Do I have copyright in a semi-diplomatic transcription?
<p>I'm a member of a small team of volunteers who have transcribed and translated several 17th century documents (in abbreviated Latin). The documents obviously are long out of copyright (if copyright ever applied to them) but are the property of an individual who has given their permission for the work to take place.</p>
<p>We obviously own the copyright in the translation, and I understand we would have no copyright in a letter-for-letter transcription, as that's pure format-shifting -- like copying a film from a VHS tape to a DVD.  And of course, we have moral rights, so we can (I believe) insist on being credited for both transcription and translation.</p>
<p>However, the heavily abbreviated nature of the original means that we needed to put a lot of work into expanding the transcription to be complete (a 'semi-diplomatic' transcription) before we could create an accurate translation. Perhaps 10-15% of the transcription is text we have inserted (and marked as such). Another transcriber <em>might</em> have made different choices for conjugating and declining the Latin, and even identifying the abbreviated words. Or they might have made the same choice...</p>
<p>Does this affect the copyright status of the transcription? (I suspect I know, but want confirmation).</p>
<p>(There's no commercial value in the work, but a number of the parties involved in recruiting us to do the work are awfully confused on the subject...)</p>
<p>I've looked at <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/q/48806/47158">Manuscript transcription -</a> but am still unclear.</p>

<p>That's what happens when opening a (modern) book translated from its original language. There are two visible copyrights : one for the original work, to the original editor, and one for the translated version, to the local editor. Taking Harry Potter in french as an example, that's Scholastic and Gallimard respectively.
I can imagine that Gallimard can't do whatever they want over the translated work, allowing a french film adaptation for example, but it does have rights over the copy of the french version : if someone posts it verbatim on the internet, Gallimard will try them without Scholastic or Rowling needing to interfere.</p>
<p>In your case, you don't have any of the constraints of the original editor since there is none, but I see no reason why there would be a difference on the specific rights over the translation.</p>
<p>This also sounds (pun intended) like the rights over an arrangement of an olde and out-of-copyright musical work. Since and if the new work is different to the former one, then the creator of the new work can copyright it, without impeding the public's ability to arrange the original work again.</p>

copyright united-kingdom derivative-work