Re: Copyrighting/Patenting a Conlang

Doug Dee said:
>
> It would seem to me, then, that if you published a grammar of your
> conlang,
> it [the published grammar book] would be protected by copyright.  And if I
> then
> used your language to write or translate something, then  I would be
> guilty
> of a copyrigth violation, because what I wrote would be a "derivative
> work"
> based on your grammar book.  (I don't know the relevant definition of
> "derivative
> work" but since my composition/translation could not have been produced
> without your grammar, I presume it would have to count as "derivative".)
>
> Does that seem correct to you?
In US IP, every work is either derivative of some other work or it enjoys
copyright protection in its own right. To be copyrightable, a work must
qualify as (at least partially) original work by being "different enough"
from anything it is based upon. What qualifies as "different enough" is a
matter of case law (and some USPTO regulations, but mostly case law), and
is a moving target with many facets.

If I use somebody's farmer's almanac to write some guidelines for planting
herb gardens this year, the work would be copyrightable by me (and I would
credit and acknowledge the almanac people).

If I use your grammar and dictionary to translate Hamlet back into its
lost original, the work would be copyrightable by me (and I would credit
and acknowledge you as the creator of the language).

I mean, you don't think I try to prosecute the editors and authors of the
Quarterly Anthology of Yiklamu Poetry for copyright infringement, do you?


IANAL, TINLA

-- Mark