[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:41:29AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:30:37PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:06:46PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > > Iff the author authorised a 
> > > translation, the translation *can* be published under a different
> > > license (DFSG free in the case) since the copyright holder is not the
> > > original author, it's the translator.
> > 
> > The translator and the author share copyright under copyright law. So
> 	No they don't. Please read the Berne law. They can have their own
> copyright.

I read the law; it has its own copyright, but the copyright in the older
work still subsists in it. No, it's not a clear reading of the law, but
it's a reading of the law, and consistent with what I know elsewhere.
Take "It's a Wonderful Life", for example. It fell out of copyright, but
the music that was part of it still retained its own copyright, meaning
that the movie as a whole can't be played or redistributed.

David Starner - starner@okstate.edu
Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
A field where a thousand corpses lie. 
  -- Stephen Crane, "War is Kind"

Reply to: