On 8/29/98, Cem Kaner <kaner[_at_]kaner.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/28/98, John Allison <allisonj[_at_]mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Also, the "fonts" case you referred to is quite important. Fonts
> > themselves have been treated for a long time as not being copyrightable
> > because of their functionality, or because of merger of the expression
> > with the idea. However, in that case (the name of which I do not
> > immediately recall), the court held that the *program* creating the
> > fonts was indeed copyrightable subject matter. Irrespective of the
> > logic of this distinction, if this case holds up, the practical effect
> > would seem to be that fonts are now copyrightable subject matter.
>
> How could the copyrightability of the font generator render the fonts
> copyrightable? It seems to me that Microsoft Word is an example of a
> copyrightable work. I create documents using Word all of the time.
> That doesn't give Microsoft a copyright in my writings. And if I type
> in contact listings from the pages of a phone book, the fact that I use
> a copyightable word processor doesn't render the listing copyrightable.
I wasn't referring to your use of the fonts to create your own work, as you do when you write in MS Word. I was referring to a a creator/provider of fonts. If the software necessary to make a particular font work on your printer is copyrightable, doesn't that give the software owner a de facto ability (although not an actual copyright) to prevent other font creators/providers from making the same fonts from purveying those fonts in their software. Of course, the end user can make whatever use of the fonts he wants, but he can't create software that will create those fonts and then sell or license it? I was really referring to practical effect, not to legal status, but didn't make it clear. Do you think that my analysis is still out in left field?
John Allison
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:32 GMT