Talk:Intellectual property protection of typefaces

Comments
importance of this article is present information on the copyright and patent laws of digital fonts and how they currently are being applied, successfully and unsuccessfully. Also I put the font vs. typeface as a section because I don't think this is properly described on wikipedia currently. My article may or not be where this information belongs but I wanted to get it out there.


 * You've got a good start with this article. The main issue I see coming up early on is that the article seems to take a pro-strong IP position, favoring the terminology and perspective of those trying to curb font piracy, without yet including the point of view of those who challenge the scope or legitimacy of such IP rights. See, for example, this discussion. That's not going to be a source you want to use, but it might lead you to some reliable sources that articulate similar arguments.
 * Regarding font vs. typeface, probably the font, typeface, and typography articles would all be places that need a clear explanation of the distinction.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple things about sources: One the version of the paper by Lipton cited originally is an unpublished research paper; I changed the reference to the published version, but it might be good to double check to make sure it says the same things it's cited for. The other sources are tricky to track down based on the citation; they need full bibliographic details so that it will be easy for others to find the sources and verify that they support the article. If they are available online, links should be included.
 * With good citations for the other sources, this article should be eligible for appearing on the main page as a "Did you know" entry, if you nominate it soon; it is supposed to be nominated within 5 days of being created.
 * The instructions for nominating it are at Template talk:Did you know. Basically, all need to do is take this code:


 * and write the hook, a concise and interesting bit of info from the article beginning with "... that" and ending with a question mark. The info from the hook has to be present in the article and supported (in the article) with a citation. Someone will double-check to make sure the source says what it's claimed to say. Once you've come up with a hook, add the above code, including your hook following the "hook=" part, to the top of this section of the DYK template talk page. The code will produce an entry formatted like the others. After that, just keep an eye on your entry; if anyone brings up an issue with it, try to address it. I'll keep an eye out as well. If everything goes well, it will appear on the Main Page for several hours a few days from now.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Useful references
I'm also participating in WikiProject US Public Policy and am researching the same topic. Here are some scholarly articles on the subject:. ToastIsTasty (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another one (which used to be cited in the article, but which was removed, see, below):
 * TJRC (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ That link is broken. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks; updated. TJRC (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks; updated. TJRC (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note, I've noted all of these sources (finding better links, if appropriate) using Refideas at the top of the article; that way, if/when this thread is archived, the leads are preserved. I note a couple of them do not note whether they are published, and may be either unpublished law school papers, or unpublished drafts for articles intended for publication.  I'll nose around for further info, but if anyone knows better, feel free to update that. TJRC (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review
I really like all the different sections that are now included in this article. I think one way to continue progressing the article is to first add as much relevant content as possible in order to beef up the comprehensiveness. The issues surrounding copyright protection for fonts and more thorough explanations of the key ideas should be expanded, and then other editors can help out with the more technical aspects such as neutrality, readability, and formatting. One minor suggestion is to consolidate the UNESCO references (#2-15) just like the other ones already are. The section that interests me the most and which I think will catch the eyes of a lot of readers is the Policy Issues section. The example involving the Jay Leno Show and Saturday Night Live are great, and if you could include several other major issues in this section it would be a valuable addition to the article. Gsrogers (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review
The article is coming along really nicely. The licensing section is a little redundant and I might consider re-writing it so it is a little more concise. I am also curious to know how the licensing of fonts plays into the types of protection - are all fonts licensed? if it is, is that license a form of protection? Does the licensing section perhaps belong in the protection section? Either way, some clarification there could be helpful. In the copyright section, maybe just connect the dots for the readers as to exactly why fonts do not fall under the protection of the copyright law (I am assuming because they are not considered 3 or 2d?). Also, in the copyright section maybe give a brief overview of the case/precedent that was set in addition to linking. Obviously not a lot, maybe just even a sentence. Other than that things look really good. Maybe look to expand the sources a little - are there any legal documents about the cases you could site? Have font companies issued statements on the illegal use of their work? It could be interesting to see if there is a defense for any of the people accused of stealing them (and including that could help with NPOV). Clairestum (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted material
Someone deleted this material from the article. Was that OK, or a mistake? Please put it back in if it was useful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I gather somebody didn't like the reference to an unpublished work. Nonetheless, the difference between typeface and font is critical to understanding the topic of the article, so somebody should resurrect that same topic, perhaps with a different source. Thomas Phinney (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The same info is in the Carroll and Lipton sources noted at the top of this talk page (Lipton citing Carroll). TJRC (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wishful thinking
This article appears to be wishful thinking. It baldly states: "Fonts and typefaces are the intellectual property of type designers who create them." When this is clearly not true. Just see the far more accurate Copyright on typefaces. Or the section on licensing, just because font makes want such a standard doesn't mean they have any legal basis in fact. "Stealing these fonts is known as digital font theft." Seriously? You can't steal a font, it's physically impossible. And it doesn't help that the font are not copyrightable in the first place. Ariel. (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with you here. This article is misleading at best, and verging on being just simply wrong. In the USA, typefaces are not copyrightable. In the UK, typefaces are copyrightable for 25 years. In Germany, you can register a design patent up to 25 years for a typeface. Note that I use the word typeface. A Truescript/Postscript/Openscript font file that you would install onto your computer is protected under normal copyright laws, and valid for the usual length (70 years I believe). However, this only extends to as far as the software which creates the typeface is concerned. There is nothing illegal (ever in the USA, after 25 years in the UK and Germany) about printing a piece of text in a certain font, and using other software to re-digitise the font and create a new font file (aka "Font Software"). Since the new font software created will be different that the original one, there is no infringement. Bottom line is this article needs a re-write explaining the differences between "Font Software" and a typeface. 212.183.140.49 (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded. This article reads a bit like propaganda. The SIL page referenced throughout the article does note that some courts recently have considered a font to be "software" when it's being modified for redistribution under a similar name, which may increase the protections available for font designers/distributors. The cases certainly do not create precedents of the sort as broad reaching as the opening statement of the article; the cases do not change the underlying reality that fonts are in - at best - a grey area. Fonts do not fall squarely under any of the legislative rubrics of copyrights, trademarks or patents (or trade secrets) in most countries, and certainly not under any in a global context. 72.38.89.146 (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And we should believe anonymous commenters? "Fonts do not fall squarely under any of the legislative rubrics of copyrights, trademarks or patents (or trade secrets) in most countries"? Nonsense. Fonts fall squarely under trademark in all countries that respect trademark rights, and appear to be covered by copyright in most countries. They are covered by design protections of one sort or another in many countries, including the USA, where the first design patent ever issued was for a typeface (which in terms of design is a superset of a font, if the typeface design is protected, so are fonts). Thomas Phinney (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
Reading the last comment above, it seems ludicrous to have a page "copyright in typefaces" and another page "Patent and copyright protection of fonts" - Surely it would be better if these articles were merged? In addition, given that this article talks about patents, design patents and copyright. It might be more accurate to name the page "intellectual property protection of typefaces / of fonts" rather than the more cumbersome title currently used.Ajbpearce (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this title is too long; "typefaces" clearly includes the ideas of fonts and characters. I'm not sure "intellectual property protection" properly includes licensing, but also didn't see this thread when I moved this article the other day. --Pnm (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * it's obviously nearly a year since I made this proposal, and I did not notice you had moved the page once in the intervening years, I just used the longer title because it seems like some of the case law makes a distinction between fonts, characters and typefaces ( though I did not look at it in detail. If you want to move it back to "legal aspects" though, it's no big deal if you think that is better. My main concern was to get all this information in one place, as previously we had 2 articles, that contradicted each other in places, and the project space explanation, which was different from both of them, so when I was looking through my old edits, I spent a little time to try and put what seemed like the best cited bits from each of those into one article, and the move was just an afterthought.Ajbpearce (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for merging the articles. I didn't realize they had contradictory content. I was naming for consistency with Legal aspects of computing, but Intellectual property protection of typefaces has the advantage of telling you what the article is about, as you said in your edit summary. --Pnm (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Digital Fonts (programs) and Typefaces (designs) are two different things in IP law. Unfortunately the merged article now confuses the two. The technical and legal distinction typefaces and digital fonts needs to be clarified. And why does the opening sentence mention "characters" — which are something entirely different? Chris Fynn (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

IP How to (Suggestion)
Very good article. Here I just suggest, (if possible) when added relevant topic of "how procedure to get/issued a patent (or copyright or Intellectual Property) of a typeface"? (kotakata 19:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intellectual property protection of typefaces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406114320/http://oami.europa.eu/en/design/faq/faq01.htm to http://oami.europa.eu/en/design/faq/faq01.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406114320/http://oami.europa.eu/en/design/faq/faq01.htm to http://oami.europa.eu/en/design/faq/faq01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intellectual property protection of typefaces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522133154/http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980303/9520710.htm to http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980303/9520710.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

IP edits suggesting change in Copyright Office Policy
A pair of IP editors (100.8.171.163 & 104.162.24.137 ; they may be the same individual, I don't know) has revised the section on the US law saying that the law and/or the Copyright Office position has changed. There are a number of issues here: the use of a unreliability source (a blog that itself relies on forum posts); the clear lack of changes in Copyright office policies; and the misunderstanding of the distinction in the Copyright Office treatment of a font (the file, often a program that shapes and produces as output the typeface) and the typeface (the design of the letterforms themselves.

The citation used is to the blog at. Blogs aren't reliable sourced in any event, but this one in particular seems a bit odd. The blog itself is relying on comments and documents posted on a forum for typeface designers, since deleted but archived at ; which in turn is relying an a copy of a letter from an attorney to Congress that may or may not have actually been sent, but in any event does not represent Copyright Office policy, but is at most client advocacy, not a reliable source,

In the edit summary, one editor points to changes in sections 723 and 906.4 of the recent rev to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. But there are no significant changes to either section. In 723 (redline) the only change is a conforming change to update for a renumbered subsection (a reference to section 1509.1(C) becomes 1509.1(F). 906.4 (redline) shows no substantive change, either.

The advocacy letters discuss a rejection of a pure typeface set out as data in a file, in this case an XML file. That's not a change in policy: protection of the typeface itself has not been protected under US law, and the 1992 registrability change did not affect that. What are protected are fonts that are computer programs; for example, TrueType or PostScript fonts. The edits misunderstand this as "the software used to create a font is protectable by copyright. The font itself is not"; the correct understanding is that the font used to produce the typeface is protectable by copyright if it qualifies as a computer program. The typeface itself is not. Fonts such as TrueType and Postscript fonts are computer programs that produce typeface and subject to copyright; they are not software used to produce fonts. (Software used to produce fonts are, of course, also subject to copyright, but that has nothing to do with the issue of protection for fonts or typeface.)

The bottom line is that nothing has changed: fonts that produce typeface may be registered, in 2021 as in 1992. Typeface itself that is nothing but the data of the shape of the typeface (most commonly a bitmap back in 1992 and earlier; the example the IP edits point to being data in an XML file) is not.

Feel free to discuss this; in the meantime I will revert to the text as it existed prior to the IP edit sequence. TJRC (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the text. However, while it appears that section 723 has indeed not changed since 29 September 2017, it already contained the language allegedly used to deny copyright registration to a TrueType font that Frank Martinez's client used high-level tools to design. T3h  1337   b0y  11:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, cited by the new text, states that "[a] computer program that generates bar codes or a particular typeface, typefont, or letterform may be registered if the program contains a sufficient amount of original authorship in the form of statements or instructions to a computer." This encompasses every single vector font on your computer. Thus, computer fonts are copyrightable, as they always have been. The author of the new text is conflating fonts-as-images and computer fonts. Please revert. 96.85.54.193 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)