<blockquote>
  <p>If I'm about to create a new conlang, should I consider any existing patents?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. It is conceivable that conlangs might be patentable under US law, but none so far have been.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>entirely copying someone else's writing system would certainly constitute a copyright infringement;</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Probably not. Again, it might infringe a patent, but there are very few patents on writing systems. Copying a specific <em>font</em> or typeface would constitute copyright infringement, but not copying the writing system in abstract.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Where should I start here?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I'd start by reviewing <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqNis7y0hA8" rel="noreferrer">Sai's talk at LCC 6 on the legal status of conlangs</a>, and the accompanying <a href="http://conlang.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/LCC6_Sai.pdf" rel="noreferrer">slides</a> and <a href="http://conlang.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/Dentons-Conlang-Memo-public-version.pdf" rel="noreferrer">legal memo</a>.</p>

<p>You might also review <a href="https://conlang.org/axanar/" rel="noreferrer">the Language Creation Society's involvement in the Axanar case</a> regarding whether or not Paramount "owns" Klingon.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-06T23:35:10.480Z
Re fonts, one thing people usually don't realize is that it's not the visual design of the characters that's protected, but rather the _code_ that implements a particular instantiation thereof. Which is why it's legal (albeit ethically questionable) to make a ripoff font by tracing over letters and re-doing the kerning instructions etc.
Sai
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-06T22:24:16.693Z
2018-02-06T22:24:16.693Z
Logan R. Kearsley
<p>Constructed languages, like everything, is an intellectual property, and most countries worldwide do care about protecting the rights of the owners.</p>

<p>If I'm about to create a new conlang, should I consider any existing patents?</p>

<p>My common sense suggests me that something is obvious here:</p>

<ul>
<li>entirely copying someone else's writing system would certainly constitute a copyright infringement;</li>
<li>lots of things are public domain, e.g. SVO/OVS clause order or the Latin alphabet;</li>
</ul>

<p>…but I'm totally lost about the case if <em>some</em> aspect(s) of existing works can be incidentally copied or deliberately borrowed.</p>

<p><strong>Where should I start here?</strong></p>

<legal>
What legal aspects should one consider when creating a constructed language?
# What legal aspects should one consider when creating a constructed language?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-06)

Constructed languages, like everything, is an intellectual property, and most countries worldwide do care about protecting the rights of the owners.

If I'm about to create a new conlang, should I consider any existing patents?

My common sense suggests me that something is obvious here:

* entirely copying someone else's writing system would certainly constitute a copyright infringement;
* lots of things are public domain, e.g. SVO/OVS clause order or the Latin alphabet;

…but I'm totally lost about the case if *some* aspect(s) of existing works can be incidentally copied or deliberately borrowed.

**Where should I start here?**

**Tags:** legal

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-02-06. Score: 12 | Accepted answer

> If I'm about to create a new conlang, should I consider any existing patents?

No. It is conceivable that conlangs might be patentable under US law, but none so far have been.

> entirely copying someone else's writing system would certainly constitute a copyright infringement;

Probably not. Again, it might infringe a patent, but there are very few patents on writing systems. Copying a specific *font* or typeface would constitute copyright infringement, but not copying the writing system in abstract.

> Where should I start here?

I'd start by reviewing [Sai's talk at LCC 6 on the legal status of conlangs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqNis7y0hA8), and the accompanying [slides](http://conlang.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/LCC6_Sai.pdf) and [legal memo](http://conlang.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/Dentons-Conlang-Memo-public-version.pdf).

You might also review [the Language Creation Society's involvement in the Axanar case](https://conlang.org/axanar/) regarding whether or not Paramount "owns" Klingon.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Re fonts, one thing people usually don't realize is that it's not the visual design of the characters that's protected, but rather the _code_ that implements a particular instantiation thereof. Which is why it's legal (albeit ethically questionable) to make a ripoff font by tracing over letters and re-doing the kerning instructions etc.  

---

