Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!ut-sally!utah-cs!hollaar
From: hollaar@utah-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.text,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Font Copyrights
Message-ID: <4399@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Mar-87 23:38:15 EST
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.4399
Posted: Mon Mar 23 23:38:15 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Mar-87 05:48:15 EST
References: <792@bobkat.UUCP>
Reply-To: hollaar@utah-cs.UUCP (Lee Hollaar)
Followup-To: <792@bobkat.UUCP>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 25
Keywords: typefaces, fonts, copyright
Xref: utgpu comp.text:569 misc.legal:916
Summary: Not clear that copyright applies

In article <792@bobkat.UUCP> pedz@bobkat.UUCP (Pedz Thing) writes:
>  I presume that the fonts made by such artists has a
>copyright assiciated with it.  Thus I am sure it is illegal to
>duplicate a font by hand and sell it just as it is illegal to copy a
>book or a painting and sell it.

The situation regarding copyrightablity of typeface designs under the 1976
Copyright Act is not clear.  While the Act provides for copyright protection
for original pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works [Sec 102(a)(5)], in
the report of the House of Representatives that accompanied the bill that
became the Copyright Act of 1976, they said:

  "The Committee has considered, but chosen to defer, the possibility
  of protecting the design of typefaces.  ...  The Committee does not
  regard the design of typeface ... to be copyrightable 'pictorial,
  graphic, or sculptural' work within the meaning of this bill ..."

Regarding the prior (1909) copyright act, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
concluded that a typeface was not a "work of art" and could not be protected
by copyright.

Since the Fourth Circuit made its decision based on the old copyright act, and
the House Committee report is not law (but indicates legislative intent), it's
not clear the copyright protection applies to fonts, but there are certainly
good arguments that it doesn't.