Re: Conlang legal protection (WAS: Conlang music)

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Paul Kershaw <ptkershaw@...> wrote:
> Dictionary definitions, though, have a creative element. For instance, here is the
> first definition of "dog" from various online dictionaries (courtesy of
> onelook.com; quoted here verbatim under fair use):
Yes, original work is present in longer glosses, whereas this isn't
the case in e.g. a phone book. I agree, but that's separate.

I was trying to make the point that the words *themselves*, quite
aside from any gloss or other presentation, may be considered
copyrightable, because they are created works of nontrivial size.

(Though this raises the issue: do neologism creators have copyright
over small coinings? How much does one have to create before it
counts?)

- Sai

Reply