Thanks, Asmus.
The document from the copyright office is pretty explicit and final, and
it is pretty clear that you can't copyright an *alphabet*, that is
*characters*. You can copyright *glyphs* (a font), but that is another
matter entirely.
I've heard that there are similar questions regarding tengwar and cirth,
but it is notable that UTC *did* see fit to consider this question for
them and determine that they were worthy of encoding (they are on the
roadmap), even though they have not actually followed through on that
yet, perhaps because of these very IP concerns. Notably, pIqaD is not
only not on the roadmap, it is specifically listed on the "Not on the
Roadmap" page as an example of something that was not deemed worthy of
being on the roadmap. If it's an IP issue, then someone will have to
explain to me why it applies so asymmetrically to Tolkien and Klingon
(and Blissymbolics, for that matter). And yes, these are not the only
writing systems with these issues and will not be the last. One way or
another, the question will have to be faced and dealt with one way or
another; ignoring it won't help.
~mark
On 11/06/2016 09:16 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 11/6/2016 2:22 PM, David Starner wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:42 AM David Faulks <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
There is another issue of course, which I think could be a huge
obstacle: the Trademark/Copyright issue. Paramount claims
copyright over the entire Klingon language (presumably including
the script). The issue has recently gone to court. Encoding
criteria for symbols (and this likely extends to letters) is
against encoding them without the permission of the
Copyright/Trademark holder.
The US copyright office will not register letters for copyright: cf.
http://web.archive.org/web/20160304062736/http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2004/Mark%20Hendricksen.pdf
So the copyright issue is not relevant here.
On the face of it, the cited statement seems to very broadly reject
the copyrightability of alphabets and writing systems, tracing that
decision back to statements of intent around the copyright legislation.
Given that, I'd tend to concur with Doug that UTC should feel free to
discuss this on the merit, but that in the case of a positive outcome
the Consortium would of course have counsel review this issue. Given
that this won't be the only writing system for which the original
invention post-dates modern IP laws, it would probably be good to have
some clarity here.
A./
