Difference between Klingon and Tengwar
Mark E. Shoulson
mark at kli.org
Thu Sep 16 20:17:38 CDT 2021
On 9/16/21 3:42 PM, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
> Languages, including orthography, are not copyrightable. Movie and TV production companies regularly make copyright claims of no legal basis.
True, and I tried to make that point in previous discussions on this
topic. The more recent proposals were predicated on a claim that
Paramount really has no legal standing on the matter, especially as
evidenced by the use of pIqaD in all sorts of environments.
However, Ken's point is also a good one: it doesn't matter if
Paramount's case is completely baseless. It doesn't matter if they
wouldn't win in court. Just bringing a case is enough to cause huge
damage to Unicode. Paramount's legal army could empty the minuscule
coffers of Unicode just in pre-trial hearings. Yes, there are laws
against doing that, but you know what it takes to get a ruling in your
favor regarding those laws? Yep, more lawsuits. So I can understand
Unicode's reluctance to actually encode without having at least SOME
better confidence legally. Which is why I just asked for the rejection
to be rescinded, but didn't get that either.
Now, Peter Constable writes:
> The main concern is that _/users/_ of The Unicode Standard won’t be
> susceptible to IP claims against them. Since this is uncertain, the
> onus is on the advocates for encoding the script to resolve that.
which is an angle I actually had not heard before. And here I'm really
puzzled. The users of the script are already using the script, whether
Unicode encodes it or not. So why is Unicode suddenly concerned on
their behalf? This one is really kind of strange. Could Unicode be
legally responsible for people "illegally" using the script? It's
hardly in Unicode's power to stop them, as evidence by the fact that
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode