On 04/25/11 7:06 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I always thought that translations were considered wholely derivative,
that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
It would be nice if things could be that easy; a third person using the
translation must respect the copyright of
It's my understanding that sweat of the brown does not create a copyright
at all.
That was the entire argument behind the claim that phonebooks had no
copyright protection.
Similarly pure indexes have no copyright protection since they exhibit no
creativity at all.
Bad news for indexers.
Hello,
2011/4/26 MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
It's my understanding that sweat of the brown does not create a
copyright at all. That was the entire argument behind the claim that
phonebooks had no copyright protection. Similarly pure indexes have no
copyright
--
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:46:41 -0700
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID
In a message dated 4/26/2011 12:08:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
Translation is not sweat of the brow. Copyright law of Germany, for
example, explicitly states that translations are copyrighted:
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__3.html . Copyright law of Serbia,
In a message dated 4/26/2011 4:42:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
waihor...@yahoo.com.hk writes:
Baidu do not translate anything copy from English Wikipedia or Japanese
Wikipedia, but just keep the full content without attribution and changing
anything. There are totally about 50 articles
@lists.wikimedia.org
傳送日期﹕ 2011/4/26 (二) 11:54:15 PM
主題： Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
In a message dated 4/26/2011 4:42:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
waihor...@yahoo.com.hk writes:
Baidu do not translate anything copy from English Wikipedia or Japanese
Wikipedia
My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or
not.
My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content
they previously have translated from an English Wikipedia article I have
previously written.
How do they put a dollar figure on the damages
In a message dated 4/25/2011 9:34:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jrg...@gmail.com writes:
My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or
not.
My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content
they previously have translated from an English
On 04/25/11 10:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I don't believe you could make the case that individual contributors have
any standing to sue for copyright violations. Similarly, when you contribute
to the project, you are intrinsically giving up any rights you may think
you possess in what you
On 04/25/11 9:33 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or
not.
My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content
they previously have translated from an English Wikipedia article I have
previously written.
The
On 25 April 2011 23:30, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote:
So I see the things this way
You asked if it was a good idea and your understanding was correct. So
far no-one's agreed your understanding is correct and no-one's agreed
your plan of action is a good idea. You appear to insist on doing
I always thought that translations were considered wholely derivative,
that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:57:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
On 04/25/11 9:33 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
My interest in a
On 26 April 2011 03:06, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I always thought that translations were considered wholely derivative,
that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
I would expect that to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For
example, jurisdictions that includes some
14 matches
Mail list logo
