I do think there is an element of creativity in translations. Is a new literal translation really a new expression?Įvery far once in a while I think Mike reaches for absurdity when it’s not there, and I think this is one of those cases. plagiarism), I’m not sure why Mike would consider the situation absurd in the least.įrankly, I don’t know how I feel about things like the NKJV Bible (supposedly a literal translation) being copyrightable. In fact, if there was no attribution given (i.e. And it’s the expression that’s been copied here, not the idea.

Mike makes it a point to emphasize that it’s the expression, not the idea, that’s copyrightable. I’m confused why Mike thinks this is an absurd copyright claim (or why Mike is choosing to use the ‘Two Millennia Old’ attention getter in his headline). It’s not for doing a literal word study, but it’s good to read and capture meanings of passages.) There’s also The Message, which is less of a translation and more of a paraphrase of the Bible. I’ve seen the NKJV with a copyright notice, which is a direct translation. Remember, it’s the expression that’s copyrightable, not the idea. Many translations of the Christian Bible carry copyright restrictions. To be able to pretend his version is the ancient version when it works for marketing purposes, but then to consider a brand new work when it comes to copyright. Basically, it looks like Mitchell wants the best of both worlds. If true, there certainly could be a new copyright on the work, though it does seem a bit odd to rewrite it, and then still call it the Tao Te Ching. “Accordingly, Mitchell’s book is a highly original work.” So new that it’s not actually a translation at all, but more or less his own version of what he thought the Tao Te Ching really meant:Īs a result, “rather than provide a literal translation, the book embodies language that conveys Mitchell’s version of Lao-tzu’s meaning and the spirit of his teaching,” the complaint says. But, of course, if the Tao Te Ching is from two plus millennia ago, what’s the copyright claim? Well, it turns out that Mitchell is now claiming that his new English version is very new indeed. The Hollywood Reporter has the news that Wayne Dyer, a “self-help” guru, has been sued for copyright infringement for using text from “Tao Te Ching: A New English Version,” by Stephen Mitchell, in his own book. It’s not often you hear of a copyright claim concerning a text that was supposedly written more than 2,500 years ago. Wed, May 26th 2010 12:21pm - Mike Masnick

Tao Te Ching by Stephen Mitchell