On 2016-11-08, Mark E. Shoulson <mark_at_kli.org> wrote:
> I've heard that there are similar questions regarding tengwar and cirth,
> but it is notable that UTC *did* see fit to consider this question for
> them and determine that they were worthy of encoding (they are on the
> roadmap), even though they have not actually followed through on that
> yet, perhaps because of these very IP concerns. Notably, pIqaD is not
The Tolkien Estate considers that the tengwar constitute a work of
art, and it's not willing to see them in Unicode, because this would
hinder its ability to pursue people using tengwar for what it
considers inappropriate purposes. (I finally asked them a couple of
years ago for permission to encode, based on Michael Everson's draft
proposal from yonks ago, and that's the summary of their reply.)
Several years ago, I was told on this list that it would be up to the
proposers to deal with this, and that the Unicode Consortium would
have no interest in taking on the 800lb legal gorilla that is the
Tolkien Estate. (Now a 24M£ gorilla with what it got from New Line
Cinema.)
If some wealthy Unicode Consortium member feels like paying for an
American counsel's opinion that the Estate is just trying it on, feel
free!
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.Received on Tue Nov 08 2016 - 05:59:16 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Nov 08 2016 - 05:59:16 CST