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

En réponse à SidheMaiden <nmkrzys@...>:

> I just thought that some of you may want to check this page out since
> we're
> talking about copyright of created linguistics. I found this while
> searching out
> info in regards to using Tolkien's created languages in other
> forms/poetry/name
> creation, etc. Though it is a bit different as his works are published
> you might
> find what this group found out interesting.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9902/legalop.html
>
Well, I'm no legal expert, but I think this person's opinion shows a complete
misunderstanding of our work. Arguing that Tolkien's languages are not
copyrightable because they are not "original enough" sounds to me like arguing
that no painting is copyrightable because they are mere combinations of colours
and strokes, which have already probably all been used by some painter in the
past, and are thus not "original enough" either. Also, this guy keeps saying
that "the mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element
of the work may be protected", and yet discusses about Tolkien's languages in
terms of their elements to build his opinion about their copyrightability,
something which is incorrect to do since "the mere fact that a work is
copyrighted does not mean that every element of the work may be protected". If
you take this statement the other way round, it means that discussing about
elements of a work is moot, as it's not through them that it's decided whether
a work is copyrightable. In short, saying that the elements of Tolkien's
languages are not "original" doesn't say anything about the languages *as a
whole*, and thus his point is moot.

IMHO, copyright laws are just unfit for our works, as they have been made by
people who probably never even imagined the possibility of inventing languages
as a work of art. This can be seen in the way the person handles the problem,
showing a complete misunderstanding of the situation and of what invented
languages are. We are in a case of a legal hole. Note that I'm not saying that
his conclusion would be any difference if the law was applicable to our works,
only that it's not the case right now.

On the other hand, I think his remarks about "fair use" are important to us,
and what this group of RPGers wanted to do with Sally's language doesn't strike
me as being "fair use", but rather "misuse".

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.

Reply