Copyright Infringement!

[Yorzhik]

find these questions in your post

You did answer in your original reply to mine and I missed it.

---Now who owns the ideas as they are conceived in Russian?

The ideas are not subject to copyright--the original, per your statement is in common domain.

No, you said the ideas can be copyrighted within a translation. Even if the translation is from public domain work.

---can someone take a copyrighted work, translate it to a different language and then claim the copyright in that language? Why not?

You can have endless separate copyright translations in the same language, as long as each is a unique translation.

Here is the second case I specified, perhaps I didn't highlight it correctly: "can someone take a copyrighted work, translate it to a different language and then claim the copyright in that language? Why not?"

I specified in the second case that the translation was from a copyrighted work. So the question is: Is it okay for you to make a translation of someone else's copyrighted work and copyright that translation to yourself.

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
The ideas are not subject to copyright--the original, per your statement is in common domain.

No, you said the ideas can be copyrighted within a translation. Even if the translation is from public domain work.

-----this is false. I said the translation can be copyrighted, not the original idea if that work is in public domain. You cannot copy another's copyrighted translation without permission. The Bible is in public domain. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can go to the KJV or the original Aramaic, Hebrew, or the Latin versions that are not copyrighted, and translate or copy to his hearts content. They can then copyright the work they have done--their translation.



You can have endless separate copyright translations in the same language, as long as each is a unique translation.[/quote]

-----yes. If the original is in public domain, you certainly can


I specified in the second case that the translation was from a copyrighted work. So the question is: Is it okay for you to make a translation of someone else's copyrighted work and copyright that translation to yourself. [/QUOTE]

-------I missed the part in the second case that the translation is from a copyrighted work. Only the author or someone authorized by the author can translate a work while it is under copyright, or copy it in the same language for that matter--however once that expires, the work is fair game for all.

 

[Yorzhik]

No, you said the ideas can be copyrighted within a translation. Even if the translation is from public domain work.

-----this is false. I said the translation can be copyrighted, not the original idea if that work is in public domain. You cannot copy another's copyrighted translation without permission. The Bible is in public domain. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can go to the KJV or the original Aramaic, Hebrew, or the Latin versions that are not copyrighted, and translate or copy to his hearts content. They can then copyright the work they have done--their translation.

This is a case of me not being clear. When I said "copyrighted within a translation" I meant the translation can be copyrighted. So now it is clear that you are saying that a translation can be copyrighted as a separate work and we can go to the next step.

I missed the part in the second case that the translation is from a copyrighted work. Only the author or someone authorized by the author can translate a work while it is under copyright, or copy it in the same language for that matter--however once that expires, the work is fair game for all.

Why? If I translate a copyrighted work, then I would not be distributing the original copyrighted work. As you stated in the previous paragraph, a translation is a separate work that can be copyrighted by the translator. Are you saying that a work will be considered either a separate work or the same work depending on the copyright? If the work was in the public domain, then the translation is a separate work - but if the work is not in the public domain then the translation it is not a separate work?

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by Yorzhik



Why? If I translate a copyrighted work, then I would not be distributing the original copyrighted work. As you stated in the previous paragraph, a translation is a separate work that can be copyrighted by the translator. Are you saying that a work will be considered either a separate work or the same work depending on the copyright? If the work was in the public domain, then the translation is a separate work - but if the work is not in the public domain then the translation it is not a separate work?

---------

If you translate a copyrighted work that is not in public domain, the CONTENT itself is still under copyright. You will, in effect, be stealing the content.

If a work is in public domain, no one owns the content. In this instance, you, me, anyone can translate this work because it is up for grabs. If you copyright your translation, only the TRANSLATION is under copyright. You do not claim rights to the content in this case, but you do own your translation.

A work will be considered the same work as long as the CONTENT is under copyright. If the author choses to translate or have it translated, he still owns the CONTENT, and it is in effect a single work.

If if is out into public domain, all you can own is the work you put into it, --the TRANSLATION. Many people can produce and own their own TRANSLATIONS--they own the work they put into it only.

Example:

A man named Bob writes a story--"All about Bob." He copyrights it. For as long as the copyright is valid, no one may translate or copy "All about Bob" without his permission. The content is owned.

The copyright expires. 2 Germans, 1 Somolian, and 3 Kurds all make independent translations of "All about Bob." Each copyrights his work. No one may now print their exact translations without their permission because they are copyrighted. However, since "All about Bob is in the public domain, anyone may translate from the original. The content is unowned.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Crow
The NIV and other copyrighted Bibles haven't stolen from God. The Bible itself cannot be copyrighted, ONLY THE TRANSLATION.

Which is why I stated the obvious abot the NIV being crap.

In any case, I personally believe that the printing and distribution of all bibles should be supported by the church for free access to anyone who wants one. The fact that bibles are marketed and sold makes me :vomit:

 

[Yorzhik]

If you translate a copyrighted work that is not in public domain, the CONTENT itself is still under copyright. You will, in effect, be stealing the content.

But if the translation is a separate work, then it cannot also be the work it was translated from.

And before we go on, please tell me what content comes up missing if one makes a translation of copyrighted content? If the content is not missing, then what is being stolen?

If a work is in public domain, no one owns the content. In this instance, you, me, anyone can translate this work because it is up for grabs. If you copyright your translation, only the TRANSLATION is under copyright. You do not claim rights to the content in this case, but you do own your translation.

So now the content of the translation is no longer the content of public domain, but it is now its own content.

A work will be considered the same work as long as the CONTENT is under copyright. If the author choses to translate or have it translated, he still owns the CONTENT, and it is in effect a single work.

So a translation is a single work if the original requests that a distribution contract be agreed to, but a translation is a separate work if there is no contract requested for distribution. Something cannot be a separate work or the same work based on the requests of the copyright holder. What is a translation *really*? A same work, or separate work?

If if is out into public domain, all you can own is the work you put into it, --the TRANSLATION. Many people can produce and own their own TRANSLATIONS--they own the work they put into it only.

So what you are saying is they don't own the work they put into it if the material they translate was copyrighted.

Example:

A man named Bob writes a story--"All about Bob." He copyrights it. For as long as the copyright is valid, no one may translate or copy "All about Bob" without his permission. The content is owned.

The copyright expires. 2 Germans, 1 Somolian, and 3 Kurds all make independent translations of "All about Bob." Each copyrights his work. No one may now print their exact translations without their permission because they are copyrighted. However, since "All about Bob is in the public domain, anyone may translate from the original. The content is unowned.

Okay. You say the content is owned. Is content property?

 

[Crow]

Okay. You say the content is owned. Is content property?

Yes. While the original author or the person he sells/transfers rights to holds copyright, content is treated as property belonging to that person.
When the copyright on the original expires, it is common domain, and common property--anyone can use it. If I translate it into another language, my translation can be copyrighted. Another person can translate it into the same language, but if I do not give them permission to use my translation, they will have to do their own translation.

Re: Do you own the translation if you translate a work under original copyright? You can't translate it unless the person holding the copyright authorized it. Otherwise, it is theft.

Original copyright= content owned, and right to approve, deny translation.

After work hits public domain, only translation can be copyrighted.

 

[Yorzhik]

Crow, there is a problem with content as property. I outlined them before, and I'll just cut and paste that post again since it isn't that long

Please note, the following is in light that a good government and good law are in place. If one wants to discuss the current state of copyright as it is in US law, that will be a discussion that flaps in the breeze because current US copyright law (the whole justice system for that matter) is as solid as a tissue in the wind.

The problem with discussing copyrights is that we first have to decide if ideas are property or not. Ideas can be considered something, but they differ from property-that-is-not-ideas (we'll call it PTINI) in some ways.

For instance, an idea can be owned by every person on the earth without the person who first thought of it losing the idea. This is contrary to PTINI in that not everyone can necessarily have a copy simply because a copy avails itself.

PTINI can be destroyed, whereas ideas can be reconstructed perfectly, even if the medium on which they may be recorded is destroyed. And the idea would still be the exact same idea as before. Even if it isn't remembered by anyone currently alive at the time the media was destroyed.

PTINI has the ability to be valued after it is known. An idea must always be valued before it is known. Because just knowing an idea before the copy restrictions are in place renders it valueless to the person with the idea.

If an idea cannot be property, then the answer is obvious: All right to make a copy of an idea that is to be made known must be individually negotiated if it is to exist. And laws specifically for copyright in the written law would be arbitrary law, bad law.

If this takes care of some of the issues, I'll jump in again (if we stay on topic) when we start discussing the nature of contracts, or if I see I didn't make something clear.

 

[Crow]

Yorzhik,
I can see where you are coming from on this one, but I don't buy it. We have differing beliefs regarding what property is. We're just going to have to disagree.

 

[Yorzhik]

I can see where you are coming from on this one, but I don't buy it. We have differing beliefs regarding what property is. We're just going to have to disagree.

What is your belief about property? Or - what evidence do you have that ideas are property?

 

[scott41113]

Gosh.....

 

[Yorzhik]

Wow... that was 11 years ago. I hope my arguments are better since then.