On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:13:04 +0200, Jens Ropers <ropers(a)ropersonline.com> wrote:
where someone (IIRC) tried to argue that a translation
of an existing
text was an original work--
IT IS NOT!!!
As Mav wrote in response to the foundation list, noone is trying to
argue this. Translations are most assuredly not original works.
"That is the question" referred to the question of how long a
paraphrase can be; intervening translation was only a
complicating factor. It was clear once pointed out that it
wasn't worth taking any chances, and the paraphrase in
question was deleted.
I'm seeing _a lot_ of naivety lately, as regards
1. That's a '''problem''' for the submitter (because
Wikipedia--are legally fully liable for the text they are submitting to
Once a more formal review system is in place, and certain bits of
content are flagged "reviewed" or "stable", will this continue to be
true? If a piece of copyvio goes unnoticed and is included in a
reviewed article, will there be liability for the reviewing group as
well as for the submitter?