"TMP & Copyright Question" Topic

Here's a question for you:

Let's say Writer A wrote an interesting article in a foreign language in the 19th Century.

Now, let's say Translator B translate this article into English, and posts the content to his webpage. He makes no copyright claim for the translation, but he does not explicitly state that he is contributing the translation to the public.

And let's say Hobbyist C takes the translation, adds further material, and makes it available at his website. He also does not claim copyright. However, he does not credit his source (Translator B).

Has Hobbyist C violated Translator B's copyright? Does this make him a "pirate"?

The problem isn't necessarily copyright, it's ethics. As a blogger, you're kinda-sorta a journalist, and not attributing your sources is a foul of the highest order. You're supposed to attribute, and link, thereby driving traffic to the translator's site.

If not, the translator and the hobbyist should choose seconds.

Not only is Meiczyslaw's post correct in the ethical sense his second paragraph addresses the legal issue exactly correctly too.

I was going to use the new complaints system to complain that Meiczyslaw's post was completely reasonable.

So yes. What he said.

It can't last.

Cheers,
JohnG

I don't disagree that it's reasonable but he didn't answer the original question so it's actually like a lot of TMP posts.

I don't believe you have to claim the copyright, at least in the USA, to have it. From my understanding, it is granted at the time you write or put stuff in print, and you are understood to have it.

That said, adding the copyright claim, and date, may help strengthen that a bit, but I don't think it is absolutely necessary, if it is your own work.

Not sure if/how you can copyright someone else's work, even though the original copyright may have expired, regardless of whether or not you've changed, or added to it.

I suspect at that point, it would fall under a public domain heading, and be available to everyone.

Disclaimer – I'm no lawyer, but occasionally dabble at it on the internet, just for grins.

Not a lawyer but am a librarian for what it counts…

The original work is in the public domain most likely, unless the author was extremely long lived. Therefore the translation, assuming it was done after the original is in the public domain is free and clear and itself is copyrighted by the translator. The copyright of that translation might still be in force depending on when the translation was originally done. As Mako points out modern works do not have to do anything to be protected. The general rule is prior to 1923 = public domain. After 1989 = copyrighted. Everything in between is one big "it depends"

"As a blogger, you're kinda-sorta a journalist"…based on what?…you might consider yourself a writer but a journalist? I don't think so.

db

Translations are not all literal. They are full of interpretations. So, much of the translation is a 'new' piece of work for copyright purposes, although literal parts would be public domain.

Think this just about covers it:

link

Take a look at the number of publishers who just reformat old books, then claim 'copyright' based on their refresh of the book. Similar to the big pharmaceutical companies who fiddle with the exact composition of a medication, then re-patent it – it is apparently known as 'evergreening'. They are getting very annoyed that places like India is finding the 'new' patents are invalid.

As a matter of law, it is quite clear cut. Mere publishing establishes your copyright, and republishing it is obvious piracy.

That said, what is most disappointing is that a TMPer well aware of B's translation would promote C's copy.

Here is another question, "Did the original writer credit his sources to begin with?"

The assumption is that writer A material was original.

Now if your talking ethics, then hopefully no one is discussing this type of ethics while using company time and equipment to engage in a discussion that is not company related.

But then again, how many of our rule books really have novel ideas on movement, Fire, moral, etc. We don't require any of them to credit the source in their rule books from where they got their idea.

But then again, how many of our rule books really have novel ideas

Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the way in which those ideas are expressed or illustrated. The only way to make sure no one "borrows" your good idea is never to have one, or, if you do happen to have one, never to publish it.

Translations are copyrighted, at least in Spain. I have translated several books, and in the credits page I figure as "owner" of the translation (though I have waved temporarily those rights to the publisher, in exchange of payment). That on top of the rights of the original writer over his/her text in the source language. However, you need to explicitly assert your rights of ownership over a translation in order to own the copyright. So for the original question, the answer would be: it depends if the translator asserted his rights or he didn't.