On 04/25/11 7:06 PM, WJhonson(a)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(a)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.