The Portuguese Publishers and Booksellers Association (APEL) has rejected that there is a widespread practice of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to translate books, as denounced in an open letter, admitting only isolated cases that do not define common practice.
APEL’s reaction follows an open letter signed by more than 60 Portuguese translators, writers, publishers and booksellers denouncing the use of AI tools in translations and calling for regulatory measures to protect works and professionals.
“APEL has no information that, and quoting the letter, ‘The translation of books essentially using Artificial Intelligence programs (ChatGPT, DeepL) has been an increasingly used practice in the Portuguese publishing market’,” the association’s president told Lusa in written replies.
Pedro Sobral also denied that this is a common practice among Portuguese publishers, let alone using open tools such as those indicated.
The president of APEL, as a member of the executive committee of the International Publishers Association (IPA) – and APEL as a member of the IPA – “signed and supported a joint statement on this issue and on the use of open systems”, in which “it is clear that there is a need to regulate the use of open systems such as ChatGPT, which are opaque about the adjacent editorial data they use to train algorithms and which are not complying with copyright codes by remunerating them through agreements with publishers”.
For the representative of publishers and booksellers, this is a situation that “must change and urgent regulation is needed to resolve this pressing, illegal and serious issue”.
But as for the idea of AI translations, he guarantees that “Portuguese publishers scrupulously comply with the law and are the guardians in defending and guaranteeing” copyright and publishing rights, so they “would not make it ‘common practice’ to use tools that are illegal in this area and are not guaranteeing the rights of either publishers or authors”.
“Of course there may be isolated cases of various book agents (from authors to translators and proofreaders) using these tools, but this doesn’t even define common practice and only makes those who do so individually responsible,” he stressed.
Because it does not agree with this joint position, APEL did not sign the open letter, considering that “highlighting a common practice that does not exist in Portuguese publishers”, denouncing “editorial policies that impoverish the book, which are non-existent”, and, through precise and isolated cases, trying to “infer a collective characterization of Portuguese publishers is wrong, it is not real, nor could it be endorsed by APEL”.
Quoting again from the letter, Pedro Sobral said that APEL also “has no market data to prove that ‘readers, attracted by the low prices of these editions and unaware of the reasons behind them, buy translations of poor quality; publishers undermine readers’ confidence in the quality of their books, which will lead them to opt for reference editions in other languages'”.
In his opinion, “there is no editorial policy that contributes to the real impoverishment of readers and writers”, because this is not the way that publishers guide their position in the market, quite the opposite, since there has been a growing editorial diversity and concern to respond to reader demand.
“It also seems to us that, fortunately, it’s not just the low price that seduces the reader. It’s also the quality of the writing, the translation and also the editing,” he said, pointing out that Portuguese publishers are aware that “the excellence of what they edit is what allows them to build a credible catalog, a set of books that, once edited, last and continue to sell and be sought after.”
“To start using tools that undermine this excellence, that produce a book where quality is not central, is to consider that Portuguese publishers not only don’t know what they’re doing, but that they haven’t had the capacity to put thousands and thousands of books on the book market that are qualitatively impolite. That’s why this statement is incorrect,” he says, adding that he believes the exceptional cases that “don’t have these characteristics” are doomed to a “very short life”.
Pedro Sobral also stressed that publishers don’t see technology as an enemy, recognizing the added value of technological partners who contribute to “a healthier, more sustainable, profitable and innovative book ecosystem that reaches more and more people”.
“As such, they see in AI opportunities to improve this ecosystem and use innovation to create more value not only for publishers, but also for authors, booksellers and other agents,” as long as it does not compromise the quality and compliance with the licensing of copyright and publishing rights that underlie this technology and these artificial intelligence models.”
In this regard, he applauded the recent approval of the Artificial Intelligence Regulation – AI ACT – by the European Parliament, considering that the conditions have been met to “boost the opportunities that AI creates for publishing, while fully complying with the defense and remuneration of copyright and publishing rights”.
