Hi Yall,
We are interested in copyrighting our Font software, by submitting the Source Code.
I've glanced through some post, and read about extracting the Source Code using Software (such as, FontLab 6+, Glyphs, FontLab, etc)
Can someone please post a tutorial, including any tweaking that may be necessary, if applicable.
For now, we just want some kind of protection, until we can properly submit them for a Patent Design.
0
Comments
Patent Designs cost about $1k, give or take, if you Do it yourself, and submit them under a Micro Entity Status within the USPTO guidelines.
We definately want to protect our hardwork.
As frequently mentioned here. We want to learn how to pull out the Font source codes, by using Software.
All further comments are welcome
I cover it a bit in this article from a couple years ago: https://www.commarts.com/columns/fonts-and-the-law
Scroll down about halfway through to get to “Kinds of Legal Protection for Fonts”
See also this thread:
https://typedrawers.com/discussion/4697/ai-generated-art-and-copyright-infringement
The standard method used at Adobe for OpenType fonts, at least back in the late 90s and early 2000s, was to convert the font with TTX (from FontTools) or the like, and then use that output as the basis of the filing. But I gather the Copyright Office has been telling people that drawing glyph outlines in a font editor does not count, and has been asking people to attest that they coded the fonts by hand—by which I assume they mean whether the designer typed in the code as text. But that is not what they literally ask.
As John Hudson and others have pointed out, the underlying problem is that (1) the US Copyright Office treats software as a form of literature (!); combined with (2) fonts are a form of software.
But the effects are absurd. This makes about as little sense as saying a written text is protected by copyright if it was authored by typing or handwriting, but not if it was created by voice dictation.
Software is clearly part of Industrial Property since it is a utility, a tool to achieve results, and not an artistic work. But when computers emerged, it was not so clear. For some, software was like a special kind of "writing" to "artistically" make hardware achieve results. And it was then part of the hardware, not a standalone product that can be added to different devices. Although this is strange, the idea appealed to software developers because with Copyright they would get a far more robust, long-time, and personal protection than with a patent. And there was also has a very important additional reason: there is objective responsibility for the correct working of a patented product, but not for an artistic creation! So there was a movement to classify software as a new kind of copyrighted creation.
The idea was also adopted by WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization. So the WIPO recommendation for national laws was to change their rules to embrace software into Copyright protection. Since 90s, several countries changed their laws to treat software this way. In Brazil, for example, we have a law for Industrial Property, a law for Copyright and a third one specific for software —but adopting most of the Copyright model. It became a world-wide trend and caused the problem we see today: Law treats software as totally different thing that actually is. It became a law fiction among several others and, of course, it collides with reality.
But in many countries who followed the WIPO models, fonts can be protected twice. As a software with its source code and also as draw which, although not comparable to an artistic draw or painting, is also a visual creative effort. The level of protection varies, but it's usually quite relevant. This allows different protection for OpenType codes (software) and the "look and feel" of letters (draw). This scenario is not the case of the USA, where IP does not follow the WIPO models. American criteria for IP are older and not always very clear, making font protection debatable. So, in the largest market for typography, we can hardly protect our work, but in Europe, South America, and many countries of Asia and Africa the protection is available.
By the way, you can export the font as vsj file (json format) simply using Save As in FontLab 7+. In Preferences, you can opt for an indented or a compact, no breaks formatting.
In the past, Ive read (I forgot where), that 1D typefaces will certainly be rejected by the Copyright office, however, that 2D and 3D typefaces have a better chance of approval. Any truth to this?
All the major font formats are 2D. Of course, one can make something that looks three-dimensional in a 2D format.
Personally, if I were submitting a copyright application, as I use FontLab, I would likely use the FontLab VFJ format, which is a human-readable JSON representation of a FontLab data file (VFC being the equivalent binary format). Not saying they would accept the copyright registration—that’s another question.
2D- https://www.dreamstime.com/flash-sale-outline-letters-d-cartoon-phrase-inventory-blowout-isolated-vector-lettering-white-background-hot-summer-deals-special-image293792470
3D- https://in.pinterest.com/pin/434456695279102754/
If I recall properly, it had something to do with the number of Points in a design.
For example:
1D letter L, has only 3 points. The top point, middle and ending point.
2D letter L, has 6 points.
3D letter L, has about 9 or 10 points.
It also stated, when submitting your registration, to input in the NOTES TO COPYRIGHT OFFICE section, the following below.
"I am not claiming rights to any of the underlying public utilites, but only in the artistic points of the design itself"
Supposedly, the more points in a design, the easier it'll qualify as, an Artistic Work.
I dont really know, but it was something like that 🤷
Personally, I am very well rounded with copyright laws, and this was one of the better articles that i have read on the subject. Hopefully, I can find it, and I'll repost it here
Nope, if it has a right angle, it is still two-dimensional. A one-dimensional object has only length. You can’t draw a meaningful L in one dimension.
Stroke-based vs outline-based is an important distinction in type design, but not the same as 1D vs 2D.
As I stated, I was just trying to recall what the article stated, and Ill try finding it and posting it.
Line segments in computer graphics (what your quoted text is referring to) can be represented by a pair of points, and an abstract line segment so defined is one dimensional. But that is the extent to which you can describe something as one dimensional. A polyline might be comprised of two or more one-dimensional line segments, but the polyline itself requires description in at least two dimensions. And if you want a line or polyline to be visible, it must have thickness, which means more than one dimension.