Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?

--00000000000034335d065300c489
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The Consortium should indeed act only on the advice of lawyers with
expertise in intellectual property law. I will, however, venture to make
what I believe is a useful clarification. Much of the information in
Unicode is not protected by IP law. That is, the information that the glyph
used to write such-and-such a sound in Tengwar has certain properties,
which Unicode characterizes in a certain way, is not protected. Unicode
could, I  believe, without fear of litigation assign codepoints to the
glyphs of Tengwar insofar as it could identify them. For instance, the
standard could assign a codepoint to "the character that represents the
voiceless dental stop in Tengwar" and it could probably also identify that
character as the one named "tinco". The form of the glyph, however, may be
protected by IP law, and insofar as the Unicode standard needs to depict
characters in order to identify them, it may not be possible to add things
like Tengwar to the standard without encountering IP problems.

By way of comparison, the letter "a" is not protected by IP law. Nobody's
permission was needed to include it in Unicode. However, how the form of
"a" is depicted could create a problem.  If the standard used a glyph from
a proprietary font still under copyright, that could lead to copyright
trouble. The fonts used in the standard are licensed by their owners for
that purpose. So, although abstract identifications are probably
unproblematic, depictions of the characters of proprietary writing systems
may very well be.



On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 6:22=E2=80=AFPM Tex via Unicode <[email protected]=
de.org>
wrote:

> It seems like this discussion comes up every few months.
> Isn't there a FAQ we can point to, to short circuit these threads?
>
> Perhaps there should also be a faq stating that those offering legal
> opinions should first of all be lawyers, and second of all provide an
> estimate of the legal costs if their approach is pursued.
> I say this not to dismiss anyone's opinion but to highlight there is no
> point in arguing points of law in this list.
> I doubt the consortium is going to take legal advice from this list or
> that something that has not already been considered will be revealed here
> and that legal costs are not inconsiderable and perhaps inestimable.
>
>
> Tex
> No AI was used authoring my text
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Unicode [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Doug
> Ewell via Unicode
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 4:48 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Vikki McDonough
> Subject: RE: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
>
> stasoid wrote:
>
> > Wow, this is a really sad situation. Tolkien Estate's greed already
> > stifles everything Tolkien-related with copyrights, but here, even on
> > solid legal ground, Unicode still doesn't want to deal with it because
> > of bad vibes. It is quite clear that writing systems cannot be
> > copyrighted, so Tolkien Estate's opinion shouldn't matter.
>
> I don=E2=80=99t think it has anything to do with =E2=80=9Cbad vibes.=E2=
=80=9D In order for an
> organization like Unicode to take on this legal fight, the grounds would
> have to be 100.0 percent rock-solid, tested through multiple similar cour=
t
> cases; and even then, the legal costs of pursuing the case could be
> overwhelming.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>
>
>

--00000000000034335d065300c489
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The Consortium should indeed act only on the advice o=
f lawyers with expertise in intellectual property law. I will, however, ven=
ture to make what I believe is a useful clarification. Much of the informat=
ion in Unicode is not protected by IP law. That is, the information that th=
e glyph used to write such-and-such a sound in Tengwar has certain properti=
es, which Unicode characterizes in a certain way, is not protected. Unicode=
 could, I=C2=A0 believe, without fear of litigation assign codepoints to th=
e glyphs of Tengwar insofar as it could identify them. For instance, the st=
andard could assign a codepoint to &quot;the character that represents the =
voiceless dental stop in Tengwar&quot; and it could probably also identify =
that character as the one named &quot;tinco&quot;. The form of the glyph, h=
owever, may be protected by IP law, and insofar as the Unicode standard nee=
ds to depict characters in order to identify them, it may not be possible t=
o add things like Tengwar to the standard without encountering IP problems.=
</div><div><br></div><div>By way of comparison, the letter &quot;a&quot; is=
 not protected by IP law. Nobody&#39;s permission was needed to include it =
in Unicode. However, how the form of &quot;a&quot; is depicted could create=
 a problem.=C2=A0 If the standard used a glyph from a proprietary font stil=
l under copyright, that could lead to copyright trouble. The fonts used in =
the standard are licensed by their owners for that purpose. So, although ab=
stract identifications are probably unproblematic, depictions of the charac=
ters of proprietary writing systems may very well be.</div><div>=C2=A0</div=
><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 6:22=E2=80=AF=
PM Tex via Unicode &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">unicode@=
corp.unicode.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);pa=
dding-left:1ex">It seems like this discussion comes up every few months.<br=
>
Isn&#39;t there a FAQ we can point to, to short circuit these threads?<br>
<br>
Perhaps there should also be a faq stating that those offering legal opinio=
ns should first of all be lawyers, and second of all provide an estimate of=
 the legal costs if their approach is pursued.<br>
I say this not to dismiss anyone&#39;s opinion but to highlight there is no=
 point in arguing points of law in this list.<br>
I doubt the consortium is going to take legal advice from this list or that=
 something that has not already been considered will be revealed here and t=
hat legal costs are not inconsiderable and perhaps inestimable.<br>
<br>
<br>
Tex<br>
No AI was used authoring my text<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Unicode [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" t=
arget=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>] On Behalf Of Doug Ew=
ell via Unicode<br>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2026 4:48 PM<br>
To: <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]=
m</a>; <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">unicod=
[email protected]</a>; Vikki McDonough<br>
Subject: RE: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?<br>
<br>
stasoid wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; Wow, this is a really sad situation. Tolkien Estate&#39;s greed alread=
y<br>
&gt; stifles everything Tolkien-related with copyrights, but here, even on<=
br>
&gt; solid legal ground, Unicode still doesn&#39;t want to deal with it bec=
ause<br>
&gt; of bad vibes. It is quite clear that writing systems cannot be<br>
&gt; copyrighted, so Tolkien Estate&#39;s opinion shouldn&#39;t matter.<br>
<br>
I don=E2=80=99t think it has anything to do with =E2=80=9Cbad vibes.=E2=80=
=9D In order for an organization like Unicode to take on this legal fight, =
the grounds would have to be 100.0 percent rock-solid, tested through multi=
ple similar court cases; and even then, the legal costs of pursuing the cas=
e could be overwhelming.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | <a href=3D"http://ewellic.org" rel=
=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">ewellic.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000034335d065300c489--