--- Jens Ropers <ropers(a)ropersonline.com> wrote:
Without sounding too much like a prick, reading the
previous emails,
where someone (IIRC) tried to argue that a translation of an existing
text was an original work--
IT IS NOT!!!
Why not *read* those posts to find out? Who argued that? Certainly not me.
U.S., E.U. and international laws are
'''quite''' clear on this point.
You absolutely CANNOT publish the translation of a copyrighted work w/o
the original author's consent!
Please DO NOT go there.
A longish summary translation was created and I asked if the copyright on that
were cleared. SJ then deleted the summary stating that such a long paraphrase
was probably not fair use. I originally thought that it was a direct
translation, which most certainly would be a derivative work. But it was more
of loose paraphrase summary from what I gather - so it was not clear whether or
not it was OK.
I'm seeing _a lot_ of naivety lately, as regards
copyright:
I just saw and responded to a post on the English Wikibooks Staff Lounge (their
version of the Village Pump) of a person who wanted to create a Portugese
textbook by translating a commercial one in English! God I hope nobody is doing
that type of thing.
1. That's a '''problem'''
for the submitter (because they--not the
Wikipedia--are legally fully liable for the text they are submitting to
the Wikipedia).
Yep - we need to make that more clear by having Wikimedia-wide official
submission standards enacted. A draft version is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Submission_Standards
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com