On 04/25/11 7:06 PM, [email protected] 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 both the author and translator, even when the translation is an infringement. I know of no law that distinguishes wholly derivative from partly derivative. Some translations, especially of poetry, take a great deal of skill and originality to convey the sense of the source language. Translations of the same work by different translators can vary considerably. Ray > In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:57:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > The translation would give rise to a new copyright *in addition* to > yours. You would be infringing their copyright. This all assumes that it > was a human translation. If it was a machine translation the argument > could be made that as a mechanical process it lacked the originality > needed to acquire copyright. > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
