On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:15:08 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@free.fr wrote:
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.
I'd agree here if you'd tweak your position a little... Judges are not (all) idiots, it's clear that no useable translation is constructed 'word by word'. No good translation is created without basically rewriting the text, translating tone, flow, slang and sometimes even cultural attitudes so that the spirit of the text is understood in the target language.
Translations are derivative works because they are created by modifying the original text, through a sequence of change, revisions, substitutions, expansions... Quite literally a translated text is derived from the original text. This is the sort of stuff we do when editing an article on wikipedia. ...
We do not consider an inspired but original work to be derived because it has passed completely through the mind of the author... The law regards the mind working alone as something entirely different than it regards a process of mechanical derivations... This distinction is necessary in a strong/expansive copyright world because we would otherwise find ourselves in the odd situation of having our very thoughts owned by others. The distinction is silly because the law makers also wish to close the loophole of using a mind as a pass through to bypass copyright.
The result is a minefield to say the least.