On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:48:51 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Anybody can "claim" anything. That
does not make it so. The
information is not copyright. Only the way of expressing it is
copyright. Thus if someone uses all the information from a copyright
source, but tells it in his own way that work may be derived from the
original but it is not legally a derivative work. Rewriting the
material would be more appropriate.
You misunderstand copyright, it is not longer limited strictly limited
to the specific expression of an idea. If copyright were still
strictly limited to the specific expression than translations would be
nonviolating (or at worse, a grey area) rather than the strict
violation that the law considers them to be today.
He misundertands nothing. Translations are considered to be a
derivative work because judges assume that they are done word by word
from transforming the original work one sentence at a time and so on.
Dynamically speaking the translation was derivated from the original
text even if it gives birth to a completely different one.