Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!bschwart From: bschwart@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Barry Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.fonts Subject: Re: HP LaserJet Downloadable Fonts Message-ID: Date: 29 Mar 89 05:36:43 GMT References: <1736@trantor.harris-atd.com> <229800002@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <96281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Organization: Rutgers Center for DSP Research, Piscataway, NJ Lines: 41 > The actual shape of the character cannot be protected by copyright. This allows > you, if you wish, to digitize the printed version of the letter and create your > own bit mapped or PostScript font. Then, you can copyright the bit map or > PS program that you created. Suppose someone writes a program that converts one bitmap format to another, then runs a protected font through it. Furthermore suppose (to muddy things up a little more) that the conversion involves some kind of frequency conversion scheme; that is, the pixels in the output do not correspond one-to-one with the pixels in the input. Perhaps after automatic conversion the font will need hand editing, perhaps not. Aside from ethical issues, what are the legal issues? You say I can digitize the printed version, but can I do what I have hypothesized above? And aside from law, but rather at the level of reality, is there an important difference between the techniques? Suppose I write a program that prints a copyrighted bitmap vastly blown up, then digitize from that hard copy. I don't even need fancy equipment--I can look at the thing and tell what each bit should be. Then I just type my data in. What makes one thing different from another? Some techniques are much easier to use than others, but I never thought of the difference between stealing and just plain using as a matter of how easy it was to do. Just butting into the conversation. I don't have any answers. I do love fonts, and I can see the need for protection of rights, as well as the need for public domain fonts. The two are in competition--but that doesn't mean one or the other shouldn't exist. What the form of protective rights should be is another matter--is a font (or a computer program) really in the same class as a novel or such? And then there is the matter of what obligations the copyright holder should have-- ethically if not legally. I don't know. I'm just butting in.