Re: Typographic copyright (was: Emory HTML claim)

From: Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 22:04:36 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Alan Sugarman wrote:
>
> What is this discussion all about?

The discussion was originally about the PUP v. MDS case and its criticism by the Authors Guild and other writers association. The Subject: header was "Michigan case draws protest from writers." Someone mentioned that the case was on Emory's WWW server, but that Emory claimed a copyright on the formatting. This spawned a discussion on whether an HTML encoding justified copyright. Around this time, the Subject: header mutated to "Emory HTML claim."

In this new thread, it was mentioned that copyright did not protect fonts. With my characteristic anal-retentiveness, I started a new thread entitled "Typographic Copyright," making the distinction between fonts (which may be subject to copyright) and typefaces (of which the common wisdom is that they are categorically not subject to copyright).

In addition to making the distinction, I noted my own disagreement with the categorical exception that no typeface can possible be sufficiently creative as to constitute an original work of authorship.

It has since mutated into a discussion of whether authors typically assign all rights to a publisher, or just one-time rights.

As the mall maps would say:

  Subject: Michigan case draws protest from writers

           |
           |
           V
  Subject: Emory HTML claim
           |
           |
           V
  Subject: Typographic copyright <== YOU ARE HERE
           |
           |
           V

  Subject: Author's rights

Aren't you glad you asked?

--
Terry Carroll       | "For those too young to remember them, peace signs
Santa Clara, CA     | closely resemble the hood ornament on Mercedes-Benz
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     | automobiles." - Roulette v. Seattle, 94-35354 (9th
Modell delenda est  | Cir. Mar. 18, 1996), n.4.

Received on Sun Mar 31 1996 - 06:02:38 GMT