On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:15:08 +0100, Jean-Baptiste Soufron
<jbsoufron(a)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.