Baidu do not translate anything copy from English Wikipedia or Japanese
Wikipedia, but just keep the full content without attribution and changing
anything. There are totally about 50 articles copy from Eng & Japanese WP.
寄件人﹕ "WJhonson(a)aol.com" <WJhonson(a)aol.com>
傳送日期﹕ 2011/4/26 (二) 10:06:34 AM
主題： Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
I always thought that translations were considered "wholely derivative",
that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:57:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
On 04/25/11 9:33 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what
they do is legal or
My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content
they previously have translated from an English Wikipedia article I have
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.
How do they put a dollar figure on the damages
suffered if the income
get from that content is obtained from my work they
In principle damages are evaluated on the basis of market activity. If
the quantum of damages is the issue the burden of proof is on the person
They only have my permission to publish derived works
under same license.
Then I have the right to copy the derived works back. So any damage they
could claim is exactly the same damage I suffer for not being able to do
No, because the translation is not identical to the work you
This still does not account for how different jurisdictions will handle
the matter. At first glance it would seem more convenient for them to
have the case heard in a Chinese court and for you in a Spanish court.
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:11:25 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge<saintonge(a)telus.net>
> On 04/24/11 11:45 PM, Joan Goma wrote:
>> As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the
>> copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the
>> way around.
>> I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms
>> going to court.
>> They have copied articles from Chinese Wikipedia and translated
>> from English and Japanese Wikipedia so in my
opinion their work is a
>> derivative one and according to the CCSA terms it is also CCSA no mater
>> they say.
>> What about creating a bot to copy from Baidu all the articles not yet
>> existing in Chinese wikipedia.
>> Could Geoff Brigham provide us his legal advice?
> Getting a legal opinion that what they are doing is illegal would be the
> easy part. The challenge is what can you do with that opinion once you
> have it.
> Copyright, and least in common law countries, is primarily an economic
> right. In that context courts would be more concerned with the measure
> of economic damage. How do you put a dollar figure on the damages
> suffered when the original authors weren't seeking to make money from
> it? Whoever starts the fight still needs to fund prosecuting the
> battle, and that could be very expensive.
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l mailing list