Clarification on Copyright Laws

[Guest guest]

Hi Z'ev, Steve, and all,

 

The basic copyright rule is that general knowledge (ideas, concepts,

discoveries, methods, principles, processes, procedures, etc.) cannot be

copyrighted, but its specific presentation (description, explanation,

illustration, etc.) can be. In other words, the exact language used by the

author to present the information is protected by copyright, but the information

itself is not. If you wish to use material *as it is presented by an author,*

you need licensing rights to use that author's material from whoever owns the

copyright, unless the work has fallen into the public domain. If you are

presenting the information in your own words, you don't.

 

When working from copyrighted works, it is best to pull from several different

sources whenever possible (to prevent unintentional 'borrowing' of specific

language), but as long as the information is presented by an individual in his

or her own words, regardless of the number of sources, no violation of copyright

has taken place. The key is that one writes in his or her own words, and that

direct quotes are properly cited when used.

 

A few other notes:

 

Trademarks and patents should also be kept in mind, as they are subject to their

own rules and regulations, separate from copyright. For e.g., names cannot be

copyrighted, but they can be trademarked, formulas in patents may be protected,

etc.

 

Most works fixed in a " tangible form of expression " are protected by copyright

laws. Artwork, illustrations, and photos are protected by copyright unless they

fall within the public domain. Material (written or visual) that falls within

the public domain can generally be used as originally presented without penalty.

There are several reasons that written or visual works may fall into the public

domain; the most common in the case of written works is copyright expiration.

The duration of copyright protection varies somewhat from country to country. In

the U.S., copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the creator's death, in

the case of anonomous or pseudononomous creators, the copyright protection lasts

for 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

 

Before any other author's or artist's work is presented in its original manner,

one should make sure the original material falls within the public domain in the

country where it was created. If it does, its generally fair game. If it

doesn't, the aforementioned rules apply. Most derivite works based upon works

within the public domain are eligible for copyright protection, but the original

material remains within the public domain.

 

While there is no actual " international copyright law, " there is a manner of

standardization that applies among those countries that have taken part in the

Berne Convention (including the U.S.A., Canada, all European Countries,

Australia, China and Japan, and most other major countries). This Convention

includes two basic requirements regarding the treatment of all 'copyrighted'

works. The first requirement is the " national treatment " of foreign Copyrighted

works, i.e., the same protections and benefits must be afforded to a

participating country's foreign authors that are provided to its own. The second

requirement guarantees " minimum standards " that all member countries must adhere

to, including minimum duration of protection for various works, protection of

certain creator rights (such as reproduction rights, authorization of

translations, etc.), and the ability to seize infringing copies or derivitive

works.

 

Anyway, I hope this helps.

 

Andrea (who's made a living as a writer, designer and illustrator for most of

her adult life)

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Ai An Meng " <aianmeng@s...> wrote:

The duration of copyright protection varies somewhat from country to country. In

the U.S.,

copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the creator's death, in the case

of anonomous

or pseudononomous creators, the copyright protection lasts for 95 years from

publication,

or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

 

Andrea

 

does this mean that ALL premodern chinese medical texts in the original chinese

are

international public domain? And for Bob Felt, if the Wiseman translation

standard is an

open souce that anyone can use without licensure, does this mean that a 100%

DENOTATIVE translation of a premodern chinese medical text is also public

domain?

 

[Guest guest]

one problem is that the originals of these books are written

in archaic Chinese. Direct transcription into Wiseman terminology

wouldn't be too feasible. Most readers go from the original text

after it has been " translated " to modern Chinese from Classical,

which is obviously more recent.

 

Eric

 

, " "

wrote:

> , " Ai An Meng "

<aianmeng@s...> wrote:

> The duration of copyright protection varies somewhat from country

to country. In the U.S.,

> copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the creator's death,

in the case of anonomous

> or pseudononomous creators, the copyright protection lasts for 95

years from publication,

> or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

>

> Andrea

>

> does this mean that ALL premodern chinese medical texts in the

original chinese are

> international public domain? And for Bob Felt, if the Wiseman

translation standard is an

> open souce that anyone can use without licensure, does this mean

that a 100%

> DENOTATIVE translation of a premodern chinese medical text is also

public domain?

>

 

[Guest guest]

but isn't simplified chinese an open source, too? If I use google to

translate a chinese webpage that is not copyrighted, do I then own the

translation?

 

 

On May 19, 2004, at 3:09 AM, smilinglotus wrote:

 

> one problem is that the originals of these books are written

> in archaic Chinese.  Direct transcription into Wiseman terminology

> wouldn't be too feasible.  Most readers go from the original text

> after it has been " translated " to modern Chinese from Classical,

> which is obviously more recent.

>

> Eric

>

> , " "

> wrote:

> > , " Ai An Meng "

> <aianmeng@s...> wrote:

> > The duration of copyright protection varies somewhat from country

> to country. In the U.S.,

> > copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the creator's death,

> in the case of anonomous

> > or pseudononomous creators, the copyright protection lasts for 95

> years from publication,

> > or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

> >

> > Andrea

> >

> > does this mean that ALL premodern chinese medical texts in the

> original chinese are

> > international public domain?  And for Bob Felt, if the Wiseman

> translation standard is an

> > open souce that anyone can use without licensure, does this mean

> that a 100%

> > DENOTATIVE translation of a premodern chinese medical text is also

> public domain?

> >

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " Ai An Meng " <aianmeng@s...> wrote:

Clearly if his standard is open source, anyone could use it when translating,

but whether

this would be feasible when working from ancient texts is another story. I look

forward to

hearing Bob's insights on this.

 

I'm assuming that an open source translation is still an original work because

so much

interpretation goes into every passage. I totally understand Eric's concerns

about

translation. I am just sussing out what material can be freely accessed as a

starting point.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

<<<does this mean that ALL premodern chinese medical texts in the original

chinese are international public domain? >>>

 

Andrea writes:

 

et al.,

 

In a word, yes. The copyright laws in the PRC protect creative works for fifty

years after the death of the creator. After that period, they fall within the

public domain. They are fair game for translation.

 

As for classical Chinese texts from antiquity, as Eric has pointed out,

translating archaic material has its own problems. To translate such a work

requires a solid understanding of modern Chinese and at least a basic

understanding of its linguistic etiology, so that unfamiliar or confusing terms

can be deciphered. As I understand it, the number of Chinese characters in the

ancient language was comparitively small to that of today. Many characters,

however, had the same form but different meanings, which lends to the

open-endedness of much Chinese work from antiquity. The same passage may be

interepreted a dozen different ways. These multiple interpretations present a

problem for translation into Western languages, which are often much more

precise in usage and meaning. Keeping the open-endedness Taoist works and the

I-Ching when translating into English, IMHO, would be ideal, but with Medical

texts would pose too much confusion for Western-Minded folk. So, we rely on the

interpretations of the translator. I would suggest that this is why many of our

English translations seem to conflict with each other. I'm not sure how

Wiseman's standards would fit into this picture. Clearly if his standard is open

source, anyone could use it when translating, but whether this would be feasible

when working from ancient texts is another story. I look forward to hearing

Bob's insights on this.

 

Kindest Regards,

 

Andrea

 

 

[Guest guest]

<<<I'm assuming that an open source translation is still an original work

because so much

interpretation goes into every passage. I totally understand Eric's concerns

about

translation. I am just sussing out what material can be freely accessed as a

starting point.>>>

 

Hi Todd!

 

I'd have to agree with your statement. There is definitely a difference between

using Wiseman's 'standards' when translating a document from scratch, and using

an already translated manuscript. You are correct that translations written

from public domain documents are eligible for the same copyright protection as

other derivative works, for exactly the reason you mentioned. Each translator's

interpretation would make the translation unique. My assumption would be that

the open source applying to Wiseman's work would relate only to the definitions

he's applied to standardize linguistic terms (translation of specific Chinese

characters), rather than to an actual manuscript of work.

 

I personally am more interested in the wealth of Chinese medical texts that have

not been translated into English. There is so much material that would offer a

plethora of knowledge to the TCM profession in the Western world. But, even if

Wiseman has offered us standard terms to use when translating, I feel that

relying on standardized linguistic definitions when translating texts from

antiquity could be very problematic for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Using

standardized definitions limits the open-endedness of those older works to one

interpretation, and may present real problems, as the meaning of certain

characters might vary from one text to another. Just a few additional thoughts

to consider.

 

Kindest regards,

 

Andrea