On 18 Dec 2001, at 13:52, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Bitmapped fonts may not be copyrightable in the U.S., but Postscript/vector fonts certainly are:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0,10000,0-1005-200-326302,00.html
In a case that pitted Adobe Systems against a small software company in Florida, U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte of San Jose, California, ruled that computer fonts are no different from other kinds of software, and enjoy full copyright protection.
Interesting article. However, it appears that it's not the fonts themselves that are copyrightable, but rather the "code" that draws them. From the same article: <quote> The fact that a computer program produces unprotectable typefaces does not make the computer program itself unprotectable," Whyte wrote in the decision, issued earlier this week. Font designers "make creative choices as to what points to select based on the image in front of them on the computer screen." </quote> The judge explicitly states that the typefaces themselves are not copyrightable, and implies that other "code" which produces the same effect would not be covered by the copyright. Further, if it could be shown that there really aren't any creative decisions being made here, that any code that produces the same effect would have to be essentially the same code, then presumably the judge's decision would be overturned. I'm not being sarcastic with the "presumably" here, so please ridicule me for my naivate, I need that every now and then. Personally, I think the judge is an idiot, that the amount of "creativity" in deciding what reference points to use to vectorize a font is about equal to the amount of "creativity" required to decide what color to make the oceans on a world map, but I'm sure there are fraphic design people who would vehemently disagree; "of course it should be blue, but what exact shade of blue?"
I thought everyone knew. Fonts aren't copyrightable. Font *names* are. The reverse of the norm. With a story or novel the body of text is copyrightable, the title isn't.
Are you sure the font name isn't a trademark rather than a copyright? That would seem to make a lot more sense, although come to think of it, neither seems to make much sense.
DCF
George