New subject: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52

26 Apr 2011

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,  
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:

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
 not.

 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
 previously written. 
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   they
...
  get from that content is obtained from my work they
have  translated  without
...
  my permission? 
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 
seeking  damages.

...
  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
 those copies. No, because the  translation is not identical to the work you
produced.  
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.

Ray

...
 > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:11:25  -0700
> From: Ray  Saintonge&lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt;
>
> 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
> other
>> way  around.
>>
>> I would like to have a clear legal  opinion about applying the terms
> without
>> going to  court.
>>
>> They have copied articles from Chinese  Wikipedia and translated  articles
...
 >> 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
>  what
>> 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.
>
>  Ray
>
> 

_______________________________________________
foundation-l  mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52