I knew about Hot Rod / Rodimus, but I never new that about Autobot Hound. Autobot Ratchet ect. Thanks!
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I knew about Hot Rod / Rodimus, but I never new that about Autobot Hound. Autobot Ratchet ect. Thanks!
I wouldn't have any fly on the wall access to what a toy company might be thinking in their attorney aerie[hey, there's a toy for grown-ups]...
With Kung Fu (TM) brief-grip!
Yes - copyright is more of a question of aggregates. Much as a song can be an IP but A flat and B sharp are not, such should be the situation with a language. Guttural-sounding words aren't unique to Klingon; just listen to my father speak Yiddish some time.
Klingon has no native construction; new words have had to have been blessed by its owner and the person hired to create the language. But we don't create a term like cell phone in Klingon through native construction bubbling up from the general public. If the term is created, it is made by Marc Okrand or is allowed by him or people like him. It's not something some kid in Dubuque coins and then is picked up and eventually becomes a real term.
PS Hi @Ryan F and welcome!
this raises a thought... if you publish a dictionary and language guides, are you putting the property in the public domain? or merely publishing an engineers guide to the Enterprise full of meaningless tektek?
For me? I would classify it as the latter. It is just a peek into a fictional universe.
So court cases happen where just a short phrase from one song is claimed to be copied in another. Would this be analogous to Klingon MacBeth using multisylabled words from the copyrighted Klingon dictionary? After all, such a word is a construct of tones carrying a particular preexisting association (created by the prior author) in the listener's mind... and the order of the phrase wrt/ the whole original work doesn't matter, or even the broader context embedding in the previous work, if the fragment is identifiable and recognizable from the previous work...
Last edited:
Ohhh! That's brilliant, muCephi! And very very clever, JWPlatt!I think it was this:
dont credit me, the original comment was by another member. I just found something that illustrated their humorous thought..
^^^ Right. Okay, correction (lolling): That's brilliant, member with the original comment! And displaying the pic that illustrates it, muCephi! And very very clever, JWPlatt!
Oh, that's cool. But still no, my avatar is of a completely different origin. It actually means "No Manufactured Divisions." Long story. That would indeed have been clever. Sadly, I'm not.I think it was this:
But on this site, you may interpret it as my preference for the Prime universe. Thanks!
I'm sure I missed something in there, but it seems like you have confused copyright and trademark. It's a common mistake, and "patent" gets thrown in there too.
As I understand it, and I'm not "trained as an attorney," copyright covers the end product of an original work. It may be comprised of bits and pieces of other works, within limits, but it is the end product that is protected. "Work for hire" includes original works by employees or contracted artists. Words, titles, character names, etc. do not fall under copyright.
Individual pieces of a work can be trademarked. For example, "Star Trek" is a trademark. The words "star" and "trek" are in the common vernacular, but put together they mean something, and as such can be protected.
By law, trademarks must be aggressively protected. Copyright, on the other hand, can be addressed as "pick and choose" by the copyright owner.
It doesn't matter whether the Klingon language has been developed and used beyond any original works owned by CBS and Paramount. It was created as a "work for hire" and thus falls under copyright law.
All of this is my understanding of the law, and again, I have not been "trained as an attorney."
If I'm wrong on any or all points, please excuse my ignorance. Mea Culpa ®.
Extending my previous post, the Klingon language dictionary and other works by Marc Okrand were published by Pocket Books, a subsidiary of Simon and Schuster, a subsidiary of CBS. In simple terms, CBS owns the Klingon language. Any published derivative works would also fall under that copyright.
Fan-made derivatives might be presented as original works, but it's doubtful that ownership of the copyright would fall into question.
Again, I'm not in the same league as LFIM Alec Peters. I'm not "trained as an attorney."
Fan-made derivatives might be presented as original works, but it's doubtful that ownership of the copyright would fall into question.
Again, I'm not in the same league as LFIM Alec Peters. I'm not "trained as an attorney."
Extending my previous post, the Klingon language dictionary and other works by Marc Okrand were published by Pocket Books, a subsidiary of Simon and Schuster, a subsidiary of CBS. In simple terms, CBS owns the Klingon language. Any published derivative works would also fall under that copyright.
Fan-made derivatives might be presented as original works, but it's doubtful that ownership of the copyright would fall into question.
Again, I'm not in the same league as LFIM Alec Peters. I'm not "trained as an attorney."
1. be thankful (said without even knowing what LFIM means
)2. I think the ambiguity around copyright and language is that
on the one hand, a "language" is a system of elements out of which many works can be derived, and copyrighted written/verbal work is a specific use of those components. in this interpretation, a language, even if created, cannot be copyrighted because it is a 'system'.
otoh (if there is another hand) a constructed language such as Klingon, as Jespah pointed out, does not arise naturally, but is a work by a person or persons in a small group. further, in my view, the selection of phonemes for the words, and the meanings attached to the words and to phrases, arises from an artistic act by that group. And the constructed language has no vested interests by society at its start, other than those of the creators.
so is the law looking at two different animals here? I think so.
FWIW, my understanding is that systems are usually patented, but IT languages still, I think, go for copyright, probably for trade secret purposes. And without having read their debates much, I think they are maintaining that languages like Java are constructed languages in essence.
Last edited:
1. be thankful (said without even knowing what LFIM means
2. I think the ambiguity around copyright and language is that
on the one hand, a "language" is a system of elements out of which many works can be derived, and copyrighted work is a specific use of the components of a language. in this interpretation, a language, even if created, cannot be copyrighted because it is a 'system'.
otoh (if there is another hand) a constructed language such as Klingon, as Jespah pointed out, does not arise naturally, but is a work by a person or persons of a small group. the selection of phonemes for the words and the meanings attached to the words, and to phrases, arises at least in part from a paid for artistic act.
so is the law looking at two different animals here? I think so.
LFIM = Lord Foot-In-Mouth
Can it not be argued that since the Klingon language was constructed for a defined purpose, as a "work for hire," it can be protected under copyright law? Or is that what you said in the "otoh"?
Sorry, I can be a bit dense when reading long posts.
My point is that the language was created "for hire" for a specific purpose, and as such is part of the whole that is "Star Trek."
If I'm wrong, we'll find out. and I'll apologize. But I hope not.
My impression is that the amicus curiae Klingon filing is saying that because it is a language it is by its nature not copyrightable, trumping WFH origins.
[there's a bit of language that might evolve soon]
Its my speculation that the wfh may win because Klingon is created for an ultimately unprotected defined purpose, as you say -- for storytelling in an IP-protected body of work. It wasn't created like Esperanto to facilitate communication. And its inner cultural values, its "hundred ways to say snow" around honor and conflict, arise from IP-protected and paid for works, rather than from an externally existing culture.
But it could be a real kettlecart popcorn burner if C/P let it get into the heart of the case.
"Klingon bastards ... " - Admiral James T. Kirk
We just have to hope that the judge won't be sidetracked by all this extraneous bullshit.
Personally, I have faith.
We just have to hope that the judge won't be sidetracked by all this extraneous bullshit.
Personally, I have faith.
"Klingon bastards ... " - Admiral James T. Kirk
We just have to hope that the judge won't be sidetracked by all this extraneous bullshit.
Personally, I have faith.
yes, and i think C/P would find a way to have the case be about some limited scope of copyright claims on Klingon that ducks the language issue, without giving up rights to a broader claim some other time.
as for the judge, there's enough in the AC Klingon filing that plays to the fans that he may find it hard to take it very seriously.
In simpler language:
Copyrights protect intellectual property: i.e. the particular and peculiar expressions of an idea or ideas. The degree of similarity of another work to the copyrighted work determines if it is in violation.
If a person creates something in a work-for-hire situation they as the creator cannot copyright the resulting work, but the employer may.
Trademarks protect brands. They are intended to "brand" products and businesses so that consumers know they are buying the genuine item from its originator and not a copycat.
Copyrights protect intellectual property: i.e. the particular and peculiar expressions of an idea or ideas. The degree of similarity of another work to the copyrighted work determines if it is in violation.
If a person creates something in a work-for-hire situation they as the creator cannot copyright the resulting work, but the employer may.
Trademarks protect brands. They are intended to "brand" products and businesses so that consumers know they are buying the genuine item from its originator and not a copycat.
May 9th cannot get here soon enough.
For the lawyers: will there be a transcript of the hearing for public consumption? Or is this totally closed doors?
For the lawyers: will there be a transcript of the hearing for public consumption? Or is this totally closed doors?
I forgot. It is an OJ like case.
- Status