Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
Hi all --
Verlag Bautz, a German printing house, has a totally cool website, the "Kirchenlexicon." It invites contributions, but is also clearly marked with a copyright (2001). My question...are direct translations of entire articles, even when credited, fair use? I'm pretty sure that they are not -- I know they wouldn't pass muster at the university copy center...
Opinions?
J Hofmann Kemp,
Generally they would retain their copyright, but the fact that they invite contributions does open the question of who owns the copyright, the site owner or the author. Putting a copyright notice is not essential to establishing a copyright. That concept was taken from a uniquely U.S. law, and I believe that the U. S. has since abandoned that requirement.
Fair use would only apply when you are using something for personal or research purposes. Posting your translation to Wikipedia would not fall in that category.
If you translate something, even illegally, that gives rise to a whole new copyright, and if the owner of the original language work wants to use your translation, he must have your permission.
One thing to keep in mind is that it the work that is copyright, not the information in the work. It does not matter that the copyrighted source may be the only source for the information. Rewriting the material in your own words instead of translating it would not be a breach of copyright. The distinction between rewriting and translating could be a matter of some considerable debate!
Eclecticology