On Friday 19 August 2005 08:05 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > Sean, it may be that we are in different tunes because of our > different jurisdictions here (I know you are a law student). But > down here, non-automated translation is *not* considered copy... > it's a transformation that generates a derivative work. Now, your > _automated_ (gcc, babelfish) translation is considered a copy, but I > was going for the non-automated type. And the DFSG require the > possibility of making derivative works.
I understand that you are discussing non-automated translations. You are talking about situations where the translater is adding something to the work (the mental work necessary to keep the meaning between languages), which is the very definition of a derivative work (the work +/- something different). But like I said, the law in the States (and this may not be the case elsewhere) is that when you create a derivative work you are engaged in some kind of copying. Whether that copying literal or ephemeral, it's all copying. This actually leads to a unique situation where if you have a tangible copy of something and modify the tangible copy, you have not actaully made a derivative work (no copying) and thus avoid infringment (case is Lee v. Art). But to be honest, I have no idea how this relates to this thread... I just thought I'd share :) -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate & Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service & Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
