In a message dated 4/26/2011 12:08:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, smole...@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. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
