(Sorry if this comes across as me just rehashing the subject, BTW, but I only just now [as in, just a few minutes ago] came across the below-linked material.)
Didn't the U.S. Copyright Office definitively state several years back that writing systems *themselves* (as distinct from the fonts used to *display* those writing systems) are not copyrightable ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160304062736/http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2004/Mark%20Hendricksen.pdf, linked in https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0048.html), the claims of those systems' creators to the contrary notwithstanding? - Vikki McDonough 🏳️⚧️ On Wed, May 27, 2026, 8:58 AM Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote: > Because the nature of the uniquely hostile IP situation was not fully > understood until relatively recently. > > —Doug > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone > Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> > ------------------------------ > *From:* Unicode <[email protected]> on behalf of Vikki > McDonough via Unicode <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 27, 2026 7:54:58 AM > *To:* Mark E. Shoulson <[email protected]>; [email protected] < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts? > > > Why, then, did Tengwar and Cirth manage to get on the SMP roadmap and stay > there until very recently (something *none* of the other conlang scripts > managed), if they faced a uniquely-hostile IP situation? > > - Vikki McDonough 🏳️⚧️ > > On Tue, May 26, 2026, 5:57 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/26/26 6:32 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode wrote: > > Unicode's "hostility" to conlang scripts has actually been > > *decreasing* over the years. Such proposals used to be rejected > > outright for not being notable or not having a large enough user > > community. That is not the case anymore. Klingon, Sitelen Pona, > > Tengwar, and Cirth have all actually been recognized as having a large > > enough user community; the objections being raised now are actually > > much more complicated issues to navigate: copyright status and stability. > > > > Unicode does not want to include Klingon without a letter from > > Paramount's legal department stating that they will not sue anyone who > > implements it, but Paramount simply does not care enough to spend > > legal resources on that. Tengwar and Cirth are in the hands of the > > Tolkien estate, which is extremely controlling about the use of their > > intellectual property and is not going to give permission to encode > > them. And while it's legally questionable whether a writing system can > > actually be copyrighted, Unicode does not have the resources to find out. > > It should be noted, though, that the only *official* reason for > rejection of Klingon is still "because we don't want to be associated > with Those Kinds of People." The proposal to reject Klingon > (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html), adopted by > Unicode (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01183.htm) mentions nothing > about IP problems or lack of usage. This remains the reason it is on > the "Not to be Encoded" list, even though (at the suggestion of Ken > Whistler https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html) > there was a proposal not to approve it, but just to remove it from the > "No" list (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf) > Removing it from the "Not Encoded" list would have been a way to signal > a lessening of hostility without actually doing anything (and thus > without running risks of IP problems.) > > Has the hostility been decreasing over the years? Perhaps, even > probably. There has been unofficial recognition that "lack of usage" is > no longer a valid argument against Klingon (after a new proposal, > https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf showed a great > deal of usage.) But there still seems to be something in the "dignity > argument" (Klingon is beneath the dignity of Unicode, because only nerds > speak it), brought down explicitly in the Proposal to Reject linked > above and on this mailing list > https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2021-September/009589.html > > AFAIK, Sitelen Pona is, indeed, insufficiently fleshed out (but I may > not be well-enough informed), and the Tolkien estate has come out > explicitly against the encoding of Cirth and Tengwar (which I think > deserve encoding more than Klingon does, but whose IP situation is > rather more clear against it.) > > Several new writing systems which have been encoded are no older than > some conlang scripts, like Adlam (1989), Osage (2006), Signwriting > (1974) (and honestly, the IP status of some of them is not clear either, > though it's definitely an issue in things like Blissymbolics and I think > maybe Mandombe), so it clearly isn't a matter of needing to be an *old* > established system... just an established one, and these did demonstrate > usage and a community. > > So, yeah, the hostility may be on the decline. It's still the official > stance, though. > > ~mark > >
