>"This argument is absurd since a language is only useful if it can be used to communicate with people, and there are no Klingons with whom to communicate," stated a plaintiffs' brief authored by David Grossman at Loeb & Loeb. "The Klingon language is wholly fictitious, original and copyrightable, and Defendants' incorporation of that language in their works will be part of the Court's eventual substantial similarity analysis. Defendants' use of the Klingon language in their works is simply further evidence of their infringement of Plaintiffs' characters, since speaking this fictitious language is an aspect of their characters."

>Before U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner gets a chance to rule on a motion to dismiss, he's now being asked permission to review a friend-of-the-court brief from the Language Creation Society.

>The brief, authored by Marc Randazza, begins with background that the Klingon language was invented in 1984 by Marc Okrand for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

>"Before that, when actors played Klingons in Star Trek television programs or movies, they simply uttered guttural sounds or spoke in English (Federation Standard)," writes Randazza. "Given that Paramount Pictures commissioned the creation of some of the language, it is understandable that Paramount might feel some sense of ownership over the creation. But, feeling ownership and having ownership are not the same thing. The language has taken on a life of its own. Thousands of people began studying it, building upon it, and using it to communicate among themselves."

>Now, with 250,000 copies of a Klingon dictionary said to have been sold, Klingon language certification programs being offered, the Microsoft search engine Bing presenting English-to-Klingon translations, one Swedish couple performing their marriage vows in Klingon, foreign governments providing official statements in Klingon and so on, the Language Creation Society is holding up Klingon as having freed the "bounds of its textual chains."

>Ultimately, the amicus brief comes back to the theory that Klingon is not copyrightable.

>"What is a language other than a procedure, process, or system for communication?" asks the society. "What is a language's vocabulary but a collection of words? The vocabulary and grammar rules of a language provide instructions for a speaker to articulate thoughts and ideas. One cannot disregard grammatical rules and still be intelligible, and creating one's own vocabulary only worked well for the Bard. Vocabulary and grammar are no more protectable than the bookkeeping system in Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 101 (1879)."

>According to the amicus brief — which also nods to the framers of the U.S. Constitution and to Sesame Street theme-song lyrics — no court has ever addressed the issue of whether a constructed spoken language is entitled to copyright protection. Whether or not the Star Trek fan-film case provides that very opportunity is now up to he judge. He could sidestep the legal geekery by agreeing with Paramount that defendants and those interested are making too much of this, that use of Klingon is merely evidence of some larger infringement. Or he could give Klingon speakers everywhere "qapla"!

>>41470

Amusing, yet thought provoking article OP...I hope the language society wins...

If Paramount loses this, then any fictional language can now be freed from copyright.
Also, this could lead to them losing the copyright to the word Kingon since that is the name of the language.

This is going to be a hard call for the judge because this will set a precedent for years to come.

>>41470
Hollywood has no honour.

That's like the Pythagorians monopolizing the fucking golden spiral, what a waste of creative spirit.

Fuck it from now on I am speaking only Valarin and Tolkien's family can suck my dick

I wonder if this could apply to computer programming languages.

>>41541

Now you're thinking.

>>41470
I get that they created it and want ownership, but there are many people out there who may, to some degree or another, consider Klingon to be part of their culture. Can you really copyright a culture?

>>41541
So basically redefining language? This case is a lot more interesting than it leads.

>>41606
Anyone who considers Klingon part of their culture considers Star Trek part of their culture and that is definitely copyrighted.

>>41614
fucking neet nerd

>>41614
How far is too far? Would you say the klingon facial features are a Star Trek copyright as well? They are typically klingon too, even more than the language, because the language itself heard without context is less recognizable to be klingon than their visual appearance.

U.S. copyright law is just ridiculous.

>>41470
Paramount sold Star Trek. Everything involved with Star Trek, including the Klingon language that was invented for the sole purpose of adding to the Star Trek franchise under Paramount's ownership is now owned by CBS, including the Klingon language.

However, there is precedent for making things UN-copyright able by being so mainstream that CBS couldn't sue everybody for using it. Does Google sue everyone for saying "just google it"? No, because using that as a phrase is practically free advertising.

tl;dr Paramount wishes they still had Star Trek, and is twisting the law as far as they can to make more money off of something they SOLD because its become more successful since they sold it. Cry more Paramount.

Also fuck them both because Axanar wasn't bad. Let the fans make movies to give you more popularity.

>>41636

I believe American copyright is structured in such a way that you HAVE to C&D fan projects once you've been made aware of them or you lose exclusivity or some bullshit like that. Either that or companies are broadly interpreting it that way as an excuse to shut down everything.

>>41541
afaik, the programming languages themselves aren't copyrightable but specific implementations are

>>41488
>any fictional language can now be freed from copyright.

No, only those in active use, according to the amicus argument. Technical and personal projects and perhaps languages under active top-level development (like lojban) are still protected as creative works.

And then computer languages of course have their own copyright law, but I don't think that's particularly dissimilar -- it doesn't kick in until implementation in a program.

>>41646
So let's see, there's Kingon, the stuff from Lord of The Rings, and that alien language from Halo (I have a friend who is fluent in it for some reason).

What others could be argued for?

>>41649

Isn't the Halo language just English lines played backwards ("Wort wort wort" is "Go Go Go" played backwards)? Did they somehow expand it to be a real language or is it still just reverse-English?

>>41638
You're thinking of trademarks. Copyright isn't a "use-it-or-lose-it" proposition in the States.

They're mostly broadly interpreting copyright (and studiously ignoring parody and fair use as much as possible) to effect money grabs and shut down fanworks because they're afraid they might somehow dilute their "intellectual" properties.

Assholes.

>>41636
>Let the fans make movies to give you more popularity.
Relatively, Lucas was an angel wrt handling fan fiction and derivative star wars works.

>>41470
I thought Klingon wasn't even a complete language and that there were no truly fluent speakers

>>41708
Have you seen how many weirdo Trekkies there are in the world? They are worse than weeb cosplayers. There was that famous lady in the 90s who went to jury duty in a Star Trek TNG Of course some of them somewhere speak full Klingon. Teh article mentions people in Sweden who perform marriages in it.

>>41708

It's not as complete as a real language since it doesn't have the full vocabulary for everything, but all the structure/grammar is in place so it's sufficiently workable to be fluent with some substitutions for missing words (sort of like how Navajo code talkers used animal substitutes for military vehicles). They have fully translated copies of Hamlet and such (to go with the "Shakespeare in the original Klingon"joke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsCVuO1yeJc) to demonstrate how far they can stretch the available vocabulary.

>>41470
>When Paramount and CBS ended last year with a lawsuit over a crowdfunded Star Trek fan film titled Axanar


That's such a cunt move, why would they do this? Fan films have always been allowed to the point a lot of the big ones get actual trek castmembers to appear. As long as it was done not for profit can they even sue them?

>>41649
JAFFA KREE!

>>41791
Is goa'uld even a complete language?
Tbh the creators don't seem like they're that level of autistic

Lol, this is currently the most popular news in 4chan

>>41824
Not anymore

What are they even going to do if they get rights to Klingon?

>>41954
Probably just charge people money for using it, maybe even retroactively.

Jesus, Roddenberry must be rolling in his fucking grave.

>>41705
No it's not just trademarks. The courts have ruled in the past that IP owners have a duty to "vigorously" defend any intellectual property the have.

The current fucking mess of IP that we have is due to that incredibly stupid ruling that fucked over everyone for years to come because each company is afraid of losing their IPs to a bullshit call by a dumb judge.

>Hundreds of fat, neckbearded Trekkies cosplaying as Klingon warriors grabbed their bat-leths and descended on CBS Studio Headquarters in Burbank today in a protest move over recent copyright suits claiming ownership over Klingon language...

Can't wait.

>>42144
QAPLA'!!!

Oops, did I just violate copyright?

That's what you get for using a non free language
T.espetantist

Gene specifically stated that if anyone invented anything REAL from Trek, to let them have the patent.

I bet the Ferengi are to blame for this.

>>42144
This would be funny, would watch with some popcorn.

>>41472
>Klingon language was invented in 1984 by Marc Okrand for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.
Saying that Okrand invented the Klingon language is practically bending the truth to its breaking point. Trekkies are the ones that did for Klingon what Tolkien did for Elvish.
This doesn't necessarily have any legal weight to it but it is dishonest to state it like that.

>>41709
>They are worse than weeb cosplayers.
Not really. Heads of state and respectable scientists are trekkies. Losers who dont shower and live with their mommy & daddy watch little girl Chinese cartoons.

>>41470
Isn't it impossile to copyright languages because they're codes, rather than material?
That's how Tolkien handled it anyway.