I had a discussion with Deborah Anderson (Researcher in the Department of Linguistics who runs the Script Encoding Initiative project) about how one might attempt to encoded a script in Unicode if the script's creator is against it being encoded. I'm aware of the usual route of submitting a proposal to the Unicode Consortium, receiving feedback, etc etc. However, if a script is developed—which includes new letterforms/shapes—and the creator wishes for this script to remain private for his own usage, how far do their legal rights stretch? It raises some of the following questions:
1. Can the creator of the script block its Unicode proposal and on what grounds?
2. If yes, are they in their legal right to do so?
3. Can the shape of a letterform or an entire script be 'privatised'?
4. Has there been any examples in history of similar occurrences? The Romain du Roi could be used as an example but that's more about the forms of the pre-established Latin than a new script.
One solution is to digitise the script and use encodings from Unicode's Private Use Area (PUA), but I'm not considering this a desirable solution. I'm posting this on TypeDrawers to generate discussion and hear what others have to contribute.
0
Comments
This could also be the case if the person doesn't wish to keep it private, but does wish to avoid full formalization (for example to make it easier for others to add symbols). Standardization can stifle –or at least narrow– evolution.
@Andreas Stötzner, my original post was theoretical, as many of my thoughts around the subject were just that...theory. For myself it really comes down to what's enforceable from a legal standpoint by the script's creator. If someone designed a script and wanted to restrict its access (i.e. control its distribution and usage), is this possible? If so, on what grounds? Nothing is stopping a type designer from creating outlines and 'owning' a digital version of the script. Or is doing this a violation of copyright? That's what my mind was pondering.
At the moment putting time and effort towards submitting a Avoiuli proposal to Unicode is out of the question due to lacking access to Avoiuli resources and materials. I've been informed that doing so may result in it being blocked due to the script creator's wishes. Who knows, it's unfamiliar territory.
As a side note I've had a slightly different yet relevant experience where I was designing a minority script—which is encoded in Unicode—and I received no help from the expert of this script after they repeatedly said they were happy to assist. I believe the issue was complicated as the 'expert' had a vested interest in keeping others from digitising the script as it would create competition with his/hers own digitisations (i.e. fonts).
Whether the inventor is willing for it to be encoded or not, it won't get considered for encoding unless there's evidence that there is an active and on-going community of users of the script.
So, suppose there is a community of users: potentially any of them could propose it for encoding. (An outsider also could potentially propose it, but let's skirt that for the moment.) There's no clear policy I'm aware of in Unicode for a scenario in which there is a thriving user community that wants it encoded but an inventor that doesn't. Inevitably, when there is an active user community, there will be some point at which the inventor no longer completely controls its usage. In the short term, standardizing committees might wait to see if the user community and inventor sort out their disagreement before taking action.
But as pointed out, if the inventor trademarks or patents things pertaining to the script, that would likely block encoding, as long as those remain in force.