Your response, Terry, is the most succinctly complete explanation I
have ever encountered on this topic. Your differentiation of
computer programs that draw fonts has, however, tweaked a point that
has often puzzled me. When a computer program does nothing more than
draw a non-copyrightable typeface, is such program itself
copyrightable, given Section 102(b)?
(Section 102(b): "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.")
I guess the fundamental question is whether, instead of treating all computer programs as copyrightable as a class, perhaps, just like words written with pen on paper, some programs are original copyrightable works of authorship and others, based on their content, are merely procedures, processes or methods of operation, in and of themselves, and thus not copyrightable. (Conversely, a non- copyrightable computer program might be capable of displaying a copyrighted work, such that though the computer program is just a process, the result of running the computer program creates an original work of authorship.)
Or, maybe there is an obvious answer I should have leaned back in law school.
John
On Aug 19, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Terry Carroll wrote:
> I missed the original, but...
>
>
>> The project would use a distinctive font that is presumably
>> registered
>> in the copyright office.
>>
>
> Probably not, at least not in such a way to protect the typeface
> design.
>
> Copyright Office regulation 37 CFR 202.1(e):
>
> 202.1 Material not subject to copyright.
>
> The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and
> applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:
> . . .
> (e) Typeface as typeface.
>
> This is a confusing phrase, "typeface as typeface."
>
> Let me level-set on terminology first. "Typeface" usually means the
> actual form of the letters themselves; a set of letters, alphabets,
> numerals, figurative signs, punctuation marks, and the like,
> intended to
> provide the means for composing text by any graphic technique such as
> printing.
>
> "Font," in this context, means the thing that prints the letters. (In
> another context, "font" also refers to a subset of "typeface," all the
> characters of which have the same weight (e.g., 10-point, etc) and
> other
> characteristics (bold, italic, etc.)
>
> In the olden days, a font was pieces of metal. Nowadays, a font,
> particularly in a computer context, is a file in the computer that
> embodies the typeface.
>
> The Copyright office position, stemming originally from the case of
> Eltra
> Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1978), and now part of
> regulation
> 202.1, is that typeface is not protectable by copyright (although some
> typefaces are protected by design patent).
>
> Furthermore, a font (that is, the computer file) is only
> protectable if it
> amounts to an original work of authorship, beyond the mere typeface
> (which
> is deemed unprotected). So a bitmap font, for example, is not
> protectable: it's just a mapping of an unprotected typeface onto a
> grid.
>
> However, some fonts are more than bitmaps; they're small computer
> programs
> whose function is to actually draw the lines and curves of the
> letters.
> Like other computer programs, they're protected by copyright, to the
> extent that they're original.
>
> So the upshot in the US is this: typeface is not protected, at least
> according to the Copyright Office. That means that the use of
> anything
> printed with a particular typeface is not inhibited by the typeface
> itself
> (unless it is also covered by a design patent, of course). Copying
> most
> current-technology *fonts*, would, however, infringe copyright in the
> font.
>
> Some caveats: a font may be licensed (as part of the OS or other
> software
> licensed to an end-user), and it is possible that the terms of such a
> license may restrict the use of the typeface. The enforceability
> of such
> a provision is a dubious matter, in my opinion, but it might be
> attempted.
> Also, although rare, a typeface could possibly be protected by design
> patent.
>
> By the way, all of the above refers to US law. Some jurisdictions,
> e.g.,
> the UK, do protect typeface by copyright; as they should, in my
> opinion.
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://
> mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
Received on Sat Aug 20 2005 - 02:22:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT