Owain Sutton wrote:
Noel Stoutenburg wrote:
Adobe succeeded in persuading the court that a digital font is output
of a computer program
Case law suggests, that in the U.S., if you printed out all of the
characters of the revere font enlarged them with an analog pantagraph,
and scanned and digitized the enlarged images, that this would not be
infringement on the font in the U.S.
Case law, or speculation? All that you describe is several direct
copies of a computer output.
As I recall reading (no I can't remember nor cite where I read these
things) what Adobe did was to convince the courts that the electronic
files which describe the fonts is copyrightable, not the fonts that were
generated by the electronic files.
This is because under U.S. copyright law, fonts which you can see and
read are not copyrightable (as my mother-in-law, a professional
calligrapher says, "who would own the alphabet?"). But electronic files
ARE copyrightable.
So you could, as I understand things (with my not being a lawyer, this
is worth what you are paying for it), make copies of the Revere font
simply by printing it out very large, then scanning the image back into
the computer into your own font design program.
What you can't do is to share copies of the electronic file (possible
called revere.ps or revere.ttf) with others who aren't licensed by the
people who own the copyright on the font file.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
