simple translation copyright issues
Hi,
I worked through a book on medical terminology and one of the
studies is roots of medical words, their suffixes and their prefixes.
Here are examples:
prefixes [part,definition{multiples separated with ;}]:
endo,within
epi,above, upon
ex,out
exo,out
hyper,excessive;above
roots [part, linking letter/word, definition]:
aden,o,gland
arthr,o,joint
bi,o,life
carcin,o,cancerous, cancer
cardi,o,heart
suffixes [part, definition]:
eal,pertaining to
iac,pertaining to
ior,pertaining to
ism,process
ose,pertaining to, full of
If you're interested, you may view the whole thing at:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/medicalwords/pre/definitions/en/csv/
Anyway, I found these in a book and simply typed them in and I
consider these translations/definitions so vague that I don't see how
they are copyright-able yet I want to check it over with you all. So,
I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you all, are vague
translations/definitions copyright-able? You will note that the
original word part is Latin.
Thank you,
Elizabeth
Re: simple translation copyright issues
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:56:02AM -0500, Elizabeth Barham wrote:
I worked through a book on medical terminology and one of the
studies is roots of medical words, their suffixes and their prefixes.
Here are examples:
prefixes [part,definition{multiples separated with ;}]:
endo,within
epi,above, upon
ex,out
exo,out
hyper,excessive;above
roots [part, linking letter/word, definition]:
aden,o,gland
arthr,o,joint
bi,o,life
carcin,o,cancerous, cancer
cardi,o,heart
suffixes [part, definition]:
eal,pertaining to
iac,pertaining to
ior,pertaining to
ism,process
ose,pertaining to, full of
If you're interested, you may view the whole thing at:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/medicalwords/pre/definitions/en/csv/
Anyway, I found these in a book and simply typed them in and I
consider these translations/definitions so vague that I don't see how
they are copyright-able yet I want to check it over with you all. So,
I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you all, are vague
translations/definitions copyright-able?
It's my understanding that dictionaries, because they contain elements
of originality in the selection and wording of definitions, constitute
copyrightable works. At least in the US, to be copyrightable a work
must be of a certain minimum length; I expect (though IANAL) that the
examples listed above aren't enough to gain copyright protection, though
a more extensive dictionary very well might be.
You will note that the original word part is Latin.
Mostly Greek, actually.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpA04p0O9RJx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: simple translation copyright issues
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's my understanding that dictionaries, because they contain elements of originality in the selection and wording of definitions, constitute copyrightable works. At least in the US, to be copyrightable a work must be of a certain minimum length; I expect (though IANAL) that the examples listed above aren't enough to gain copyright protection, though a more extensive dictionary very well might be. While I agree with you about the copyrightability of dictionaries, I believe you're mistaken about the minimum-length requirement: several artists have copyrighted silent pieces of music, for example. There is also the emerging field of nanofiction, which is confined to 55 words or less. Many of Emily Dickinson's poems are shorter than that, and each would receive separate copyright protection. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: simple translation copyright issues
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:56:02AM -0500, Elizabeth Barham wrote: Anyway, I found these in a book and simply typed them in and I consider these translations/definitions so vague that I don't see how they are copyright-able yet I want to check it over with you all. So, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you all, are vague translations/definitions copyright-able? You will note that the original word part is Latin. Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation and many Europeans would probably say yes. _Matthew Bender and Hyperlaw v. West_ and _Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co._ would indicate no (in the United States), but I don't think there's anything *squarely* on point. I would say go ahead. If no one can reasonably tell what work you're infringing, that's a good case for either 1) copyrightability by you or 2) uncopyrightability of the work altogether. In the former case, if you apply a DFSG-free license to the work, then you're just fine for Debian main. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp1V6wst0LZn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: simple translation copyright issues
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: I believe you're mistaken about the minimum-length requirement: It's more of a minimum creative content requirement. It's very difficult to defent a copyright on a work that has so little content that it contains little or no creative material. I presume that's what Branden was getting at. several artists have copyrighted silent pieces of music, for example. To my knowledge, none of these pieces have had their copyrights successfully defended. Furthermore, what is copyrighted is typically the donut (eg. the music punctuated by silence) rather than the hole itself (eg. the silence.) [Or at least, that's what I'd expect any sane lawyer to argue who wished to see his client's copyright argument prevail.] [I herby copyright these 7 spaces: ' '.] There is also the emerging field of nanofiction, which is confined to 55 words or less. Many of Emily Dickinson's poems are shorter than that, and each would receive separate copyright protection. Presumably these works contain some spark of creativity, which is most likely copyrightable. Moreover, they are most likely defendable copyrights. [However, my spaces above are probably not... but maybe if I stuck them on a 15m wide canvas with a nice soothing white background with 2m high black apostrophes they would be...] Don Armstrong -- What I can't stand is the feeling that my brain is leaving me for someone more interesting. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpBFhT5NZgNT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: simple translation copyright issues
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:43:32AM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's my understanding that dictionaries, because they contain elements of originality in the selection and wording of definitions, constitute copyrightable works. At least in the US, to be copyrightable a work must be of a certain minimum length; I expect (though IANAL) that the examples listed above aren't enough to gain copyright protection, though a more extensive dictionary very well might be. While I agree with you about the copyrightability of dictionaries, I believe you're mistaken about the minimum-length requirement: several artists have copyrighted silent pieces of music, for example. There is also the emerging field of nanofiction, which is confined to 55 words or less. Many of Emily Dickinson's poems are shorter than that, and each would receive separate copyright protection. Well, I'm sure all we need to do to overturn this is get a federal judge to *read* some of Dickinson's poems: there's no way we'd get a ruling that such texts are original works meriting copyright protection... :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgps4BAQ1YhcG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: simple translation copyright issues
Branden writes: _Matthew Bender and Hyperlaw v. West_ and _Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co._ would indicate no (in the United States), but I don't think there's anything *squarely* on point. I'm not sure who Hyperlaw is but I'm familiar with West. As I recall, there was a case where one company took West's publications and sent them to another country where they employed many people to type-in West's documents which was found perfectly legal (the legal documents themselves could not be copyrighted but West's hold on the documents is that they created them). Like I said, I typed these in by hand. I would say go ahead. If no one can reasonably tell what work you're infringing, that's a good case for either 1) copyrightability by you or 2) uncopyrightability of the work altogether. In the former case, if you apply a DFSG-free license to the work, then you're just fine for Debian main. I consider it public domain anyway so naturally that's how its going to be released. Thank you everyone for your feedback. Elizabeth
Re: simple translation copyright issues
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:42:53PM -0500, Elizabeth Barham wrote: Branden writes: _Matthew Bender and Hyperlaw v. West_ and _Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co._ would indicate no (in the United States), but I don't think there's anything *squarely* on point. I'm not sure who Hyperlaw is but I'm familiar with West. As I recall, there was a case where one company took West's publications and sent them to another country where they employed many people to type-in West's documents which was found perfectly legal (the legal documents themselves could not be copyrighted but West's hold on the documents is that they created them). Like I said, I typed these in by hand. How the material was entered was not germane to the case I'm citing[1], as I understand it. For the sake of future Web/mailing list searches, here are some links for further reading on the cases: _Matthew Bender and Company, Inc. v. West Publishing Company_ and _Hyperlaw, Inc. v. West Publishing Company_: http://www6.law.com/ny/links/hyperlaw.html (The above decision is interesting for its discussion of the meaning of derivative works under U.S. copyright law, a recurring subject on this mailing list.) _Fest Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co._: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm (The above decision is interesting for its discussion of the meaning of originality under U.S. copyright law, and the scope of copyright, which are recurring themes on this mailing list.) I consider it public domain anyway so naturally that's how its going to be released. Okay. Please be sure you note that fact prominently. Amateur copyright police sometimes freak out and draw the wrong kind of conclusion when they can't find a copyright notice. Thank you everyone for your feedback. No problem! [1] IIRC, though, such issues did matter to Judge Kaplan and the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in _Universal v. Reimerdes_ (a.k.a. _MPAA v. 2600_). -- G. Branden Robinson| The key to being a Southern Debian GNU/Linux | Baptist: It ain't a sin if you [EMAIL PROTECTED] | don't get caught. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Anthony Davidson pgpzz3OZ5oWr6.pgp Description: PGP signature
