Re: Linguistic copyright (RE: this is what I got in the mail.)

Tristan scripsit:

> I'm not sure that that's the best of examples. I think it would've been
> better to say that arguing that a library (as in a program that by
> itself doesn't really do anything, but helps other programs do stuff,
> .DLLs on Windows) is uncopyrightable because it's only a series of ones
> and zeros and used to build up other things. Languages are like the
> libraries of stories, poems and songs.
Program libraries are works that are fixed in a tangible medium: you can
(if you have the right tools) point to the place on the disk where they
reside.  This is not true of a language, natlang, computerlang, or
conlang.

> IANAL, but: No. He's saying that even if Tolkien claimed copyright on
> his languages, it's irrelevent because taken individually, each element
> isn't copyrightable, so he's only got copyright on that particular
> arrangement of things, not the things themselves, which means that
> another arrangement should be okay (I think).
Right.  Wordlists, even bilingual wordlists, probably aren't copyrightable;
this may depend on the country.  Lojban explicitly puts its wordlists into
the public domain to avoid this problem.

> But you never use a language as a whole, only in bits and pieces. In a
> story, it's not just the particular arrangements of words, but the plot
> too, that gets copyright.
Sorry, but that's not true either.  I can rip off plots from anyone I want.
There is *some* weak legal precedent against recycling characters, which is
used by publishers to threaten fan fiction websites, but it's shaky: most
of it is applied primarily to cartoon/comic-book characters, who of course
have a (copyrighted) appearance that is being imitated.  Nobody knows
what would happen if a case went to trial over characters: _The Wind
Done Gone_ had the advantage of being to some degree a parody of
_Gone With The Wind_, which gave it the color of fair use.  (Parodies
get special protection in U.S. law, on the grounds that the original
author is not likely to license them.)

> If I re-wrote Harry Potter and the Chamber of
> Secrets, I'd (rightly) be screwed.
You could definitely reuse the plot.  Harry Potter(TM) is a trademark,
so you can't reuse his name.  If you changed his name to Gary Farmer,
you might get away with it or not.

> Personally, I'm not sure I understand the concept of copyrighting a
> language.
There isn't any.

--
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There
are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language
that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
        --_The Hobbit_

Replies