[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52

[WJhonson at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/26/2011 12:08:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
smolensk at eunet.rs writes:


> Translation is not "sweat of the brow". Copyright law of Germany, for 
> example, explicitly states that translations are copyrighted: 
> http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__3.html . Copyright law of Serbia, for 
> another example, does the same.
> 

This doesn't exactly address the point.
A work is copyright, a translation enjoys that *same* copyright.  It 
doesn't create an additional independent copyright.

This was the situation when Harriet Beecher Stowe tried to sue for people 
translating her work.  That's why the US law changed IIRC.

A translation, under US law, as I understand it, is a derivative work, and 
thus can be made, under the same copyright protection, but does not create 
an additional copyright distinct from the original work.