Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru>]

25-Nov-03 15:04 Don Armstrong wrote:
> Can someone who holds that non-trivial bitmap fonts [eg. fonts larger
> than ~4x5 pixels] cannot be copyrighted please walk through the
> rational for their position? [Ideally including case law citations.]

1. Typeface is not copyrightable because its artistic features are not
capable of existing independently of its utilitarian aspects as
required in the definition of ''Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural
works'' in 17 U.S.C. 101
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html).

There is a lenghty discussion of potential copyrightability of
typeface in "Protection For Typeface Designs: A Copyright Proposal"
by Terrence J. Carroll (10 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J.
139) -- http://www.tjc.com/copyright/typeface.html .

2. "[T]he data that merely represents an electronic depiction of a
particular typeface or individual letterforms"[1] is also not
copyrightable.

The best source here is probably Copyright Office's notices itself:

 [1] Policy Decision on Copyrightability of Digitized Typefaces (1988)
     53 FR 38110

 [2] Registrability of Computer Programs That Generate Typefaces (1992)
     57 FR 6201

The only place where they are accessible online seems to be
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=C3tBuI.KKu@iat.holonet.net .

The fun thing is that outlines also are "the data that merely
represents...", so Type1 and TrueType fonts should not be
copyrightable. AFAIU the only thing there that may be copyrightable is
advanced hinting which really uses programming. The sad thing is that
Adobe v. SSI was judged
(http://web.archive.org/web/20010303011442/http://www.bna.com/e-law/cases/adobe.html)
other way. How is it possible is beyond my understanding. For
comments see http://jeff.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/kinch.html .

Sasha