Reg - Linotype copyright action on Adobe-format fonts
"ATM" is "Adobe Type Manager". Linotype is a big font house. Intellectual Property laws for fonts are normally even stranger than for regular material, but if any of these are in Postscript, they're also programs, so there may be DMCA issues, and there's obviously some contractual relationship with Adobe that lets them copyright implementations. (I have *no* idea if there's Dmitri Sklyarov-related material here, as in "Did Adobe do Something Bad, or was Someone Else careless", but it's entertaining speculation, at least in the absence of actual knowledge.) Does anybody know ATM implementation details? Adobe's web page describes ATM Light as a "Free font utility for viewing and printing PostScript fonts Adobe. Type Manager. (ATM.) Light is a system software component that automatically generates high-quality screen font bitmaps from the PostScript. outlines in Type 1 or OpenType. format." which implies that at least some ATM fonts are real Postscript. Fairly usable Fair Use reformatted excerpt from The Register's article follows. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23427.html Linotype gets heavy over free ATM font downloads By John Lettice - john.lettice@theregister.co.uk Posted: 17/12/2001 at 12:15 GMT German company Linotype Library GmbH is flexing its ATM font copyright muscles via 'cease and desist' letters with potential $30,000 legal tabs attached. The fonts in question do seem to be owned by Linotype (or to be strictly accurate, its parent company Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG), but are probably part of a batch that accidentally wandered into the shareware sector in the early 90s. The fonts are frequently found for download on OS/2 sites, and have tended to propagate via mirrors, with the assumption that they're shareware propagating along with them. This was the case for Ian Manners, who runs www.os2site.com, and who contacted The Register after receiving his letter from Linotype. .... What does seem clear is that Linotype is making heavy legal noises in order to clear the fonts off download sites. And strangely enough, the fonts themselves (Cascade, Flora, Frutiger, Helvetica, Isadora, Linotext, Linoscript, Optima, Palatino, Peignot, Present, Shelley and Univers), are currently on sale at Linotype Library's site. The fonts Ian was hosting complicate matters further, in that internally they have an Adobe copyright stamp in them. Adobe itself sells the fonts in question, and labels them as Linotype's trademark on its site. It seems fairly clear that the fonts are Linotype's property, and that even people offering cloned versions under the same names are going to be vulnerable to legal threats. From the Linotype letter, however, it doesn't seem to be the case that they're universally trademarked throughout the world, which could make actual legal action complicated.
At 07:35 PM 12/17/01 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
"ATM" is "Adobe Type Manager". Linotype is a big font house. Intellectual Property laws for fonts are normally even stranger than for regular material, but if any of these are in Postscript, they're also programs, so there may be DMCA issues, and there's obviously some contractual relationship with Adobe that lets them copyright implementations.
IIRC fonts are not copyrightable in the US, but are elsewhere, yes? Assuming that's correct, then an algorithmic font (eg Postscript) could be turned into an albeit large static set of pixels which wouldn't be copyrightable in the US.
Why wouldn't an original typeface be covered under U.S. copyright laws? -Declan At 10:12 AM 12/18/2001 -0800, David Honig wrote:
IIRC fonts are not copyrightable in the US, but are elsewhere, yes?
Assuming that's correct, then an algorithmic font (eg Postscript) could be turned into an albeit large static set of pixels which wouldn't be copyrightable in the US.
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. DCF On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Why wouldn't an original typeface be covered under U.S. copyright laws?
-Declan
At 10:12 AM 12/18/2001 -0800, David Honig wrote:
IIRC fonts are not copyrightable in the US, but are elsewhere, yes?
Assuming that's correct, then an algorithmic font (eg Postscript) could be turned into an albeit large static set of pixels which wouldn't be copyrightable in the US.
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.
See the font FAQ: http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_13.htm
scalable fonts are, in the opinion of the Copyright Office, computer programs, and as such are copyrightable
-Declan At 01:44 PM 12/18/2001 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote:
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.
DCF
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Why wouldn't an original typeface be covered under U.S. copyright laws?
-Declan
At 10:12 AM 12/18/2001 -0800, David Honig wrote:
IIRC fonts are not copyrightable in the US, but are elsewhere, yes?
Assuming that's correct, then an algorithmic font (eg Postscript) could be turned into an albeit large static set of pixels which wouldn't be copyrightable in the US.
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
At 12:04 PM 12/18/01 -0800, georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:
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:
This is what I remembered (from this list BTW) and why I suggested that the bitmaps that the program generates are not protected in the US.
On Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at 10:12 AM, David Honig wrote:
At 07:35 PM 12/17/01 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
"ATM" is "Adobe Type Manager". Linotype is a big font house. Intellectual Property laws for fonts are normally even stranger than for regular material, but if any of these are in Postscript, they're also programs, so there may be DMCA issues, and there's obviously some contractual relationship with Adobe that lets them copyright implementations.
IIRC fonts are not copyrightable in the US, but are elsewhere, yes?
The shape of the glyphs is not copyrightable, but the application of a specific name to that set of glyphs is. You can copy *exactly* the shape of a font, and just call it something else. Helvetica->Arial/Geneva/Swiss (actually *slightly* different, but that was more an artifact of the original technology for them, Arial is TT, Geneva was a bitmapped font from Way Back on the Mac etc.) Times->New York on the mac (as Helvetica is to Geneva, so Times is to New York, IIRC). Oh, but don't do it by just renaming the postscript, that's copyright infringement on the *code*, as is (probably) using some sort of Postscript->TT conversion that renames as it goes.
Assuming that's correct, then an algorithmic font (eg Postscript) could be turned into an albeit large static set of pixels which wouldn't be copyrightable in the US.
That would be utterly pointless (no pun intended). The value of Postscript is that it *isn't* a set of pixels. -- "Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits."--Chris Klein
At 11:47 PM 12/18/01 -0800, Petro wrote:
That would be utterly pointless (no pun intended). The value of Postscript is that it *isn't* a set of pixels.
No, it wouldn't be pointless. Postscript is not the only way to print. It is the equivalent of using a function that approximates the sine() function to generate a table of trig values. The function's code is copyrighted, but the table of values isn't. And yes, there are still uses for tables of trig values.
(Yes, a late reply) On Wednesday, December 19, 2001, at 08:40 AM, David Honig wrote:
At 11:47 PM 12/18/01 -0800, Petro wrote:
That would be utterly pointless (no pun intended). The value of Postscript is that it *isn't* a set of pixels.
No, it wouldn't be pointless. Postscript is not the only way to print.
What I was responding to was talking about shipping fonts as bitmaps. Bitmaps are not functions, they are not line descriptions. You know this.
It is the equivalent of using a function that approximates the sine() function to generate a table of trig values. The function's code is copyrighted, but the table of values isn't. And yes, there are still uses for tables of trig values.
-- "Those without creative minds and agile fingers are of course welcome to hurry up with my fries. And they'll probably use a GUI to take my order, too." - Tom Christiansen
participants (6)
-
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Duncan Frissell -
georgemw＠speakeasy.net -
Petro