From: "Robert OConnor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I should further narrow it down to: it the leading view only,
It is the view supported by the US Copyright Office which refuses to register bitmap fonts or font shapes. Note what the consequence of copyrighting bitmap fonts or font shapes would be: It would mean that if you came across a printout of a public domain work, or even of your own work, you would still need to ask for the permission of the copyright owner of the FONT for permission to photocopy it. There have been constant problems that font foundries have had with other font foundries using their font shapes, but with a new name (think of "Arial" and "Helvetica"). An example of how this works is that just about all PC BIOSes include exactly the same old 8x8 CGA font. > For a true-type like font though, these can be (and are) copyrighted. Yes, because a TrueType font is actually a program for generating bitmaps. In any case, we're perhaps getting off on a tangent, since Lubak doesn't mind us using his fonts. (Of course there may be the question of what the source of Lubak's fonts is.) As for derivative works, my understanding is that the person producing the derivative work needs to put in some creativity, not just purely technical skill. There was a court case where Corel used a bunch of excellent quality photographs of public domain works of art. The court ruled that Corel did NOT have to have permission from the photographer, because the photographer was merely trying to reproduce as closely as possible a public domain work rather than to produce an artistic photograph and hence was not producing a new work. Similarly, merely compendia of information, like phone books, are not copyrightable in the US--again, there was a case. Of course IANAL. Alex _______________________________________________ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
