No, but you may try to do that if you have a very high opinion of yourself and your importance.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Can you show me where the Copyright Act makes a distinction between systems that arise naturally and those that arise unnaturally? Between constructed and organic? Between systems that society has a vested interest in from inception and those it doesn't?
If not, then I don't see how we could consider these different animals.
Computer programming languages never went for copyright, to my knowledge, until 2013, when Oracle decided to make copyright claims in the Oracle v. Google suit. But even there, when Oracle won a (fairly alarming) victory with respect to word-for-word literal copies of its APIs, the Federal Circuit strongly indicated that Java itself, as a language, was non-copyrightable. As the Solicitor General put it in his brief to the Supreme Court while considering cert:
Replace that book on how to build a bicycle with CBS/Paramount's Klingon Dictionary, and, boom, you've dispensed the instant case in one sentence.
Many, many of the claims against Axanar strike me as legally valid -- straightforward, even. This claim, however, seems just as straightforwardly invalid -- the Language Society makes a compelling case in its brief. The arguments for the claim in this thread, which uniformly bring in points that are irrelevant as a matter of law, reinforce that feeling of mine. The Klingon Dictionary can be copyrighted; the Klingon language, as conveyed by that dictionary, cannot be. This is a sideshow to the main Axanar case and, worse, it's a sideshow where CBS/P is bound to lose.
California's two-party consent law doesn't really apply here because Peters knew he was being interviewed by a journalist; he knew a camera and microphone were activated and trained on him — it was his own dang camera, for goodness sake.
The California law only requires both parties' consent when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is always legal to record a face-to-face interview when the recorder or camera is in plain view. The consent of all parties is presumed in these instances.
It isn't reasonable to expect privacy when talking to a reporter. And the issue of speaking off the record isn't a legal one to which this law applies; it's an ethical one. In journalism ethics, an agreement to go off the record is one that must be agreed to in advance by both parties. It cannot happen unilaterally.
Moreover, Peters was in complete control over the means by which he was being recorded. He could easily have muted his mic or simply cut off the Skype call.
Matt Miller of TrekZone was under no legal obligation to inform Peters the recording was continuing, both because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy when being interviewed by a journalist and because Skype indicates to both parties their call is continuing in both audio and video mode. And Peters' computer camera light would've shown the same.
Finally, there's a huge jurisdictional question here since Matt Miller was recording the Skype call in Australia, where the California law wouldn't apply to him. And U.S. federal law only requires single-party consent.
Want to know more about how consent laws apply to journalists? Read this guide, "Can We Tape? — A journalist’s guide to taping phone calls and in-person conversations in the 50 states and D.C.," published by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Last edited:
Y'all make a compelling argument that an invented language cannot be copyright, but I will submit that it could be patented (if applied for BEFORE public release), and in any event trademarks can be applied to short phrases ("Just Do It", for example) as well as a single individual invented word, for example the word "Klingon" itself.
I think you said that wrong. I believe consent is required where there IS an expectation of privacy, but no consent required when there isn't any such expectation. Correct me if I'm wrong: If you are having lunch in a public restaurant with tons of other people around who could overhear us, you can record our conversation; but if we're riding in the privacy of your car, you can't record it without my permission. Yes???
Thanks for catching my error in phrasing. I've corrected my original post.
In Australia, members of the 'traditional' press actually can cop penalties for publishing 'off the record' comments. It's not so much a rule unto itself, as implied via reading down some other guidelines.
But there's no such oversight for the blogosphere, it acts more as a protection against shit like 'undercover' secret recordings, and the APC is about as effective in its enforcement as tits on a man. The major reason most publications will agree is because they're less likely to drive the guest permanently away.
When they know a interviewee is probably only going to be valuable for about a week? Well...
http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...d-ive-lied-about/story-e6frfmyi-1226072608095
So even here (comparatively strict compared to the US and the U.K.), Alec hasn't got much of a leg to stand on.
But there's no such oversight for the blogosphere, it acts more as a protection against shit like 'undercover' secret recordings, and the APC is about as effective in its enforcement as tits on a man. The major reason most publications will agree is because they're less likely to drive the guest permanently away.
When they know a interviewee is probably only going to be valuable for about a week? Well...
http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...d-ive-lied-about/story-e6frfmyi-1226072608095
So even here (comparatively strict compared to the US and the U.K.), Alec hasn't got much of a leg to stand on.
Thank you. I made many of these same points in another the CBS v. Axanar Facebook group and was somewhat ignored, so I didn't even have the energy to do so here.
All of the arguments I have seen here and elsewhere based on the fact that the language was "created" do not change the fact that the the language itself is a "system" excluded from copyright under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act. It is merely a system for translating words from one language to the other, and it does not make a whit of difference that one of the languages is "made up". In fact, like it or not, that is exactly the "system" the Klingon Dictionary was published to explain and the purpose - however lighthearted - of the book: to show readers how to convert English words into defined Klingon words, and vice versa. It's a code key explaining how the code system works. I or anyone else can apply this system - without making a copy of any portion of the book - and convert works from English to Klingon and vice versa.
As GeneLiffs pointed out - this doesn't mean that the book in which the language was explicated (Klingon Dictionary) is not a copyrightable work of authorship - it is - but that copyright does not extend to the system explained in the book. This is exactly what Section 102(b) states - "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." This is no different than a book of recipes, even if I created each recipe myself - my copyright covers the book itself, but it does not give me the right to stop anyone from using the recipes within the book to make food. (Recipes are a "procedure, process, system" and are not protected by copyright.) Same for the rulebook for a game I created - I can keep someone from making copies of that book - but I cannot stop someone from playing the game using those rules - so long as they don't make a copy of my rule book or use other aspects of my game that are legitimately covered by copyright (such as protectable graphic elements of the gameboard, etc.).
Nor does it matter that the individual Klingon words were created by someone or the (somewhat nonsensical) argument I have heard a few times that "only C/P creates new words that go into the language". Again, it is black-letter law that individual words and short phrases are not copyrightable - in any language, and whether or not the word is newly created. So the individual Klingon words, however creative they are, are not independently protected by copyright, and copyright does not attach to each new Klingon word when it is created and added to the language.
But the biggest point which I have made - and GeneLiffs zeroed in - on is "who cares"? No matter which way this Klingon language issue goes, it is not going to make the slightest difference in the Axanar case. Loeb and Loeb were citing it merely as an example of one of the many attributes of Axanar that show that Axanar had access to the Star Trek works and created a resulting work that was substantially similar. "They have an actor who looks like our Klingon design and shares the characteristic attributes of the Klingon race we created who flies a ship that looks like our Klingon ship design and makes war against ships that copy our Federation ship designs and who also speaks the Klingon language." This was all meant to build a complete picture showing that there are a multitude of similarities between Axanar and Star Trek that do not result from mere coincidence or independent creation. Even if you drop the Klingon language part of my sentence - or, hell, the whole audio - from the case, C/P can still prove the overwhelming similarities in the case from a single well-chosen screenshot. So I really don't see any point in getting all up in arms about the Klingon language issue in this one case, because it is not going to have the slightest effect on the ultimate outcome of this particular case.
M
Last edited:
Somehow, it's hard for me to imagine Peters abiding by a non-disparagement clause for very long.
Reasonable.
Thank you; what I have been saying has been misleading, and I apologize for the error.
As a language, it is indeed a system (and not copyrightable), regardless of how it was originally constructed. The point I've been rather poorly making is, the use of Klingon, a system solely associated with Trek (aside from a few laughs in Welsh, a Swedish wedding, and the like), is yet another aspect of the copying. It shows a pattern of deliberate copying and an intent to make a competing product.
I realize folks may feel it's a distinction without a real difference. I'm going for the aggregate - e. g. you have an actor wearing a movie-worn costume (in part), with matching makeup, with a near-identical naming convention, who speaks a language which is a system inextricably intertwined with the IP in question. This is more of the pattern of copying, just as wearing the gold command shirt with a cowl neck and insignia is, even though the cowl neck collar and the gold color and the shirt itself are all aspects of useful articles which are also not subject to copyright.
Whew. This is why I no longer practice.
Podcast coming up in about 45 - 50 minutes or so.
http://www.gandtshow.com/streaming/
Thank you, as always, for your kind support.
Could we have a link to both parts please, I couldn't find Part 1!
Last edited:
You mean the Trekzone interviews?
Part 1 - Interview with Alec
Part 2 - Interview with Mike Bawden and @carlosp
This is a federal court, so no pictures or sound from the prceedings.
Thank you
I couldn't for the life of me find the first part, computer was acting up, and I didn't want to watch Part 2 first. My Google-fu was weak!
The production
Ah. Then that move could trump my hypothesis that it is the investors being brought in being the stronger motivator for getting the accounting books in order.
Last edited:
That well could be. On the other hand, I own a trivial web site that was never nearly so popular and hasn't been updated in three years, and I still get more than a thousand uniques per month just from a trickle of search engine traffic. Kinda hard to say without actual numbers; it's all speculation. I will point out though that only a teeny tiny fraction of their actual viewers are likely to have been willing to donate. Most people wouldn't bother.
Like I said, all speculation.
Yeah, I never should have brought that up.
I was leaving open the possibility, mostly out of thoughts of the downloadable version (wasn't that a perk for donors or something?). They do host Prelude on YouTube as far as I know.
Well, here is something that the "Fringe Lord cannot take away from me, and something I hope gives you all a laugh!
I was reading the legal brief and commentary regarding the Klingon Language ownership lawsuit (at the Hollywood Reporter website). As part of the argument against, there was a quote opining that language is for communication, and there are no Klingons to communicate with; furthermore the Klingon Language is a "made-up" language, and so on...
As Kahless is my witness, I got my dander up and was indignantly arguing with the screen and the text that, indeed, there were Klingons, and hadn't these legal people watched any of the shows? And, of course the Klingon language is real, stupidheads, otherwise how would the Klingons communicate in their own tongue! God, it is 2016, 50 years of Star Trek and they are saying this!?
And then I finally realized, to myself, what I was saying and thinking.
That, my friends, is how Deeply Star Trek goes inside of me!
And how badly I need some new neurons, or something!
Someone was talking about nut bars, in another Thread.
I guess we are all capable of being nutty, every once in a while.
I was reading the legal brief and commentary regarding the Klingon Language ownership lawsuit (at the Hollywood Reporter website). As part of the argument against, there was a quote opining that language is for communication, and there are no Klingons to communicate with; furthermore the Klingon Language is a "made-up" language, and so on...
As Kahless is my witness, I got my dander up and was indignantly arguing with the screen and the text that, indeed, there were Klingons, and hadn't these legal people watched any of the shows? And, of course the Klingon language is real, stupidheads, otherwise how would the Klingons communicate in their own tongue! God, it is 2016, 50 years of Star Trek and they are saying this!?
And then I finally realized, to myself, what I was saying and thinking.
That, my friends, is how Deeply Star Trek goes inside of me!
And how badly I need some new neurons, or something!
Someone was talking about nut bars, in another Thread.I guess we are all capable of being nutty, every once in a while.
- Status