rf said:
So that you will understand better, the actual font IS copyrightable.
A font is not the alphabet.
A font is not a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation". A font is a
work or art and works of art ARE copyrightable.
Oh goody... can we start arguing about what constitutes art now?
For me a font (no matter how fancy) is NOT art, in the same way that a piece
of stationery is NOT art. Let's be frank- a computer font is just portable
and configurable stationery.
I do lots and lots of graphic design jobs - including fonts, but not for one
second would I describe them as art. Jobs like this are not *intended* to be
art. If I wanted to create art, I would produce one, eloquent image that
communicates on it's own terms, not something that can (nay NEEDS to) be
broken up, reordered and resized before it has any intrinsic or extrinsic
communicative value. One might as well try to 'copyright' the bricks that
make up your house.
As far as I am concerned the client, once they've paid for a graphic design
job can do what they damn well like with it- color it in with crayon, screw
it up, roll it flat again, fold it seven times and make paper soldiers out
of it. I wouldn't care. I got paid for the job- they own it, not me.
If I had created a piece of *art* however, I would would prefer that it be
placed in a prominent, publically accessible position for all the world to
see, and that I be paid a suitable sum for its conception and creation, but
I certainly wouldn't be expecting to collect a royalty for every photograph
that was taken of it.
IMO the idea of collecting royalties for a font is simply ridiculous. If you
want to collect royalties, create an image or other artwork that actually
communicates something worth perceiving. ...and that's my OPINION. No
correspondence etc.
A better argument is that a font *might* be somebody's *intellectual (cough)
property*, in the same way that works of art tend to be (usually) somebody's
intellectual property. Though if I were building a house using copyright
bricks, I would probably just live in a tent instead. Arguing that fonts are
art is nonsense, since art is 'in the eye of the beholder'.
[snip]