Windows typography reproduction

[Le grand pinguin]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 07:26:20AM -0500, volvoguy wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:23:46 +0000, David Marsh
> <lists2005 at viewport.ukfsn.org> wrote:
> > volvoguy wrote in gmane.linux.ubuntu.user
> >  about: Re: Windows typography reproduction
> > 
> > > I'll let you in on a legal loophole about fonts though. It sucks for
> > > typeface designers but can help you out of a pinch sometimes. The way
> > > copyrights work on fonts is that the actual font data (the design of
> > > the letters) isn't protected. It's only the name that's protected.
> > > That's how people like Corel can distribute a thousand first-rate
> > > fonts with CorelDraw - they simply change the names. (to protect the
> > > innocent :-)
> > 
> > Are you *sure* you about that?
> > It certainly sounds surprising to me, if not somewhat unlikely.
> > 
> > After all, were you to actually create a lead typeface and somebody
> > copied it, I'm sure you'd be able to make a copyright claim. Surely it
> > must be the same for digital fonts as well?
> 
> I'm 100% positive. The Corel CD is a good example. They don't make
> fonts, and they don't distribute "brand name" fonts,

Hmm, we have two rather different problem domains here: copyright law
and trademark law. Now, most typeface names are registered trademarks
and hence can't be copied - this was one of the way how  font creators 
protected their design. 
Now, IIRC during the late 80' (when PostScript fonts became widespread)
font companies started to argue that vector fonts (esp. posrtscript) 
are actually computer programs (which is tech, true). A postscript
font file is nothing more than a program that draws onto a virtual
canvas. And computer programs _are_ protected by copyright law.

> but the actual
> vectors of the fonts that they include on their CD are identical to
> those made by Adobe, Bitstream, etc. 

Are you really shure about that? IIRC that's exactly where "mokup" versions
s**ck. There are noatable differences in the design and metrics of between
the different versions of "Times" foe example.

>This is also why freeware font
> websites flourish. They change the name of the font (including the one
> in the metadata), and they're allowed to distribute it.
> 

I'm quite shure that if you change the Licence information of a file and
redistribute it you might get into serious legal trouble. Note: many
commercial fonts aren't sold to customers but licensed. You sign a licence
agreement which usually forbids redistribution (sometimes even embedding).
Once you sign this neither copyright nor trademark are important: the text
of the licence agreement is binding.


Ralf Mattes

> As I said though - it really sucks for good typographers. I've talked
> to people that simply quit selling their fonts directly on the web,
> and instead sell them to a distributor like myfonts.com (or those $5
> CD's with 1000 fonts that you see in the checkout lanes of computer
> stores).
> 
> 
> -- 
> Aaron
> 
> Ubuntu SVG Artwork - www.volvoguy.net/ubuntu
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere. ~ G.K. Chesterton
> 
> -- 
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users