Talk:Scanlation

	Scanlation was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 31, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anime and manga High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Comics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article seems to carry a pro-scanlation bias and makes several statements that are questionable. We know that the companies do keep a watch on the scanlation groups because every so often they ask one of the translators to work for their company. I am not aware of any proof that suggests that companies use the scanlation "scene" to decide which titles they should license.

Also, whether or not something is illegal is not a matter of opinion (the article says that some people "feel" scanlation is illegal). It's illegal to make unauthorized copies of books, whether you changed things on them or not. The debate is generally over the *ethicality* of scanlating, not the legality. Some people feel that scanlations are ethical (albeit illegal) as long as you stop doing them when the series gets licensed. Others feel that since all scanlations are illegal, they are all unethical as well, and there is really no difference between a scanlation of a licensed title and a non-licensed one. --Chris Kern

Actually, whether something is illegal is a matter of opinion. This is why cases are tried before judges and juries. That said, one's feeling that something is legal will probably not carry much weight in a court of law. I agree that the main distinction here is whether manifestly illegal copying is ethical, but there may also be room for opinion in the legal sense, concerning whether a copyright is enforceable. There is quite a bit on this under abandonware.

That is sophistry to state that it is a "matter of opinion". It is virtually certain that there is a copyright on that work. It is virtually certain that Japan and the USA are signatories to Berne. Etcetera. Of course, a sophist would say that is just an opinion until it is proven there is a copyright and prove that both countries are signatories of Berne. Denying common sense is one way people justify their actions I guess.

I've done some cleanup and NPOV work. There's still plenty more room for improvement. In particular, assumptions remain that the target language is English or that the target market is the USA.--AlexChurchill 16:25, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but in a newspaper article (from the San Francisco Chronicle I think, worth digging up for this article) someone at one of the manga licensing companies mentioned that they do make decisions on what to publish based partly on requests they get, requests that would often come from those who are readers of the scanlations. user:eean

I have personally heard "scanslation" with much greater frequency than "scanlation." I find it unlikely to be a regional issue as the word appeared on the internet and is used primarily in chat. Is there a good way to tell which format is more popular? - Rob Hamilton

Google returns 14000 hits for "scanlation" and 1000 for "scanslation". So Scanlation should be the main article, although Scanslation could be made a redirect and a note added to the main article. --AlexChurchill 16:40, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I took out the word "unlicensed" in the first sentence -- if someone takes a licensed manga and does their own translation of it and then edits their bubbles into a scan, I think most people would still call that a "scanlation", although many would consider that an unethical one.

---

In recent years, web sites have cropped up that attempt to profit from the work that scanlation groups do for free, by providing the more technologically challenged manga fans easier-to-use HTTP downloads for a monthly fee such as Narutofan. Most people in the community regard this as highly unethical.

Someone added the mentioning of Narutofan to this sentence. I think it's very out of place here, but I feel I have too little experience with advertising links on wikipedia, and I know nothing about the scanlation scene. Pipatron 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Are translation text files at all common? — Gwalla | Talk 03:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They used to be, I think, when fast internet access was less widespread, but this is mere conjecture on my part. There's a very thorough Kimagure Orange Road text translation somewhere, which I believe MangaProject used to do their scanlations. Nowadays the more "ethical" people will go to text after a manga gets licensed, and some translators have resorted to mere summaries, fearing that the unscrupulous will "steal" their scripts. However as there seem to be many groups still scanlating licensed manga, scripts have become relatively rare. - mako 06:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

This particular phrase from the original article struck me as completely inaccurate: "On the other hand, scanlating manga requires an otherwise MINIMAL AMOUNT OF ACTUAL EDITING SKILL..." [uppercase emphasis mine]. While the author might know the basics of the scanlation scene, he is obviously NOT an editor. The most common misconception regarding manga editing, as blatantly exemplified by the aforementioned statement, is that it merely involves removing the original japanese text and replacing it with english. This could not be further from the truth. Creating scanlations is a complex process that involves cleaning, rotating, leveling, redrawing, and retouching the original images, apart from the text placement. The most challenging forms of editing involve japanese text placed over the original artwork (including those ubiquitous sound effects), and merging two-page spreads. Both these tasks often involve reconstructing the original artwork, which can be an extremely tedious process. To call editing manga as requiring minimal skill borders on insult to scanlation editors.

In fairness, the trend in the scanlation community today has been to release quickly with less emphasis on quality (the so-called "LQ" or low-quality scanlations). This probably plays a part in fostering the notion that editing manga is easy. These manga are generally characterized by blurred or grainy scans, unedited sound effects, bad spelling/grammar, and generally poor editing quality (rotated pages, poor font choices, etc.). However many groups still believe in quality over speed and release "HQ" or high-quality scanlations. In this regard, such efforts should never be underestimated, when in the first place scanlators rarely get a "thank you" for their labor of love. --Peorthmegami, scanlation editor

Agreed, while it is certainly possible to leave dust, tunnel, etc. in the scanlation and escape redrawing by replacing text laid over pictures with text boxes it is not the standard for quality. These groups aren't held in very high regard by the community, as seen in this example thread.

How often is "almost never"? Is there a record of known prosecutions that can be cited? Babybahamut 12:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that part of the sentence - I don't think it was necessary to be there. Highwind888 (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to nominate this article for a promotion, as it meets the Good article criterion. If you disagree with me, please discuss why under this section. PLEASE do not just delete my nomination . That is all. Busboy 07:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article, and do not feel that it meets the good article standards at this time for the following reasons:

1. The article lacks an image, which is a requirement for good articles.
2. The article is almost completely unreferenced (or, at least, it's impossible to tell what claims can be verified where)
3. Several sections such as the censorship section do not have a clear relationship to the subject.
4. The legal and ethical issues section seems contradictory, saying that it's hardly ever prosecuted and then noting a bunch of cease-and-desist letters.

Good luck revising the article. I look forward to reading it again. Phil Sandifer 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being civil about reviewing the article. I have read your recommendations, and am working on them currently. busboy 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still significantly incomplete in order to be a Good Article as it leaves out important details of scanlation.

1. The types of scanlation could be presented such as speed scanlation versus regular scanlation.
2. Clarification of downstream translations should be presented as it occurs frequently. Some translations do not occur until the scanlation is released in an intermediate language. For example, a resident of Mars who knows both english and martian would wait for the english scanlation to be released. He would then translate the english version into martian before distributing to his fellow martians. Is the martian version a "scanlation" or not?
3. The process of scanlation itself is not described in detail. That is certainly a big omission. That would be similar to having an article on surgery without describing what happens during surgery.
4. The section about reasons why people download is missing the obvious number 1 reason - don't have to pay for it. Thus, the article inadvertently has a "pro scanlation" viewpoint since it mentions the desirable aspects but not the negative ones such as people getting it because it is free (avoid payment of the legal fee for the copyrighted work). AnimeJanai (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the above, I would like to ask a few questions as I polish this article.

1) Do we really need the censorship section? I Kind of get its point, but its mostly superfluous.

B) some sources would be great. I can't find them now due to time constraints, but, some help would be great.

That is all for now. 141.149.123.31 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added an unreferenced and clean up tag to the page. The unreferenced tag due to there being no references and the clean up tag due to the amount of irrelevant information within the article. MastaFighta (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section, as it was, had NOTHING to do with scanslations - it was strictly about the practice in commerical releases. However, censorship is one reason fans give in support of continued scanslation, so I tossed in some of the other common reasons that get bandied around in scanslation circles. Tweaked the censorship section because my inner anthropologist was annoyed at the suggestion that "the west" has a set of cultural mores... "the west" is a big place, and what'll get you killed in one part of "the west" isn't even worth mentioning on other parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.44.244 (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Work needs to be done in this section. There is a small section in the legal and ethical issues section that has to do with censorship (Third-to-last paragraph), which I believe does not belong there. It has nothing to do with legality or ethics - but is a reason why some some people scanlate. I think this paragraph should be moved to the censorship section, and certain parts of the current censorship section removed. Highwind888 (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"is a term used for manga comics which have been scanned and translated by fans from their original language (usually Japanese or Korean) to another language, commonly English, French or Spanish"

Tell me what is the term for scanning and translating European comics into English or another language, scanning and translating American comics into all kinds of languages? I would also call them scanlations. --Zoli79 —Preceding comment was added at 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like reasonable usage. But the term arose in the manga fan community and so far seems limited to it. I haven't seen it applied to comics from any other country (if you can find a citation I'd love to be proven wrong). And fan translations of European comics seem very rare. Fan translations of American comics into other languages may not even be much of a phenomenon. Part of this may be due to different copyright laws in America, Europe, and Japan, and also commercial approaches toward enforcement (Japanese publishers seem much more forgiving when it comes to derivative works, hence the large dojinshi market). — Gwalla | Talk 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in some aspects: European scanl... sorry translations might be rare, but they still exist. Unfortunately European comics are not too popular in the US. Although I recently hunted down some Blueberry translations of albums not published in the US. Furthermore: I downloaded some very rare issues that were published in the seventies and I noticed that these were actually not the scans I was expecting, but scans from a French edition, retranslated and relettered. Might be rare, but still exists. "Fan translations of American comics into other languages may not even be much of a phenomenon." I'm sorry to say, but they are. In some smaller countries, with languages spoken by few they are. (I don't know if it is appropriate to name some.)

I would rather deal with this issue in a theoretical way: Scanlation is a compound word made from scan and translation. I think it's a smart word, that describes it's meaning very well. When talking about the word's basic meaning I can't see where mangas come into the picture. Of course, when talking about the phenomena (especially in English speaking countries), mangas are evident. English is not only the language of English speaking countries, but a language functioning as a bridge between different cultures, and the main language of the internet, therefore it's vocabulary has to have words for phenomena experienced in other countries. Or else, how could we talk about Hungarian scanlations of American or European comics or the rare, but existing, English scanlations of Europen comics? Should we invent a different word with the same basic meaning just because manga fans monopolized the word?

Here I would like to remind you that wikipedia does not just describe, it also actively defines. When typing Scanlation into google, what is the first website on the list? Of course wikipedia. Therefore definitions should not just be based on common use, but on what is correct.Zoli79

I would like to sum up in my point of view what Zoli79 has described before me in a lengthy way. There are two things to be considered: 1. The world is not only the United States. 2. If you don't know about something it does not mean that it does not exist. Sorry if I was harsh but I wanted to make a point.Ruanomar (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A short mention on non-manga translations seems notable. I think I've seen the term "scanlation" used in connection to non-Asian comics, actually. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from shuffling the paragraphs around to better fit the titles (Forgot to log on - changes were done by me), I really wanted to remove certain parts due to irrelevance. In the censorship section, the example regarding Tenjho Tenge and the dragonball example really don't belong here in the "resons" section. They are simply examples of censorship that translation companies do, and has nothing to do with scanlations at all. The first example showed dislike from fans, which may be a reason for scanlation so I believe it should stay. What do people think? should the other two examples be removed?

Also, I think the process section needs to be significantly reduced or entirely removed to avoid the "instructions, advice, or how-to content" tag. There's no need for it to be so lengthy! What are people's thoughts? Highwind888 (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be updated to note the new form of scanslation distribution: uploading as YouTube videos and the like? AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sufficient amounts, I don't see why not. If there's references, it'd be even better! Highwind888 (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking into it further, it looks like most of the YouTube distro is actually people scanning in English licensed volumes page by page, then setting to music. Some people have way too much time on their hands *insert eye roll*. So guess it would be more fitting for bootleg, if any companies make official announcements about the issue (so far its been industry folks noting it in discussion forums, but nothing official, so not totally sourceable). AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. It's not really scanlations then if it's licenced volumes. *Sigh* what a waste of time and bandwidth. I'm guessing the music is probably ripped off of some artist as well -_- . If anything does pop up (e.g. official announcements, etc) be sure to put it up ^_^. Highwind888 (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to go through this article and change things around, adding references and expanding and condensing sections. So far, I'm planning on doing this:

• Seriously condensing the 'Process' bit so that it isn't a 'How to...' article
• Changing strange sentences and wording, along with preferences
• Getting references
• Adding more usable information

Along with a few more minor things, that's the main list. But because this article does need lots of work, I also wanted some word on things in the article that are really irking others. Anything anybody would like me to change as I go through it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteArcticWolf (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can add some examples in "Reason for scanlating", i.e. costs. --deerstop (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'd make sense. I was actually going to add an example for censorship (Tenjho Tengeto be specific), but forgot about it. The sections will also need refs. The best thing about this page is that the official sources can be the scanlation websites, so that might not be that hard to find.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is the websites themselves. Are we allowed to link to the resources with pirate content?--deerstop (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is one problem and I can't say for certain. For all other articles, it's prohibited. But scanlation websites are what the official sources would be, as there aren't that many news articles and official websites about them. Still, I'll try to find some interviews and stuff to see what can be dug up.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. You're probably right. --deerstop (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up this article a lot, both from a grammatical perspective and a heirarchical one. It still needs work, however. the NPOV should probably stay where it is for now, and there definitely need to be more citations. I tried to remove most of the non-neutral comments, and inflammatory terms such as "scanlation pirate groups" for more neutral equivalents. I restructured the article a bit and made sure the content of each section was in fact what the heading said it should be. I've tried to keep out notably pro- or anti- scanslation biases, though since I am a filthy hippy who is all for free access, there may still be a slight pro- bias. I am in the USA, so if someone outside the US can take a look at it and see if it still sounds "USA ONLY" or not, that would be good. TheStripèdOne (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did great! The article looks a lot better. After some citations, I'm sure it'll be ready to move up to B-class. Unfortunately, citations are pretty hard to come by with this topic. I'll go onto German wiki; I think I'm at the level where I can communicate decently enough. I have a picture that would work pretty well with the page, too (I came across it awhile ago). It has a comical editor's note and the manga has yet to be released in the US, so once I'm confident enough to upload pictures, I'll deffinately add it here.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did some more cleanup in the first few paragraphs. Scanlation activities related to the port manteau were confined to the word, and distribution was removed. There are quite a few cases where scanlation occurs without distribution. Reversed the idea "fansubs came before scanlation" to be that of "scanlation came before fansubs". The original author of that statement had apparantly not participated in scanlation activities during the 1970's and 1980's, nor with Amateur Press Assocation groups. Normally, I would have struck the Mangajin item, but decided to leave it there since it was a practical and professional use of "scanlation". The article is very far from being a Good Article as it leaves out many details of scanlation. For example, not described is the detailed scanlation process itself. That is a significant omission. Imagine an article about "surgery" that had no details on the steps of surgery.... It is possible to obtain express permission; the author of Half Prince had given permission to the scanlation group and including light novel scanlation as well ( http://www.mangaupdates.com/series.html?id=27841 , http://www.mangaupdates.com/series.html?id=43878 ). When I get more time, I may come back to edit some more. Hopefully, it will reach good article status. AnimeJanai (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some issues with the article. Firstly, it seems too manga- and English-centric. Additionally, I don't think we'd need both a "reason for scanlating" and a "reason for downloading scanlations" section. One section should suffice for both viewpoints. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing discussion about scanlation and read online websites:

Katherine Dacey's blog (Pop Culture Shock manga recon)

Johanna Draper Carlson (Manga Worth Reading)

Jason Thompson (Comixology, Otaku USA)

David Welsh's blog (Flipped column on Tom Spurgeon's Comics Reporter)

Simon Jones (Icarus Publishing)

Jake Forbes on Brigid Alverson (Publishers Weekly) mangablog

All mentioned persons can assert their expertise in the Manga/Comics field. --KrebMarkt 18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/43437-japanese-u-s-manga-publishers-unite-to-fight-scanlations.html

There is also an episode of ANNCast where Ed Chavez, head of marketing over at Vertical, Inc. stated how scanlations have negatively affected sales of Black Jack in the US.[1] —Farix (t | c) 19:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mania.com Chris Beveridge take on this --KrebMarkt 15:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More ripples: ANN CBR About.com --KrebMarkt 21:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OneManga to remove all scanlations from it's website next week. —Farix (t | c) 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• From Manga Scanlations to Comics on the iPad: Online Piracy Panel at Comic-Con. It's rare are we get the actual contents of a panel, but this one should be useful as it was hosted by Deb Aoki. —Farix (t | c) 12:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good quality book citation for the start of the sentence in Scanlation#Legal_action from "Marketing the Arts". I think the book is aged enough to be not circular and they provide researched info.

The source is here on Google Books. Marketing the Arts: A Fresh Approach

Speeditor (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering amending the article with "scanalation" as alternate spelling to go with "scanlation" and "scanslation". Googling "scanalation" does reveal I'm not the only one thinking this is the spelling. But I'll just propose it and if someone else agrees make the addition or note your agreement and I'll make the addition. ToyNN (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] -- deerstop. 07:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling in to discussion whether InsideScanlation.com would be considered a reliable source over here. AngelFire3423 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been a while. But here's some more reasoning as it's cited in the paper Understanding scanlation: how to read one million fan-translated manga pages which is published in a peer reviewed journal associated with the [Open Humanities Press]. Nothing is specifically cited inline though. Interstingly, this paper identifies Gum as Shawn Doria. A second source is a senor's honors thesis that relies on it heavily for the history parts of it; though it is an undergraduate thesis. And a graduate thesis also references it. AngelFire3423 (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So some tweets person interviewed in InsideScanlations, [3], [4]. Maybe they'll amount to something. AngelFire3423 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A columnist for The Japan Times wrote in 2006 here that "The United States has been a fruitful field for amateur subtitling, perhaps because U.S. copyright laws, unlike those in most developed countries, specifically excluded films never before released there. Initially, online retailers took advantage of this fact to copy and release imported, subtitled DVDs, often from Hong Kong." Now this seems to be at odds with what many people say so some kind of check on this would be good. Could be that laws have changed since then. AngelFire3423 (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 2010 Comics Worth Reading post on scanlation legality
• A forward to manga fans as to how to avoid resorting to scanlations Perhaps as further reading
• AstroNerdBoy series of posts on Piracy Wars -- AstroNerdBoy seems to be a reliable source and this could be helpful for the legal section and reception sections
• News post about some comics being taken down in France
• San Diego 2010 Comic-Con Panel on Piracy by Deb Aoki Draws parallels to the music and free-to-play gaming industry.

Perhaps some can be used towards a steps moving forwards type section. AngelFire3423 (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some ideas for images as an article on scanlation could benefit greatly from them and it was one of the reasons cited for it failing the GA nomination.

For the infobox we could have an image of a scanner about to scan a manga. Ideally we don't want to show the cover of the manga being scanned at all since it will likely be copyrighted. For the process section, we can show the before and after of a page being cleaned. Another option is to show an english text-box being entered in GIMP or another common process like leveling. Screenshots of popular open source software used might also be helpful. (I've use ScanTailor, but don't know how popular that is).

As for which manga to use for the examples, I feel we should stay far away from using copyrighted manga under fair use considering the context of the article. Commons has a few manga pages we can use. (I was also going to suggest using Ubunchu!, but unfortunately it's non-commercial licensed) Let me know your thoughts. Opencooper (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The line "Most, if not all, manga is not released in a digital format that is compatible with e-book readers, so downloading scanlations is the only way to do this." really bothers me. At the date of writing this a lot of manga is released digitally along with the print versions, sometimes by different publishers. Most publishers offer these digital mangas for sale on their own website, but it is also easy to purchase them using a website like Amazon. To name a few English publishers releasing digital manga: Viz Media, Kodansha Comics, Digital Manga Platinum and Yen Press (there are likely more).

With this in mind, I think the final paragraph needs to be changed considerably. But the whole section about "Motivations and ethics" is outdated in my opinion.Donkey-er (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About 8 months ago, a bunch of scanlation discords were banned. However, the only source seems to be a Reddit post [5] and some tweets by affected groups [6]. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]