undation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
傳送日期﹕ 2011/4/26 (二) 11:54:15 PM
主題： Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
In a message dated 4/26/2011 4:42:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
waihor...@yahoo.com.hk writes:
> Baidu do not translate anything copy from English Wikipedia or Japanese
> Wikipedia, b
In a message dated 4/26/2011 4:42:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
waihor...@yahoo.com.hk writes:
> Baidu do not translate anything copy from English Wikipedia or Japanese
> Wikipedia, but just keep the full content without attribution and changing
>
> anything. There are totally about 50 article
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 Serbi
com"
收件人﹕ foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
傳送日期﹕ 2011/4/26 (二) 10:06:34 AM
主題： Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
I always thought that translations were considered "wholely derivative",
that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
In a message
On 04/26/2011 07:58 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 26 April 2011 03:06, wrote:
>> I always thought that translations were considered "wholely derivative",
>> that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
>
> I would expect that to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For
> examp
>
> --
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:46:41 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID: <4db66a51.8090..
Hello,
2011/4/26 MZMcBride :
> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> It's my understanding that "sweat of the brown" does not create a
>> copyright at all. That was the entire argument behind the claim that
>> phonebooks had no copyright protection. Similarly pure indexes have no
>> copyright protection sinc
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> It's my understanding that "sweat of the brown" does not create a
> copyright at all. That was the entire argument behind the claim that
> phonebooks had no copyright protection. Similarly pure indexes have no
> copyright protection since they exhibit no creativity at all
On 04/25/11 3:30 PM, Joan Goma wrote:
> But If I licensed the work under a free license They only can make the
> derivative work under the condition of releasing it under the same license.
> If they fail to do it they must talk to me and ask for a new license. Then
> I have the right to ask for a
It's my understanding that "sweat of the brown" does not create a copyright
at all.
That was the entire argument behind the claim that phonebooks had no
copyright protection.
Similarly pure indexes have no copyright protection since they exhibit no
creativity at all.
Bad news for indexers.
On 04/25/11 7:06 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I always thought that translations were considered "wholely derivative",
> that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
It would be nice if things could be that easy; a third person using the
translation must respect the copyright o
On 26 April 2011 03:06, wrote:
> I always thought that translations were considered "wholely derivative",
> that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
I would expect that to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For
example, jurisdictions that includes some kind of "sweat o
I always thought that translations were considered "wholely derivative",
that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:57:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
On 04/25/11 9:33 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
> My interest in
On 25 April 2011 23:30, Joan Goma wrote:
> So I see the things this way
You asked if it was a good idea and your understanding was correct. So
far no-one's agreed your understanding is correct and no-one's agreed
your plan of action is a good idea. You appear to insist on doing it
anyway, but d
>
> --
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:57:23 -0700
> From: Ray Saintonge
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 52
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID: <4db5e033.4080..
On 04/25/11 9:33 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
> My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or
> not.
>
> My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content
> they previously have translated from an English Wikipedia article I have
> previously written.
Th
FT2, 25/04/2011 19:57:
> This is a definite weak area of copyright law, which mainly seems to have
> been designed with the primary purpose of covering identifiable works whose
> reuse was clear, identifiable and economically impacted on the creator. [...]
It's true, but you seem to forget moral
On 04/25/11 10:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I don't believe you could make the case that individual contributors have
> any standing to sue for copyright violations. Similarly, when you contribute
> to the project, you are intrinsically giving up any rights you may think
> you possess in what
I don't think so. You license the material to be published subject to
certain conditions. You don't release it without any conditions on the
reuser, nor disclaim ownership of the text. You remain the copyright holder.
If the reuse conditions are breached, you are the owner of the rights that
were
In a message dated 4/25/2011 9:34:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jrg...@gmail.com writes:
> My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or
> not.
>
> My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content
> they previously have translated from an Engl
My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or
not.
My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content
they previously have translated from an English Wikipedia article I have
previously written.
How do they put a dollar figure on the damages suff
21 matches
Mail list logo
