For an ancient text, on the other hand, it seems wrong in principle to talk about author’s copyright, just because someone has done some editing and corrected a few mistakes of transmission. Only the original creative work is copyright, under any normal understanding of the law, in any reasonable jurisdiction. But when someone makes a translation of that non-copyright work, that does involve creative work, and a copyright comes into being (which in turn can be sold, licensed, traded, or in my case, released into the public domain). It would not, of course, prevent someone else from translating the same work independently.

We really need someone to take on this matter and establish some solid legal precedents that express what we all know to be reasonable here; that Chrysostom did not sell his copyright to Messrs Blogs and Blogs of Leiden (or whoever) and they do not own it. They DO own the translation they bought of it, tho.