N
Nik Coughlin
dorayme said:
Yes, or they could have read my reply elsewhere in the thread which explains
all of that and more, and which I posted well before all of the bickering
began
Yes, or they could have read my reply elsewhere in the thread which explains
all of that and more, and which I posted well before all of the bickering
began
D
dorayme
"Nik Coughlin said:Yes, or they could have read my reply elsewhere in the thread which explains
all of that and more, and which I posted well before all of the bickering
began
I missed your post or had forgotten it on this occasion, sorry.
R
rf
Ben said:
IMHO no. The TTF file format is AFAIK not protected by copyright[1] and is
actually published so you can reverse engineer it, or rather delve into it,
as you see fit.[2]
Your program is using the TTF file on your local machine and you have
royalty to use that TTF file howsoever you wish (AFAIK) on your local
machine. In fact there *is* a "program" you already have that does almost
what you describe. It is your video card driver (if it's a third party one).
It uses as input the TTF font file and some text and produces a bitmap that
eventually is displayed on your desktop or printer. This is how you are able
to use your favourite word processor to produce fancy output. Of course the
driver may call on operating system API's to actually delve into the TTF
file but so would your hyperthetical program.
This is also exactly how things like word art work, and there are third
party offerings that do the same thing. I used to have one, drew very pretty
three-D lettering etc. They delve into the TTF and do things that the
drivers and the operating system simply cannot do.
Yes. Same as if you used a PDF writer to produce a PDF file. The TTF file is
used during the creating process.
Whay you may *not* do is redistribute that copyrighted TTF file.
A further example, you can buy from the post office a list of postcodes (zip
codes if you wish). This list is updated regularly as part of your royalty,
or licence. You can use this list however you wish but you cannot give it to
somebody else.
Recall though, as Nik said, the U S of A is behind the times in copyright as
it is applied to fonts.
[1] Compare this to the GIF file format. Crikey, I can't even remember who
invented it but they copyrighted the file format. If you were to write a
program that produced output in GIF format then you had to obtain a licence
from the copyright holder. Everybody of course ignored this (illegaly) and
the copyright actually expired a few years ago.
[2] I wouldn't try reverse engineering a font to change a few glyphs and
then selling the resultant font as if it were your own.
M
+mrcakey
dorayme said:
Me no comprende. Why is PDF a more appropriate substitute for delivering
online content than Flash?
R
richard
Thank you dear. An interesting tidbit you put together.
I think many have forgotten that copyright involves the creation of
original works. As in US law, if the work was created before the
authorizing of the copyright law, the work is considered to be in the
"public domain".
Therefor(e), the alpahbet, and it's numerous ways to represent it, can
not be copyrighted. Period.
A
Andy Dingley
AFAIK, the UK copyright law makes no such claim (although I've not
checked my refs explicitly yet). UK copyright can be held for "sweat
of the brow" efforts, not merely a creative effort and certainly not
requiring there to be some "artistic" content.
The UK still respects copyright on fonts though, as do most places.
A
Andy Dingley
Even that needs careful reading. A bitmapped font does not _create_ a
new copyrightable work, but a bitmapped font may still be subject to
the same copyright as the original font or typeface from which it was
rendered.
A
Andy Dingley
Indeed not. You or I can create a new font, we do not infringe anyone
else's copyright on the alphabet or the concept of a typeface by doing
so.
However our efforts in creating this particular font that we've each
produced may (subject to local law, certainly does for me) recognise
that we've each created a new work, and that _this_ particular new
font or fonts is subject to copyright.
A
Awful Dog Autry
I heard the company got out of data compression and moved into peanut
butter.
I
I V
Actually, I believe PDFs embed the actual data directly from the font,
and thus a PDF using a particular font is considered a derivative work of
that font. Well, I don't know if this has been tested in court, but font
companies will tell you you can't use their fonts in a PDF without their
permission. I think, though I'm not sure, that an SVG or similar file
that included the outlines of particular glyphs (but without the hinting
or other stuff you get in a proper font file) wouldn't be restricted by
the font's copyright.
The issue with GIF files was actually a patent on the compression
algorithm used. You can't copyright a file format (you could copyright a
specification, but that doesn't prevent people from implementing the file
format; you could provide your spec only to people who sign an agreement
not to implement it, but that wouldn't prevent independent re-
implementations).
R
richard
Not according to the courts.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such
work.
Now which of the above do you think a "font" is applied to?
I will point out though that what we have come to call a "font" is
actually a "typeface". i.e. Arial, Courier, sans serif, times new
roman are all typefaces. The font is actually the character itself.
I will also concede that it is possible to copyright some types of
"fonts" but not as a general rule.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/part3/
<Excerpt from question 3.9>
In essence, a font will be protectable only if it rises to the level
of a computer program. Truetype and other scalable fonts will
therefore be protected as computer programs, a particular species of
literary works.
Bitmapped fonts are not copyrightable, because in the opinion of the
Copyright Office, the bitmap does not add the requisite level of
originality to satisfy the requirement for copyright.
Also noting that on this page the author notes that even though the
"font" is not copyrightable, it can be patented.
As was the case with "Courier" when they came up with their typeface.
D
dorayme
"+mrcakey said:
Well, the question is about relative appropriateness in the light of all
the circumstances in the real world. There would be more folk with
ability to read PDF than Flash. At least that is what I am thinking. And
also I am thinking, correct me if I am wrong, Flash's primary role is
animation and movement.
But I see what you mean, you are thinking PDF is really for printing and
Flash is geared to online. Perhaps I have been seeing too many PDFs on
line lately and perhaps I have been posting too many PDF newsletters and
much other content for clients in PDF in recent years and checking the
functioning of my work by seeing the docs online.
I think that some of my clients are aware - probably almost
unconsciously - that it does not cost them much to ask me to make a PDF
available on their websites. Rather than have me prepare the material in
HTML/CSS. Now this brings me to the point that it is a very simple thing
for folk to make PDFs but not Flash. So they do and with a good plug-in
they are very readable indeed online, at least on my Mac they are.
I am not recommending PDF for online publishing. I am just thinking it
is a substitute that is easier than Flash for most folk.
A
Andy Dingley
Well none of them - as they're _exclusions_ from copyright recognition
for some abstract notions. You might include alphabets in this, but
graphical expressions aren't listed here, nor excluded by it.
My point in that last post was _not_ that fonts or typefaces are
copyrightable, but merely that your argument for why they weren't was
false. An alphabet is in the public domain (as above) and the Roman or
English alphabets are public domain by their age as well. However
_this_ is no reason why a typeface or font isn't in turn recognised as
a creative work subject to copyright.
Fair enough point, until that last sentence. In UK law, the
recognition of copyright on the basis of mere labour rather than
creative effort means that both fonts and typefaces are generally
copyrightable. Laws that require creative input might well limit this
to typefaces. UK law might even be argued to do this for a font
derived purely mechanically from some other scalable typeface.
A
Allodoxaphobia
Sorry, it's _my_ browser -- not your browser.
It's my fonts, my font sizes, my window size, my javascript (or not),
etc. -- not yours.
N
Nik Coughlin
dorayme said:
No need to be sorry. Possibly was a Usenet propagation thing anyway.
I liked your story.
D
dorayme
Allodoxaphobia said:
You sound pretty self sufficient! Do you have your own pics, animations
and content too? <g>
M
+mrcakey
....
But it's easier for the publisher, not for the user. If I link to a page in
Flash, that's not going to break up the flow unless I design it very badly
(would never happen! ;-) ) but if I link to a PDF then that does break up
the flow. Indeed when I got the latest Adobe Reader, I lost the ability to
read PDF's in the browser window. I downloaded FoxIt but not everyone would.
But it's easier for the publisher, not for the user. If I link to a page in
Flash, that's not going to break up the flow unless I design it very badly
(would never happen! ;-) ) but if I link to a PDF then that does break up
the flow. Indeed when I got the latest Adobe Reader, I lost the ability to
read PDF's in the browser window. I downloaded FoxIt but not everyone would.
M
+mrcakey
dorayme said:
LOL.
D
dorayme
"+mrcakey said:
Fair enough I guess. But ease of publishing is a rather important thing.
Even easier for the user is likely to be for the publisher to simply
suggest any one of many fabulous and lovely font families and stick to
HTML/CSS.
Truth is, I don't know what percentage of users have Flash or online PDF
readers.
A
Andy Dingley
I know of _no_ legal jurisdiction that requires copyright to be based
on "art". There's a distinction between "creative" and mere "sweat of
the brow", but none go so far as to require "art" or "artistic merit"
to gain the benefit of copyright.
This is for two reasons: Firstly courts should be reluctant to rule on
what constitutes "art" (although US courts approach this, with issues
like Mapplethorpe's "Piss Christ"). Secondly why _should_ copyright be
restricted to "art"? It's generally accepted that much of the world's
creative labours are valuable and worthy of protection, but they're
mundane and not attempting to be art. Much of what I produce daily as
a commercial engineer deserves protection (it cost time, money and
effort to make it), but no-one claims it's art.