[Wikipedia-l] Another copyright question

[Ray Saintonge]

Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:

>Hi all --
>
>Verlag Bautz, a German printing house, has a totally cool website, the
>"Kirchenlexicon."  It invites contributions, but is also clearly marked
>with a copyright (2001).  My question...are direct translations of
>entire articles, even when credited, fair use?  I'm pretty sure that
>they are not -- I know they wouldn't pass muster at the university copy
>center...
>
>
>Opinions?
>
>J Hofmann Kemp, 
>
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