What I wonder is whether a constructed human language, even if originating for custom purpose, can be appropriated by enough people to become a legitimate cultural artifact of humans. Esperanto was constructed for general use, and no one was trying to prevent that, so the origins are different. But if enough people take up Klingon at varying levels of proficiency for general use, would it cross into this domain? Practically it won't; short of an invasion I doubt you will ever see hundreds of thousands of casual Klingon reading proficiency users and many many thousands of translations, like you do with Esperanto. But they might have an argument wrt/ the core speakers group eventually that it is comparable in size to core proficiency users of a language like Esperanto. Just not yet.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
What I wonder is whether a constructed human language, even if originating for custom purpose, can be appropriated by enough people to become a legitimate cultural artifact of humans. Esperanto was constructed for general use, and no one was trying to prevent that, so the origins are different. But if enough people take up Klingon at varying levels of proficiency for general use, would it cross into this domain? Practically it won't; short of an invasion I doubt you will ever see hundreds of thousands of casual Klingon reading proficiency users and many many thousands of translations, like you do with Esperanto. But they might have an argument wrt/ the core speakers group eventually that it is comparable in size to core proficiency users of a language like Esperanto. Just not yet.
Thanks!
I think any Klingon would be insulted if you called theirs a "human language."
Well, okay, that's not gonna happen. After bunches of searches in variations of 'win loss attorney stats' the consistent search response is 'not gonna happen'. Oh sometimes lists would show up but then I'd read again there are too many ways to interpret Win vs Loss for an attorney's track record can not be measured this simplistically. That a list can be made of the unequivocal or the major big headline wins & losses, but those will only be the iceberg tip.
Vast majority of the search results repeat the same thing:
-If they can count 'em they haven't had very many cases
-(variations on %; 'most', 75%, 95%, almost all) cases are settled; the parties getting together, mediation, arbitration.
--a settlement actually does have multiple ways to determine win/loss, from each side's viewpoints.
-so there's difficulty in even defining win-loss in settled cases
-But the biggest obstacle in settled cases for the public's viewing is that the majority of them are settled with confidentiality agreements. Nothing can be disclosed. These cases go unreported.
Which prevents plans of anyone to compile a lawyer's win/loss records for the public.
So I'm out of luck looking for win/loss stats.
And the Loeb & Loeb website mirrors a dozen other search results that I found saying the intellectual property landscape is constantly being reconfigured. (click Read More to get to the part that says this)
Last edited:
The copyrightability of the Klingon language is not determined by where it originated, nor what it "conjures up" in people's minds, nor in any individual's opinion on who has a moral right to control it, nor whether it has "crossed over" to become a "cultural artifact," nor by whether somebody paid to develop it, nor by any other extra-legal standard. The copyrightability of the Klingon language is determined solely by the text of the Copyright Act, which states, in relevant part:
If the Klingon language is an "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery," rather than an "original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression," then it cannot be copyrighted. If it is both, it also cannot be copyrighted. It can only be copyrighted if it is solely an "original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression."
CBS/Paramount, of course, will argue that that is exactly what it is. The amicus, on the other hand, insists that the language is an "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery," Who has the better of the argument, I leave to your collective judgment. But let's at least be clear on the standard by which the judgment will be made.
Last edited:
Well, in that case, CBS/Paramount should be running full-speed to the patent office and get it registered. If Wizards Of The Coast can patent a game, that being Magic The Gathering, as being "a process, procedure or system", then so too can CBS/Paramount do the same for a made-up language. And being found guilty of patent infringement is far worse that being found guilty of copyright infringement when it comes to penalties.
and how fitting: http://www.gocomics.com/break-of-day/2016/04/26
They would be investors. They are putting in money, with the hopes of getting a return. The investors may be indirect to Axanar, but they would still be investors.
Patent law is not governed by the Copyright Act. I don't know much about it, but I believe it's governed chiefly by the Patent Act of 1952 and the America Invents Act of 2011. This seems to be the controlling text:
I really have no idea whether the Klingon language would be patentable under current law and case law, but there's a start.
Either way, though, it's irrelevant to the Axanar case; even if CBS/Paramount secured a patent on tlhingan hol tomorrow, patents don't work retroactively the way registered copyrights can. Axanar could not be found guilty of infringing a patent that wasn't registered at the time of infringement. I trust all parties to the case would agree with me on that.
Last edited:
There is some wiggle room, at least what IP attorney Suzi Marteny told me when we did the Peters interview back in February. It would depend on the situation, and it would be rather rare. Although if they do get in front of a jury, there's no telling how they would decide.
However, even if the jury did so something silly, it would likely be overturned in appeals.
I don't know if Bawden said it directly, but I believe this is in anticipation of them applying for 501(c) status. They would have to have a complete independent audit of their books in order for that to happen.
I actually knew about this rule: "unless ... the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention". I should have remember that before I wrote my posting.
I met someone who invented two separate items, and only after selling the second one to his client did he think about getting patents on both. Because he sold them before starting the paperwork, the inventions became public domain. The best he can do is prevent someone else from applying for a patent on these items.
I met someone who invented two separate items, and only after selling the second one to his client did he think about getting patents on both. Because he sold them before starting the paperwork, the inventions became public domain. The best he can do is prevent someone else from applying for a patent on these items.
The concept of waiver presupposes an existing contractual relationship between two parties. None exists here. Or at least the defense would have a steep hill to climb in successfully claiming that one does. In fact, that's why CBS was so insistent in their Aug. 2015 meeting with Alec Peters that they weren't going to give him guidelines. They wanted nothing that could be construed as a legal agreement with Axanar or any fan film.
When they told him that giving him guidelines would put their IP at risk, this is where that was coming from. Ceding copyrights to someone else requires an overt act; it simply can't happen accidentally. CBS is wisely steering clear of any situation where they appear to be committing an overt act.
A related issue I find amusing among the AxaFolk is that Winston & Strawn's calling into question the validity of CBS' and/or Paramount's claim on Star Trek's copyright, even if successful, wouldn't result in those rights falling into the public domain. They would merely revert to whoever has the proper documentation to make a prior or competing claim to ownership; until the copyright expires, the public (amorphous lot that it is) has no standing for making such a claim.
So, best case scenario for Axanar, your attorneys successfully disqualify CBS and/or Paramount's copyright claims. That means years of legal wrangling among the parties who might have a valid claim to owning Star Trek, all of whom are likely to have an interest in enjoining a fan film that seeks direct financial benefit from its unauthorized use of the property, which is more years in which Axanar can't be produced while the copyright is under a cloud.
Sure, what you're saying is entirely logical. They'll need the accounting for the 50l(C) to be completed. Though when Mr. Bawden & Carlos talked about it they were both agreeing that neither of them saw the need for it. But that's neither here nor there so absolutely if they are actually in process of moving on this quite long process then hiring an accountant would surely need to be done for that too. Though I do admit to having a lingering question as to when, but more to if, this long process has in fact begun, directly arising from your asking Mr. Bawden when the first form was filed, and him asking them, and seemingly getting no answer.
As well as if they're going to plead transparency in their accounting, because as it stands now it is a big concern and sorely falling short. Raising more questioning than giving a sense of trust. Definitely needing an accountant.
That the for-profit entity is being brought in, for which there will be signing of legal papers, reimbursing of several hundred thousand dollars on studio build-up expenditures which will necessitate verifiable accounting records, then assuming rent, taking over management of the studio, to start, as Mr. Peters indicates, renting it out quickly as possible is where I'm hypothesizing this variable, this factor, this 'deal', to actually be the stronger motivator for having already hired the accountant to get the accounts in order to move on it quickly.
Last edited:
One thing I still don't understand is why file for 501c(3) status at all?? The only reason I can come up with would be for some tax advantage possibly - if so, that seems like a lot of work for not a lot of reward. Might it be a way for LFIM to shelter assets though??
I wish I had realized you were looking for this; I would have saved you some work.
The problem with this sort of data is, it's not a binary relationship. A case settled for $20,000 would be seen as a draw or a loss or not factor into the statistics, whereas a trial won for $10,000 would count, even though the impact on a plaintiff would be half that than for the settlement, and that's just in terms of the final payout. It doesn't account for legal fees, which are nearly always higher for trials, as those require more work, more experienced attorneys at the helm, more appearances, etc.
Plus the number of trials just plain isn't as great as the number of settlements - and yet another factor is that a loss at a trial might be taken if it's too expensive to appeal or a party just wants to get on with their lives. It would count as a loss in such a scenario, even though it would be in the best interests of the client (an ethical requirement which lawyers have to follow).
Oh - and I wish someone would tell anyone who thinks the Klingon Language Institute is suing anyone herein that an amicus filing is not a complaint, cross-complaint, or third party complaint, and instead is a filing by an interested third party who could be affected by any outcome herein.
Another legal ruling from Madam Chief Justice Jespah
In the interview, Mike Bawden asks the same question: why, and is it worth it?
I can't say it's as nefarious as a ploy to shelter assets, though Alec Peters' utter lack of transparency regarding his own membership in the secret investors' group does little to counter that kind of speculation.
At the very least it appears to be an attempt to distract people from Axanar's commercialization of its use of Star Trek IP. Browse Twitter for a while: a legion of True Believers insist Axanar is already a nonprofit.
- Status