[pp.int.general] copyright vs. "droit d'auteur"

[Per von Zweigbergk]

8 jan 2009 kl. 13.18 skrev Carlos Ayala Vargas:

> Per von Zweigbergk wrote:
>> I think you have this backwards, I for one don't want to give  
>> unofficial translators any special protection at all. The natural  
>> state is that all information can be copied and modified without  
>> limit. Anything else is an artificial restriction set in law.
> You actually agreed on avoiding misattribution; actually, making an  
> awful translation which makes it have not quite resemblance with the  
> original and stating "/this is the original work, just translated/"  
> wouldn't be misattributing the translation to the author?

You're not contradicting what I said, and I agree with you on this  
point.

>> By default, I think that people should be permitted to create  
>> noncommercial derivative works of a commercial work. And a  
>> translation is definitely what I'd call a derivative work.
> It depends on whether the translator states that the translated work  
> is actually the original work (just in a different language) or not.  
> If presented as the original work, it means (according to integrity  
> right) that the original work shouldn't be mutilated nor distorted  
> during the process.
>
> If what the translator wants to make is a translation, it would  
> depend of the aim of the redefinition of commercial rights scope - 
> specifically, concerning derivative works-, and to leave clear that  
> it's just a derivative work. I believe that presenting the bad  
> translation as the original work would be deceiving everyone.

Again, I'm in agreement with you. There is no contradiction with what  
I said.

>> What I fail to see, however, is why people with excessive amounts  
>> of artistic pride need to be protected, when the end result is  
>> stifling creativity for everyone else. As long as their names  
>> aren't abused to let on that they endorse the derivative work, I  
>> simply fail to see the problem. Authors do not have any natural  
>> right not be offended.
>>
>> And who says that a "bad translation" can't be an artistic work in  
>> its own right?
> As long as it's not presented as a translation of the original work  
> but as a derivative work, and when it is allowed -for first day if  
> non-commercial, or after the expiracy of commercial term, depending  
> on how the legal framework is changed-. I guess you fail to see the  
> problem because you think of translations only as derivative works,  
> however -e.g., the Casablanca example I gave before- some  
> translations are shown as faithful versions of original works, and  
> there i the problem.

Again, here I agree with you, and you are not contradicting what I  
said. :-)

> It's not artistic pride, it's simply the author stating "/I didn't  
> do that/"; I believe the author of the derivative artistic work  
> should clarify that it's not the original work.

In that case, I think we're in full agreement. I never said I wanted  
anyone to be able to translate anything in any way and then publish it  
under the original author's name. If you want to use the original  
author's name, you're going to have to get his permission, at least if  
you want to credit him as an author.

In this respect, it could be similar to the "no-advertise" clause in  
the 3-clause BSD license.
-- 
Per von Zweigbergk

VARNING: E-post till och från Sverige, eller som passerar servrar i  
Sverige, avlyssnas av Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA.
WARNING: E-mail to and from Sweden, or via servers in Sweden, is  
intercepted by the Swedish National Defense Radio Establishment.