Re: [NTLK] Law (EOM)

From: THX 1138 (onefishtwofish_at_mac.com)
Date: Fri Sep 07 2001 - 17:11:39 EDT


On 9/7/01, System Support Products, Inc. quoth:
>At 1:12 PM -0700 9/7/01, eric engle wrote:
>>Perpetual copyright is ridiculous, unproductive and
>>unfair: who hold the copyright of fonts? No one. You
>>cannot copyright a fontface.
>
> Whoa! This is way wrong, as anyone from Adobe's legal department
>would be happy to inform you.

I've become what I hate, as I enter the fray with eyes squeezed shut
and arms flailing wildly.

Anyway, you're not quite right.

Basically, ou can copyright a font NAME, you cannot copyright a font
FACE. It functions 180 degrees opposite of other copyrights. However,
with a digital font, you cannot use the identical data and call it a
separate name, there must be a difference in the core data. So
basically you must have some difference, say in the definition points
of a vector font (ie. true type). But there are many differing
options as to wether or not this has any bearing at all on a bitmap
font (ie. Newton and old mac fonts). Confused? Yeah, you and anyone
else who creates fonts. It's a branch of copyright into and of
itself. I'm sure Andreas and Grant could probably tell you more than
I, but this is my amateur ignorance, and I'm sharing with you free of
charge :)

Now back to cowering in silence.

later,

-- 
ben.
onefishtwofish_at_mac.com

Newton Connections: Obsessive Newton News http://mail.jcsarchitects.com/~ben In less than optimum circumstances, creativity becomes all the more important.

-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 12:01:36 EDT