I think there's one simple way to end this arguement,
Paramount owns the copyright to the Klingon language, the words, the grammar, everything.
Let me repeat, (it is claimed) Paramount owns the copyright to individual klingon words.
i.e. we can't legally have a klingon wikipedia.
If someone can get Paramount to produce a waiver documents stating that it is perfectly legal for third parties to produce klingon language documents and redistrbute them under any licence, then we can reconsider. However until that time we should not risk copyright violation and wasting the time of contributors (to the Klingon wikipedia).
Imran
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 01:19:46 +0100 (BST), Imran Ghory imran@bits.bris.ac.uk wrote:
I think there's one simple way to end this arguement, Paramount owns the copyright to the Klingon language, the words, the grammar, everything.
Some dispute that. (I'm not among those some.)
Imran Ghory wrote:
Paramount owns the copyright to the Klingon language, the words, the
grammar, everything [...]
I thought this was already cleared up - either with Paramount or in general that it's allowed to have a Klingon Wikipedia, theoretically. Hm, this issue should be primary.
- André
Imran Ghory wrote:
I think there's one simple way to end this arguement,
Paramount owns the copyright to the Klingon language, the words, the grammar, everything.
Let me repeat, (it is claimed) Paramount owns the copyright to individual klingon words.
i.e. we can't legally have a klingon wikipedia.
If someone can get Paramount to produce a waiver documents stating that it is perfectly legal for third parties to produce klingon language documents and redistrbute them under any licence, then we can reconsider. However until that time we should not risk copyright violation and wasting the time of contributors (to the Klingon wikipedia).
The situation may not be as simple as that. It opens up the question of whether a language can be copyrighted at all. I suspect that it may be patentable in the same way that certain accounting and business processes have been patented. But that's a whole new kettle of fish.
Have there been any court decisions anywhere about whether copyrights in a langiuage can exist.
Ec
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
is perfectly legal for third parties to produce klingon language documents and redistrbute them under any licence, then we can reconsider. However until that time we should not risk copyright violation and wasting the time of contributors (to the Klingon wikipedia).
The situation may not be as simple as that. It opens up the question of whether a language can be copyrighted at all. I suspect that it may be patentable in the same way that certain accounting and business processes have been patented. But that's a whole new kettle of fish.
I don't think the general case matters, if Paramount give us permission that's fine, if they don't then we don't make a klingon wikipedia. Fighting a legal case over whether languages are copyrightable is not in the interest of the Wikimedia Foundation IMHO.
Imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
is perfectly legal for third parties to produce klingon language documents and redistrbute them under any licence, then we can reconsider. However until that time we should not risk copyright violation and wasting the time of contributors (to the Klingon wikipedia).
he situation may not be as simple as that. It opens up the question of whether a language can be copyrighted at all. I suspect that it may be patentable in the same way that certain accounting and business processes have been patented. But that's a whole new kettle of fish.
I don't think the general case matters, if Paramount give us permission that's fine, if they don't then we don't make a klingon wikipedia. Fighting a legal case over whether languages are copyrightable is not in the interest of the Wikimedia Foundation IMHO.
You're the one that chose to discuss this in terms of law. Establishing a legal right would still not address the wisdom of a Klingon 'pedia.
Your dependance on Paramount's position implies that they have a right to grant such a permission. If the material is not copyrightable, then what Paramount says does not matter. We can go ahead without their permission. That's precisely why the general case is so important; it helps to establish legal precedent. That's why I asked you to cite a legal case on the matter.
Fighting a legal case is not an issue, because no legal case has been started. Significant events must take place before it gets that far.
Ec
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Your dependance on Paramount's position implies that they have a right to grant such a permission. If the material is not copyrightable, then what Paramount says does not matter. We can go ahead without their permission.
This is Paramount we're talking about, they have a long history of taking legal action against unauthorized books and websites related to startrek. So even if they don't have copyright, as long as they claim that they do we should not have a klingon wikipedia, unless we are prepared to fight them in court.
Imran -- http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Your dependance on Paramount's position implies that they have a right to grant such a permission. If the material is not copyrightable, then what Paramount says does not matter. We can go ahead without their permission.
This is Paramount we're talking about, they have a long history of taking legal action against unauthorized books and websites related to startrek. So even if they don't have copyright, as long as they claim that they do we should not have a klingon wikipedia, unless we are prepared to fight them in court.
That's an alarmist position and copyright paranoia. It's also defeatist. You want to collapse immediately even if they are wrong. The first step that they would need to take is to issue a take-down order, and they haven't done that. After that, in the absence of proper registration on their part (and what that means for an entire language remains to be determined) their damages would be limited to a recovery of any profits we may have made through a copyright violation. ( O:-) )
Since you seem to be arguing on behalf of Paramount, what legal citations are you using to back your position.
This copyright issue is far more important than the status of the Klingon language, so please stop using it as an excuse for blocking Klingon.
Ec
On Jun 10, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Copyright doesn't need to be registered, for one thing.
A couple of questions for the people who know more about copyright history than I do, which might help clear this up. Can computer languages be put under copyright?
Is the issue that Klingon is a trademark of Paramount relevent? i.e., even if the language and syntax is not owned by Paramount, can we call an encyclopedia "Klingon" without their permission?
One thing I do think is important to reject is the notion of asking Paramount for permission/doing it with the knowledge that they won't complain. A Klingon Wikipedia would not simply be an online encyclopedia in Klingon - it would be a free encyclopedia in Klingon. We risk doing a lot of harm to the free software/copyleft movement if we take a misstep here. If we're not 100% certain that Klingon is not under copyright, I think we're better served to not play with fire here.
Note that this is not a comment on the value of a Klingon encyclopedia. It's a comment on the ambiguity of whether or not a Klingon encyclopedia can be a part of a copyleft/free encyclopedia project. And a reminder that, with the wolves at the door of copyleft in terms of things like SCO and Ken Brown's book on Linux, it's probably best to be cautious about things like this.
-Snowspinn er
That's an alarmist position and copyright paranoia. It's also defeatist. You want to collapse immediately even if they are wrong. The first step that they would need to take is to issue a take-down order, and they haven't done that. After that, in the absence of proper registration on their part (and what that means for an entire language remains to be determined) their damages would be limited to a recovery of any profits we may have made through a copyright violation. ( O:-) )
Since you seem to be arguing on behalf of Paramount, what legal citations are you using to back your position.
This copyright issue is far more important than the status of the Klingon language, so please stop using it as an excuse for blocking Klingon.
A few places where the intellectual property status of Klingon is being discussed:
http://www.hill-kleerup.org/blog/mtarchive/006214.html http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/002300.html http://www.languagehat.com/archives/001198.php http://www.sfwa.org/members/elgin/LanguageOwned.html http://www.pacificwarriors.com/catalog/sfa1.html
moink
On 06/09/04 03:56, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
I think there's one simple way to end this arguement, Paramount owns the copyright to the Klingon language, the words, the grammar, everything. Let me repeat, (it is claimed) Paramount owns the copyright to individual klingon words. i.e. we can't legally have a klingon wikipedia.
The situation may not be as simple as that. It opens up the question of whether a language can be copyrighted at all. I suspect that it may be patentable in the same way that certain accounting and business processes have been patented. But that's a whole new kettle of fish. Have there been any court decisions anywhere about whether copyrights in a langiuage can exist.
Furthermore, if someone did try to claim the use, down to individual words, of a language as Intellectual Property, I'd get behind a project to create a Wikipedia in the language *because* of such a dangerously ridiculous and overbroadened concept of ownership.
- d.
Imran Ghory wrote:
Paramount owns the copyright to the Klingon language, the words, the grammar, everything.
Think about what you just said. How do you think it could possibly be the case that individual words are copyrighted? That's impossible. According to that logic I could write "Hompahee" here, and it would be subject to my copyright and I could sue anyone who writes it anywhere. Do you seriously think that is possible?
Also, as I have mentioned numerous times, the grammar of the language is not a document, so it cannot be copyrighted. A particular document *describing* the grammar can be copyrighted, but I can always describe the same grammar in a different way. And even if I couldn't, there still isn't anything stopping me from putting words together in a way that just happens to adhere to that grammar.
What you thought was "one simple way to end this arguement", is actually an urban myth that spreads vehemently across Klingon non-enthusiasts and skepticists, but never gets any truer.
Timwi
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Timwi wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
Paramount owns the copyright to the Klingon language, the words, the grammar, everything.
Think about what you just said. How do you think it could possibly be the case that individual words are copyrighted? That's impossible. According to that logic I could write "Hompahee" here, and it would be subject to my copyright and I could sue anyone who writes it anywhere.
Firstly they'd have to copy you. Copyright is unlike patent law,independant creation doesn't violate copyright.
Secondly, we're not talking about one invented wors here we're talking about 100s of words.
an urban myth that spreads vehemently across Klingon non-enthusiasts and skepticists, but never gets any truer.
From the klingon language mailing list FAQ as linked to by the Klingon
Language Institute,
***** 2.12 Can someone give me a list of all the Klingon words?
This is an understandable question, considering the (increasingly) large number of canon sources for Klingon. But the problem is, the Klingon language belongs to Paramount; it's copyrighted. If someone started distributing lists of Klingon words (or descriptions of grammar, etc.), then Paramount might view this as competition for the legitimate sale of their own products, which would be A Bad Thing.
...
What about all those other sources for canon beyond TKD ? The KLI keeps a list of words post- TKD . Isn't this in violation of Paramount's copyrights? Well, the KLI has a license from Paramount, as an Authorized User of Klingon. But don't ask them for a complete list. *****
However as I said before, if you or someone else can get Paramount to clarify the legal permission of the lanugage, then we'd be in a position to progress.
Imran -- http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
However as I said before, if you or someone else can get Paramount to clarify the legal permission of the lanugage, then we'd be in a position to progress.
It should be pretty obvious that Paramount is not going "clarify" anything, but rather exaggerate or skew everything to their favour (lying isn't illegal).
Timwi
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Timwi wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
However as I said before, if you or someone else can get Paramount to clarify the legal permission of the lanugage, then we'd be in a position to progress.
It should be pretty obvious that Paramount is not going "clarify" anything, but rather exaggerate or skew everything to their favour (lying isn't illegal).
It is if you get them to use a DMCA style statement which requires they act in "good faith" in claiming copyright.
Anyway, there's one way to know for sure and that is to ask them. Would someone in the US please write to them so we can find out what the actually say rather than just speculating.
Imran
On 06/10/04 20:32, Imran Ghory wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Timwi wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
However as I said before, if you or someone else can get Paramount to clarify the legal permission of the lanugage, then we'd be in a position to progress.
It should be pretty obvious that Paramount is not going "clarify" anything, but rather exaggerate or skew everything to their favour (lying isn't illegal).
It is if you get them to use a DMCA style statement which requires they act in "good faith" in claiming copyright. Anyway, there's one way to know for sure and that is to ask them. Would someone in the US please write to them so we can find out what the actually say rather than just speculating.
Has anyone asked Richard Stallman what he thinks of the idea of copyrighting a *language*, down to the *words*? I think we'd see a somewhat more vigorous Klingon wikipedia. Filled with political speech.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Has anyone asked Richard Stallman what he thinks of the idea of copyrighting a *language*, down to the *words*? I think we'd see a somewhat more vigorous Klingon wikipedia. Filled with political speech.
...all of which would be invariant. RMS/FSF don't believe documentation should be as free as software, which is why there's so much cruft in the GFDL.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org