Legality of using Fonts

[Chris Mellon]

On 2/11/06, Steven D'Aprano <steve at removethiscyber.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:24:34 -0800, Ross Ridge wrote:
>
> > Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> It is highly unlikely that any judge will be fooled by a mere change in
> >> format ("but Your Honour, I converted the TTF file into a bitmap").
> >
> > If that were true, almost the entire X11 bitmap font collection would
> > be illegal.  Fonts aren't subject copyright, just the hints in most
> > outline fonts, which are considered computer programs.
>
> This may come as a shock to you, but the USA is not the entire world, and
> the US government's decision to exclude typefaces from copyright
> protection is anomalous. In almost the entire rest of the world,
> typefaces (the design of a font) are able to be copyrighted, and so are
> fonts whether they are bitmapped or outline (with or without hints).
>
>
> See, for example: http://www.typeright.org/feature4.html
>
> In any case, even in the USA, hinted fonts are copyrightable, and merely
> removing the hints (say, by converting to a bitmap) is no more legal than
> whiting out the author's name from a book and claiming it as your own.
>

This is absolutely wrong. It is perfectly legal to extract the
non-copyrightable elements of a copyrighted work (the typeface itself,
in this case) and do whatever you want with it.

> Of course, like all these issues, the actual decision of a judge and jury
> in the USA is uncertain -- who knows whether they will consider a
> bitmapped version of a TTF font to be a derivative work or not? So even in
> the USA, unless you want to spend big dollars on legal fees, the best
> advice is to stick to fonts which are distributed under open licences.
>

I'd say this is a case that isn't uncertain at all. The lack of
protection for typefaces is not a loophole or unclear convention -
Congress and the copyright office explicitly refuse to extend
copyright protection to typefaces. The loophole, in fact, is the
protection of hinted fonts, which are only protected to the degree
that they are "computer programs", because they are *not* protectable
as fonts, period. Saying it is uncertain is not intellectually honest,
in my opinion.

Now, I personally feel that this is a case where Congress made a poor
decision on all counts - TTF files are a prime example of programs
that should not be copyrightable (mechanical implementation), and
typefaces should be. But that's not the state of affairs in the US.

>
>
> --
> Steven.
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>