, which contributes to the marginality of translation.According to Venuti whereas authorship is generally defined as originality, self-expression in a unparalleled text, translation is derivative, neither self-expression nor unique it imitates another text given the rule concept of authorship, translation provokes the fear of inauthenticity, distortion, contamination (Venuti 1998, 31). This anxiety affects the most those touch about plagiarism, especially academic institutions and academic publishing translation is rarely considered a form of literary scholarship, it does not currently constitute a qualification for an academic appointment in a particular sphere or area of literary study, and, compared to original compositions translated texts are infrequently made the object of literary research (Venuti 1998, 32). Here Venuti is critical of the academic respect towards the original at the expenses of translation.The concept of authorship here joins that of fluent translation in an attempt to present the foreign author as the one who is speaking through the medium of the text, in order to ascertain the auctorial intention that constitutes originality (Venuti 1998, 31). The Translator hence become an uncomfortable middle man that m ust hide, as much as possible, both the facts that the text in question is a not the original, and that the foreign author did not employ the language of the translation. The middle man goes unnoticed, not by mere oversight, but quite deliberately. Copyright law, also reflected in translation contracts, perpetuate this neglect. Copyright, as we have seen, by defining translation as derivative work, confirm contracts that employ translators as work-for-hire, so that the product of their work belongs to the publishing club who do not have to acknowledge the translator.Practical example of this is the lack of the translators name on the cover of a volume or in library catalogue indexes, or the disparity between the royalties that the translator receives in comparison to those of the foreign author. The disparity between authorship and translation affects the whole production of commercially translated literature. What i would like to explore next is the side of contemporary translati on that is not affected by commercial consideration or in need of academic recognition. Here the language varies from non-commercial translation to amateur translation or fan-translation, but from the point of view of copyright holders it represents a more straightforward phenomenon theft of intellectual property, or in other words, piracy. PiracyAs Castells and Cardoso points out, we usually look at media consumption, of which translated literature is an example of, starting from a media industry definition (Castells and Cardoso 2012). In other words, the content that is normally available to us to read, watch or listen to is usually made available through the payment of a fee or because it is supported by advertising. The commercial relationship that binds together media companies and individual is regulated by a set of rules that are legally formalised into rights and obligations (Castells and Cardoso 2012). Piracy, by infringing these rights and obligations, can be a usefully employed to illustrate some of the issues that characterise the status of translation in the current world, how translation is produced and distributed.In short, the argument I would like to put forward is such piracy is used to describe everything that is not in the public domain but that can be obtained from non-authorised sources, shared with others, whether for free or not. This means that piracy could be whatever is made available to share that contain even parts, or traces, or adaptations, of existing copyrighted works. A pirate here is defined as anybody who makes use of existing copyrighted material in order to express something of his own (with the exception of criticism or parody, which are allowed by law) (WIPO? ). On one side of the debate there are net users and in particular peer-to-peer (P2P) networks function as efficient tools of distribution of digital content. On the other, litigious media corporations fighting a moral crusade against intellectual theft.The sides of this war, however, assume different connotations depending on who is doing the description for the copyright holding corporations, authors are being robbed of the fruits of their work here the fight is described as one between intellectual copyright owners and thieves. On the other side, is it estimated that more than 40 one million million American citizens have used the internet to download content hence a substantial part of US citizens is being criminalised. Lessing asks Is there another way to guarantee that artists get paid without transforming forty-three million Americans into felons? Does it make sense if there are other ways to assure that artists get paid without transforming America into a nation of felons? (Lessing 2005, 202).The model of distribution of culture that once revolved around a few selected corporations is now being challenged by technological innovations that were unimaginable a generation ago. digital content can be shared across the world free of p hysical constrains (such as books, shops, printing press, etc. ) but also free from the editors, publishers, and reviewers which Venuti sees as the source of neglect of foreign texts and translation practices that emphasise heterogeneity of discourse. The sharing possibilities offered by the net act as a source of heterogeneity they provide easily accessible, free to share, translated foreign literature that constitutes an substitute(a) to what is available commercially.Venuti limited his theory of translation within the boundaries of commercial translation, albeit as a form of dissidence in respect to the practices enforced by institutional channels. What is of interested here from the point of view of translation are the possibilities offered by working outside the commercial paradigm, the translation practices of those communities that focus on literature, like dojinshi, that are not accessible to the translators working within the legitimate sphere, whether due to social norms, ideology, poetics, of purely economic reasons. The net provides a venue (cultural space? Deleuze and Guattari) for that sub-cultures that are neglected by commercial organizations (and that could not be catered for legally by other institutions). ReferencesCastells, M. and Cardoso, G. 2012. Piracy Cultures Editorial Introduction. International Journal of colloquy Online 6. available at http//ijoc. org/ojs/index. php/ijoc/article/view/1610/732 Accessed 13 June 2012. Denison, R. 2011. Anime fandom and the liminal spaces between fan creativity and piracy. International Journal of Cultural Studies Online 14(5). obtainable at http//ics. sagepub. com/content/14/5/449. full. pdf+html Accessed 13 June 2012. Diaz Cintas, J. and Munoz Sanchez, P. 2006. Fansubs audiovisual translation in an amateur environment. The Journal of Specialised Translation Online 6. Available at http//www. jostrans. rg/issue06/art_diaz_munoz. pdf Accessed 13 June 2012. Hatcher, J. 2005. Of otaku and fansubs a cri tical look at anime online in light of current issues in copyright law. Online. Available at http//www. law. ed. ac. uk/ahrc/SCRIPT-ed/vol2-4/hatcher. pdf Accessed 13 June 2012. Hemmann, K. 2010. Dojinshi Online. Available at http//japaneseliterature. wordpress. com/2010/02/20/dojinshi-part-one/ Accessed 13 June 2012. Karaganis, J. et al. 2011. Media piracy in emerging economies. Online. Available at http//bibliotecadigital. fgv. br/dspace/bitstream/handle/10438/8526/MPEE-PDF-Full%20Book. pdf. txt? sequ.. Accessed 13 June 2012. Koulikov, M. 2010.Fighting the fan sub war Conflicts between media rights holders and unauthorized creator/distributor networks. Transformative Works and Cultures Online 5(0). Available at http//journal. transformativeworks. org/index. php/twc/article/view/115/171. Lee, H. K. 2009. Between fan culture and copyright infringement manga scanlation. Media, culture, and society Online 31(6). Available at http//www. yorku. ca/rcoombe/courses/Owning%20Culture/class0 3_Lee. pdf Accessed 13 June 2012. Lee, H. K. 2011. Participatory media fandom A case study of anime fansubbing. Media, Culture ball club Online 33(8). Available at http//www. kcl. ac. uk/artshums/depts/cmci/people/papers/lee/participatory. df Accessed 13 June 2013. Lessig, L. 2005. Free culture The nature and future of creativity. Penguin Group USA. Madison, M. J. 2007. Intellectual property and Americana, or why IP gets the blues. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media Ent. LJ Online 18. Available at http//ir. lawnet. fordham. edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi? article=1407context=iplj Accessed 13 June 2012. Mehra, S. 2002. Copyright and comics in Japan Does law explain why all the cartoons my kid watches are Japanese imports. Rutgers L. Rev. Online 55. Available at http//corneredangel. com/amwess/papers/copyright_comics_japan. pdf Accessed 13 June 2012. Muscar, J. E. 2006.Winner Is Who-Fair Use and the Online Distribution of Manga and Video game Fan Translations. Vand. J. Ent. Tech. L. Online 9. Available at http//www-prod. law. vanderbilt. edu/publications/journal-entertainment-technology-law/archive/download. aspx? id=1694 Accessed 13 June 2012. Noda, N. T. 2008. When Holding On Means Letting Go Why Fair Use Should Extend to Fan-Based Activities. University of Denver Sports and Entertainment Law Journal Online 5. Available at http//law. du. edu/documents/sports-and-entertainment-law-journal/issues/05/05-noda. pdf Accessed 13 June 2012. Noda, N. T. 2010. Copyrights retold How interpretive rights foster creativity and justify fan-based activities.Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law Online 20(1). Available at http//law. shu. edu/Students/academics/journals/sports-entertainment/Issues/upload/Vol20_Noda_Formatted. pdf Accessed 13 June 2012. OHagan, M. 2009. Evolution of user-generated translation fansubs, translation hacking and crowdsourcing. Journal of internationalization and Localisation Online 1(1). Available at http//pablomunoz. com/wp-content/JIAL_2009_1 _2009_APA. pdfpage=102 Accessed 13 June 2012. Sanchez, P. M. 2009. Video Game Localisation for Fans by Fans The Case of Romhacking. The Journal of Internationalisation and Localisation stack I Online.Available at http//pablomunoz. com/wp-content/JIAL_2009_1_2009_APA. pdfpage=176 Accessed 13 June 2012. Venuti, L. 1995. The translators invisibility A history of translation. London New York Routledge. Watson, J. 2010. Fandom squared Web 2. 0 and fannish production. Transformative Works and Cultures Online 5. Available at http//journal. transformativeworks. org/index. php/twc/article/viewArticle/218/183 Accessed 13 June 2012. WIPO. Berne Convention for the Protection of literary and Artistic Works Online. World Intellectual Property Organisation. Available at http//www. wipo. int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001. html Accessed 13 June 2012.