On 04/26/2011 07:58 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 26 April 2011 03:06,<[email protected]> 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 kind of "sweat of the brow" > doctrine would probably protect translations. What jurisdiction are > you referring to?
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, for another example, does the same. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
