Sj wrote:
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.
The criterion for copyright is for creative works rather than original
ones. The position of translations is ambiguous because they are
derivative works. They owe their life to the original source, and the
publication of a translation without permission can indeed be an
infringement of copyright. Nevertheless, in a country that recognizes
derivative works they are the subject of a new and additional copyright
that is owned by the translator even if his translation infringed the
original copyright. A person who then infringes the copyright of the
translator could be infringing two copyrights at once.
"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.
Paraphrases do not in themselves infringe copyright. The information is
not copyrightable; only the manner of saying things may be copyright.
I'm seeing
_a lot_ of naivety lately, as regards copyright:
1. That's a '''problem''' for the submitter (because they--not
the
Wikipedia--are legally fully liable for the text they are submitting to
the Wikipedia).
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?
There is indeed a lot of naïveté in regards to copyrights, and it is
abundant on both sides of the issue. Let's be realistic about it. For
sure there is an initial liability on the part of the submitter, but
that's an awfully tough case to establish when submitters are
quasi-anonymous, or are willing to apologetically remove the offending
material when the infringement is brought to their attention. The case
is not made easier by the complexities of transnational issues involving
the countries of the submitter, the server, and the original copyright
owner. This makes talk of "full legal liability" rather hollow. The
primary legal liability shifts to the Wikimedia Foundation rather early
in the process -- maybe as soon as the material is substantively amended
by anyone other than the original submitter.
In the event of a formal review process it is clear that the original
submitter will be taken off the hook because he will have had no input
into the review process unless he is also one of the reviewers. The
legal liability (or more correctly the potential legal liability) will
fall on the Wikimedia Foundation as a legally incorporated person. The
personal legal liability of the reviewers would depend on whether they
knew that there was a copyright infringement. The reviewers are likely
to be scattered around the world; there would need to be some serious
money involved before a copyright owner would try to get them all into
the same courtroom, or start proceedings in a variety of different
jurisdictions. These are all important considerations when
considering how realistic a legal case can be.
A far more likely scenario is that we would be asked to remove the
offending material. That would trigger a review of the material, and,
if the request is justified, compliance. That would be the end of it in
a great majority of cases. An irrationally litigious individual could
go further, but nobody can protect himself from that eventuality. It is
also possible that we may decide then that the request is NOT justified,
but the number of variations there are too many to consider in this
short response.
I personally believe that we could show a lot more courage in matters of
copyright. There is a great deal of material out there that is
technically protected by copyright, but which could be republished with
impunity simply because there is no-one there to own the copyright.
This does not mean that we go ahead and willy-nilly republish anything
that strikes our fancy; that would be an act of stupidity. Some
criteria would need to be followed. Anything that we would so republish
(Wikisource being most affected) would need to state the possible
problems right up front, and to state that we would remove the material
if so requested by a person who establishes that he has the legal right
to make such a request. If no-one makes a request for three years, the
limitation period for civil copyright suits, the doctrine of laches may
be applicable.
Ec