On 04/25/11 7:06 PM, WJhonson@aol.com 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, saintonge@telus.net 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.