Daniel Mayer wrote:
I'm pretty sure Klingon and most other languages made for fictional universes are copyrighted (or at least many of their creators claim copyright).
I often read that this is a common misconception. Many Klingon enthusiasts seem to be convinced that you cannot "copyright a language". Supposedly you can only copyright, for example, a text that /describes/ a language, but when I write a new text in that language, I only use the pure knowledge represented in that description of the language, not the description itself, and as we all know you can't copyright knowledge.
Now some might say, "Ah, but you can copyright ideas!" No, you can't. You can *patent* ideas. I am less sure about whether a language (which can be regarded as an encoding for information) can be patented. Sonja, how about you go patent Toki Pona, and let us know how it went ;-)
These links seem to confirm the copyright situation for Klingon at least: http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/002300.html http://higbee.cots.net/~holtej/klingon/faq.htm#2.12
The first one does challenge the copyright claim. The second one is only a copy of the first paragraph of the first.
Also, the word 'Klingon' is a Paramount trademark.
Yes, but that is irrelevant. That only means that you can't create a new product in such a way that it can be confused with the trademark. By saying that our Wikipedia is in the Klingon language, we are clearly not referring to a new product, but the good old Klingon language. It's the same as having articles about trademarked names (like companies and products).
Did you know there's a shoe-shop in London called McDonald's? Supposedly they can get away with that because a shoe-shop is difficult to confuse with a fast-food restaurant.
So, IMO, a language must exist independent of Wikipedia and not be hindered by a claim of copyright before an encyclopedia is started in it.
As far as I can tell, Toki Pona fulfills these conditions.
Timwi