On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:48:51 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anybody can "claim" anything. That does not make it so. The information is not copyright. Only the way of expressing it is copyright. Thus if someone uses all the information from a copyright source, but tells it in his own way that work may be derived from the original but it is not legally a derivative work. Rewriting the material would be more appropriate.
You misunderstand copyright, it is not longer limited strictly limited to the specific expression of an idea. If copyright were still strictly limited to the specific expression than translations would be nonviolating (or at worse, a grey area) rather than the strict violation that the law considers them to be today.
He misundertands nothing. Translations are considered to be a derivative work because judges assume that they are done word by word from transforming the original work one sentence at a time and so on. Dynamically speaking the translation was derivated from the original text even if it gives birth to a completely different one.