Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote: Generally they would retain their copyright, but the fact that they invite contributions does open the question of who owns the copyright, the site owner or the author. Putting a copyright notice is not essential to establishing a copyright. That concept was taken from a uniquely U.S. law, and I believe that the U. S. has since abandoned that requirement. Fair use would only apply when you are using something for personal or research purposes. Posting your translation to Wikipedia would not fall in that category. If you translate something, even illegally, that gives rise to a whole new copyright, and if the owner of the original language work wants to use your translation, he must have your permission. One thing to keep in mind is that it the work that is copyright, not the information in the work. It does not matter that the copyrighted source may be the only source for the information. Rewriting the material in your own words instead of translating it would not be a breach of copyright. The distinction between rewriting and translating could be a matter of some considerable debate! Eclecticology

Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote: I would say that the act of translation involves a substantial amount of rewriting and that for a fact-based article it probably becomes an entirely new piece if it's translated properly. But if you translate a piece of fiction into another language doesn't it still remain under the original copyright? You can't translate Mien Kampfh into English and then claim that you own it... -- Karen AKA Kajikit You can take the dragon out of Alfandra, but you can never take Alfandra out of the dragon (or the Kitty)... Come and visit my part of the web: Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/ Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating Love and huggles to all!