On 04/26/2011 07:58 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 26 April 2011 03:06,<WJhonson@aol.com>
wrote:
I always thought that translations were
considered "wholely derivative",
that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
I would expect that to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For
example, jurisdictions that includes some kind of "sweat of the brow"
doctrine would probably protect translations. What jurisdiction are
you referring to?
Translation is not "sweat of the brow". Copyright law of Germany, for
example, explicitly states that translations are copyrighted:
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__3.html . Copyright law of Serbia, for
another example, does the same.