The problem with that idea is - again with reference to the Dan Brown
example - that a French translation of the Da Vinci Code is still covered by
Brown's copyright (as well as that of the translator). Copyright covers the
expression of an idea, and if that expression is translated into a different
form, it is still clearly derived from the original expression.
Why anyone would bother translating the Da Vinci Code into French is outside
the scope of this conversation.
Leigh.
On 18 May 2010 12:56, Philip Potter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 18 May 2010 12:49, Seb Bacon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanation.
> >
> > Does it seem wrong to anyone else here with better legal understanding
> > than me that the fixtures list is copyrightable? I can't put my
> > finger on why it seems wrong to me, but it does.
>
> The thing which seems wrong to me is that what little copyright law I
> learned stipulated that copyright covers the text, not the idea. So if
> I wrote up a schedule but the info was in a different order, and the
> teams were all named by nickname rather than official name, it's
> definitely not the same text, even if it's the same information. But
> IANAL and I won't be putting my arse on the line to test this.
>
> Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list [email protected]
> Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
> https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
>
--
Leigh Caldwell (t) +44 20 7064 6556 (m) +44 7747 062906
Chief executive, Inon http://www.inon.com/
Blog: http://www.knowingandmaking.com/
_______________________________________________
Mailing list [email protected]
Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
