Re: Typographic copyright (was: Emory HTML claim)

From: Bruce Hayden <bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 07:31:16 -0700

Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> writes:
>
> Terry Carroll writes:
>>
>> I remain astounded that one can believe that typeface designs are
>> categorically not works of authorship. The careful and aesthetic
>> judgment that goes into a typeface design is exactly the type of
>> artistic expression that copyright is designed to protect. While I
>> will readily concede that many typefaces would be essentially copies
>> of preexisting works without the modicum of originality needed to
>> support a copyright, carving out typefaces as a specific category of
>> work not to be protected is simply without any sound basis in fact.
>>
> **************
>
> In general, I agree: claims that "x is never subject to copyright
> protection" are rarely universally true, and I can certainly imagine
> a typeface that contains original expression.
>
> But what would be the scope of such protection? Presumably it would
> be copyright infringement to copy the computer program implementing
> the font -- no problem there. Would it also be infringement to print
> a document using that font without permission to use the font? If I
> want to photocopy a journal article, do I now have to worry about
> identifying and contacting the font owner as well as the author for
> permission?

This starts to get interesting. The flip side of this is that if you license someone a work, for example by paying the journal for the photocopy, the journal would probaby by necessity warrant the copy would be non-infringing.

It would seem that the stuff you produce yourself would be fairly simple to handle - you just mandate that certain fonts be used, and for a font to be used, it would have to be PD. The problem would seem to be worse for the stuff that is bought (or licensed) and resold (or re/sublicensed). Of course this problem is already faced by relicensers. For example, that journal publishing your article takes your word for it that you own the copyright to the work. (If you work for a large company like I do, you worry about this sort of things, because we have the deep pockets, the first party often has no pockets).  

---

The preceding was not a legal opinion, and may not be my employer's. Original portions Copyright 1996 Bruce E. Hayden My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution, as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.

---

Bruce E. Hayden                                bhayden[_at_]acm.org               
Austin, Texas                                  bhayden[_at_]copatlaw.com

Received on Wed Mar 20 1996 - 13:34:36 GMT