tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 22 07:08:21 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Paramount (and unlicensed use of Hol in commercial products)
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Paramount (and unlicensed use of Hol in commercial products)
- Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 10:08:07 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from Chet Braun onWed, 21 May 1997 09:23:17 -0700 (PDT))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Chet Braun <[email protected]>
>
>As it turns out I just got off the phone with my attorney. The opinion of
>the lawyers in this firm are that commercial use of tlhIngan Hol, *even in
>original prose*, is a violation of copyright law. On this point they are
>not 100% certain but then nobody has tested it and they feel that it would
>be quite expensive to test. A hell of a lot more expensive than we can
>afford. We are exploring other avenues to keep this book on the market so
>we haven't given up yet.
Hrm. This is a particularly troublesome point, and possibly one that
Paramount will have some well-deserved trouble with. I don't think it is
possible to copyright a language. You can copyright the word-list or
something, but original text in a language you make public? Might as well
try to copyright the Latin alphabet and collect royalties from printers the
world over.
I won't rant any more on that subject, since it wouldn't accomplish much.
What MIGHT accomplish something, though, would be to talk to Bob
LeChevalier ([email protected]) and John Cowan ([email protected]), both
of the Logical Language Group, which not all that long ago won a judgement
regarding its language, Lojban, which started out life as an offshoot of a
language (called Loglan, though the judgement determined this was a generic
term) on which there was a copyright by The Loglan Institute and its
founder, Dr. James Cooke Brown. I understand Dr. Brown has at times even
claimed that everything written in his language falls under the copyright,
which is similar to the case here. I don't know if the court case involved
this aspect, but it might, and hey, you might be able to find some
precedent. Ask Bob and John. (for all I know John may be on this list.
You out there?)
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM4RTQ8ppGeTJXWZ9AQE6rQL/VF9CAFDufxF6LKnI2YcmsT8x3dAl0KlA
Viv5ZRlshmBRPbxGKOHWayC4zvFeN/93WQXk33ICZwFG57O7Am7w6lCYmOEt2rR1
6tO3prBEYVBIFam2PZIcy2tE5qSsa+al
=fMJn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----