Reg - Linotype copyright action on Adobe-format fonts

[georgemw at speakeasy.net]

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