Wherever modern translations of marked excellence were already in existence efforts were made to secure them for the Library, but in a number of instances copyright could not be obtained.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Now that copyrights can be just about a century long, the inability to know what is protected and what is not protected becomes a huge and obvious burden on the creative process.
The rights of copyright holders need to be protected, but some draconian remedies that have been suggested would create more problems than they would solve.
The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have survived even in part.
If I would use anything from 'The Little Prince,' even some little quote, it's all copyrighted in France. Like Walt Disney in this country, it's a national treasure.
Traditional copyright has been that you can't make a full copy of somebody's work without their permission.
The best translations are always the ones in the language the author can't read.
As far as modern writing is concerned, it is rarely rewarding to translate it, although it might be easy. Translation is very much like copying paintings.
Yes, translation is by definition an inadequate substitute for being able to read a masterpiece in the original.
Plagiarists, at least, have the merit of preservation.
It's hard to see how the Copyright Office can rise to the many challenges of the 21st-century work that you do without dramatically more independence and dramatically more flexibility.
No opposing quotes found.