Pragmatically: neither you nor the LCS have the resources to fight a
legal case. So if a big company hiring you says they don't want you to
do X, don't, and assume that whatever the contract says is what goes.

Legally: what is or isn't assignable in the first place isn't
currently well defined. That's why we're asking lawyers about this.

If a right isn't assignable, then the part of any contract saying it's
assigned is void. This would apply if it's inalienable (i.e. a right
that you *can't* give away), or unprotectable (i.e. something you
don't have a monopoly right to sell in the first place).

- Sai

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Olivier Simon
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sellamat Sai !
> Recently on "Conlang" (not the one on Edu.Brown, but the Facebook group), I had said that conlangs created under the auspices of the LCS were "sold" to our clients and that they had copyright on them. (Of course, I had referred to my own case with Leosprache and Razdo). But Ch. Koevoets-Grandsire disagreed with me. So, what the legal status of those linguistic créations and especially which rights do the clients hold over them ?
> Amicalement,
> Olivier