4 ms·
I think your analogy is wrong. Copyrights apply to creative processes, which the translation from English to Russian would surely involve, or a hand-written por
by seabee 15y ago
I think your analogy is wrong. Copyrights apply to creative processes, which the translation from English to Russian would surely involve, or a hand-written port from one language/API to another. A machine translation from computer language A to B would not apply, since it is the work of a tool, not a human.
- raganwald 15y agoAre you saying that if I write a blog post and you translate it into Russian, I do not have a copyright over your translation of my blog post?
- seabee 15y agoI clearly stated that copyright cover translation from English to Russian. I don't expect such miscomprehension from HN of all places. Edit: to clarify, I see you are questioning whether I'm classing a translation as a derivative work or a independent work. However, this is irrelevant to my assertion that a machine-generated translation confers no copyright protections at all, which is the situation with the github code.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- pasiaj 15y agoNo. He's saying if you design a program that takes an input A of witch it creates the output B, you do not own the copyright to all programs that can create B out of A.
- raganwald 15y agoReally? The word "translation" describes the output of a translator, not the translator itself. I don't think either of us are talking about copyrighting decompilers.
- GrandMasterBirt 15y agoThat's more about patents. Patent is a technique to convert A => B Copyright is work done such as a single tool A => B. Copyright does not apply to all instances of tools A => B as long as none of those tools copied anything from the original copyrighted tool. If you take the copyrighted tool and you transform it to something else using something you made or got, the work is not yours since you created a tool A => B completely based on the original copyrighted tool. The law is flimsy here and you would probably have to just go to court to settle it, this is not black and white.
- AndrewDucker 15y agoCopyright prevents the creation if derivative works.
- ugh 15y agoSo if I take a copyrighted article and translate it with Google Translate I can freely publish said machine translated article on my website? That doesn’t seem right.
- lutorm 15y agoSo if I take someone's photograph and use ImageMagick to convert it to black and white, by your rationale it would not be covered by the copyright on the original photo? Like someone said, it is a derivative work. The copyright act says: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
- seanalltogether 15y agoProving that something is a derivative work is not so cut and dry, and in your case a lawyer may not be able to successfully argue that a black and white filter represents a derivative work. Even the Barack Obama Hope poster was never successfully argued one way or another as to whether it was a derivative work, and the 2 sides settled out of court.