You are glossing over the fact that this only pertains to situations where the translator has
permission from the author, company, or individual that owns the copyright, which isn't the case with this fan translation.
Mewster doesn't have copyright over their translation because they never gained official permission from SQEX to make one.
You are glossing over the fact that this only pertains to situations where the translator has permission from the author, company, or individual that owns the copyright, which isn't the case with this fan translation.
Mewster doesn't have copyright over their translation because they never gained official permission from SQEX to make one.
Again, this only applies to a translation of a work in PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Truly no offense meant, but I don't think I'm the one misreading it here.
Again, this only applies to a translation of a work in PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Truly no offense meant, but I don't think I'm the one misreading it here.
Once again this all applies to having your translation copyright as an original work. Which is irrelevant to the topic. Here is whole context of your quote.
"Even though it is derivative,
translations are eligible for copyright as an original work. Since a translation, especially literary translation, involves considerable creative effort, labour and skill on the part of the translator it can be registered as an original work.
However, it is
crucial to have permission from the author, company, or individual that owns the copyright of the work you are translating. This usually comes in the form of a contract with a publisher, in which the duties of each party are laid out. This is also where a translator may sign away, or fight for, their right to copyright their translation and to royalties."
It's clearly talking about copyright as an original work, there is no way around it.
If you want to read about protection to derivative works read the Berne Convention which grants translations protection as original works, they are just not viewed as original works. So even if you believe your interpretation of the article, it's completely false according to the Berne Convention.
"Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work."
Edit: After reading a bit more about how countries follow the Berne convention, some countries like U.S. don't protect unauthorized translations. On the other hand Countires like U.K and France protect unauthorized copyrights, so as long as the game is sold there it's technically illegal. Sources for this:
http://www.cblesius.co.uk/articles/CopyrightAndTheTranslator-WhoOwnsYourTranslations.html
UK
"Even if you are infringing someone else's copyright or even if you are unlawfully translating someone else's work, your work will itself qualify for protection as an original copyright."
http://limegreenip.hoganlovells.com/article/27/copyrights-copyright-protection-france
FR
"Other works, such as translations, adaptations or summaries, as well as databases (following specific requirements) are also protected by the IPC."
https://www.unc.edu/~unclng/copy-corner73.htm
U.S
"In 1976 UNESCO recommended that member states ensure through legislative action that translators be given copyright protection because of the importance of translations in culture and development, including translations of scientific and technical literature. It defined translations broadly whether the initial work or the translation is intended to be published. The United States has not generally followed this recommendation."
Edit2: Fixed Link, so let's just say were both right depending on the location :p