On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:13:04 +0200, Jens Ropers ropers@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 copyright:
- 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?