Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Conlang copyright

Expand Messages
  • Peter Bleackley
    ... My knowledge of IP law suggests that you have to use very similar tactics to defeat claims of ownership as you do to defend them. I used to work on the
    Message 1 of 169 , Oct 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      staving And Rosta:

      > Here is not the place for a broader discussion of the (im)morality of
      > intellectual property; my point here is just that it is not hard to
      > imagine IP law doing great harm to conlanging, and I for my part am much
      > more sympathetic to consideration of how to defeat claims of ownership
      > of languages (etc.) than to consideration of how to defend claims of
      > language ownership.
      >
      My knowledge of IP law suggests that you have to use very similar
      tactics to defeat claims of ownership as you do to defend them. I used
      to work on the Dirac Open Source video coding project, and in that case
      the BBC took out defensive patents on technologies that it was making
      available Open Source. Of course, an Open Source release should
      technically count as prior art for the purposes of defeating a patent,
      but some patent offices are notoriously bad at taking non-patent prior
      art into account.

      Pete
    • Galen Buttitta
      My apologies for being so late on the response here, but I found the Copyright Office rejection for D ni:
      Message 169 of 169 , May 7, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        My apologies for being so late on the response here, but I found the
        Copyright Office rejection for D'ni:

        <
        http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2004/Mark%20Hendricksen.pdf
        >


        On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Tristan <tongues+list@...> wrote:

        > > While *scripts* may not be able to be copyrighted (it'd be nice to see
        > the
        > > judgement on that D'Ni case you're referring to, depending on how broad
        > or
        > > was written, it might be useful as jurisprudence on conlangs too),
        > *fonts*
        > > definitely are! So you may not for instance claim copyright on the Latin
        > > script, but Arial is definitely copyrighted! Once again, that's because
        > > while a script is a concept, a font is the expression of such a concept,
        > > which makes them a perfect fit for copyright.
        >
        > Not in the US.
        >
        > You can copyright software though, and lots of modern typefaces are
        > shipped as something that the court considers software.
        >
        > More or less this means that it's legal to distribute images or printed
        > material with any font you like, but not the (non-bitmap) font itself (or
        > say, a pdf with the font embedded in it, unless it's fair use.)
        >
        > Patents and Trademarks still apply though.
        >
        > See <
        > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces
        > >
        > for better citations.
        >
        > tristan
        >
        > --
        > All original matter is hereby placed immediately under the public domain.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.