Re: May be non-copyrighted documment included in main?
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
Reply to: