[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> In the United States, fonts can't be copyrighted. Only "font
> programs" (e.g., the PostScript code used to produce the glyph) can
> be. So there can be no copyright on bitmap fonts, and using a bitmap
> font, a printout, or even tracing over an image on screen is
> perfectly legal.

I'm not sure that Fiest v Rural Telephone can lead us down this road.
Assuming the font is a work of authorship (which many large or
relatively large bitmap and TT fonts are) claiming a copyright on it
is an entirely reasonable thing to do.

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.]

(I mean, copyright almost surely applies to works of art primarily
made up of fonts... things like Charles Demuth's "The Figure 5 in

Don Armstrong

A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but
won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
 -- Bill Vaughan


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: