As a budding font designer I am sympathetic to both sides of the copyrighting, name branding, patenting, etc. arguments; but I am starting to have greater agreement with the side that asserts that font faces should essentially be "free." And that is a somewhat qualified concept of "free" -- so do read on. Let's please have an intelligent and informed discussion on the matter first. You can always flame me later.

Over time I have noticed that the larger font foundries (Linotype-Hell, Monotype, Adobe, ITC, Letraset, et al) usually have a large selection of similar fonts. Let's take Linoscript (a Linotype-Hell font originally, I believe) as an example. Other foundries sell fonts very similar to Linoscript by the various names of Typo Upright BT, Hoity-Toity, Linus from Corel and with a bit more variance, French Script MT. Other fonts could be used as examples, such as your average Roman or Sans Serif font there are dozens so alike as to be only imperceptibly different! And yet, I believe that some of you would argue that each one is a wholly original work worthy of being protected legally by some means and perhaps this is actually de facto protection in some other jurisdictions, if not the United States. But the fact that such protection is afforded in some places doesn't mean that it should be the case here as well.

Are some of you actually going to argue that subtle weight differences and/or adding a serif here or a spur there actually creates a different font worthy of protection in its own right? My point is that the large foundries all have very similar faces and appear to knock off each other's faces more or less with impunity. And they have done so from the start. I have read how even the likes of Stanley Morison would work from a foundries existing font and then proceed to "improve it." I have no problem with that at all, by the way in fact I would argue that THIS is the very manner in which a font is improved over time. But it begs the question Does or Should anyone (either a natural or corporate person) own the rights to something as culturally relevant as the Roman face? An interesting case in point might be the recently released HTF Hoefler Text of twenty-seven Roman faces. In this case Hoefler is attempting to satisfy the basic Roman type needs of the average digital typesetting business with a series of fonts that run from the basic Roman to italic to engraved to a boldface which borders on being a blackletter. As I looked at the designs, they absolutely recalled every Roman letterform I have seen over the years is it original invention or merely respectful homage? Is it Baskerville or Emigre's Mrs. Eaves? In the end, how can anyone justify to themselves or anyone else that these letterforms belong to them to the legal exclusion of others when they are so obviously a product and outgrowth of culture as a whole -- they are certainly not original works created in a vacuum!

Borrowing strongly, even outright use of a font design, would be very much along the same lines of what in the comic book industry is known as the "swipe," -- a borrowed panel or pose of art -- and while some artists have been taken to court for stretching it a bit far, most of the time it is taken as homage bestowed upon the original work. Some of you may aghast at my claims, but I see nothing wrong with them. Fonts are not and cannot be copyrighted in the U.S. Certainly not as to their designs alone! (Patent is discussed below) I do not know the particulars of extant font copying or knock offs, but there is a way to circumvent even the question of whether the SOFTWARE of fonts may be protected. As noted in the Font FAQ by Norman Walsh: Note that the designs themselves are still not protected in the U.S. A plagiarist could print out large sized letters (say, one per page) on an Apple Laserwriter, using a copyrighted PostScript digital font, and then redigitize those letters by using a scanner or a font digitizing program and thus produce a new digital font without having copied the program or digital data, and thus without infringing the copyright on the font...of course, the plagiarist would have to rename the font to evade trademark infringement.

And for some of you worried about the legal consequences of what I am here expressing deal with it the history of these knocked off fonts and the foundries that have engaged in this level of thievery creates a tradition that can be used as a defense. Such a defense might not win, but that would not necessarily mean that it had no moral or ethical backbone. Artists of all kinds have borrowed from each other for years that's how we have over the years established artistic movements like the renaissance, or mannerism, or what have you.

And before anyone gets on their high-horse about artists' and/or a corporation's property rights, lets be honest and admit that everyone involved with type has been knocking off the work of Arrighi, Pacioli, Tory, Durer, Herder, Morris, Bradley, Morison, Gill, Zapf, and every other font artist down to the present. Both corporate and individual font foundries have been riding on the backs of giants for a long time, but why should they be the only ones allowed to do so? Is it because they claimed the right first? While that may hold water in a courtroom, I think we can all see it for the morally contemptible drivel it is. See if Native American Indians would agree with your narrow, prejudicial, and O so western view of property rights. They were here first, but it availed them nothing. So ultimately let's be honest about another thing, might makes right! A corporation's ability to outfight you in court is the only reason such a property right would be protected because it can be bought from our legal system. So what else is new? Just be sure that we are not discussing things from some sort of imagined moral high ground because there is none, people do what they can get away with and nations and corporations get away with more because they can get away with it in courtroom or before the world. This whole discussion takes place in a sewer, because that's were us cultural rats fight over the morsels left us. No one is innocent, but some of us are guiltier than others. So should outright use of another's designs be allowed? The real answer is a question: isn't it already allowed? Isn't that exactly what I have been pointing up throughout this rant?

I have an example that may shock some of you. I would like to argue that Barnbrook's Exocet was hugely improved upon when it came out as Avalon Quest from Swifte International. Barnbrook's variant for the "T" is in my view a wasted effort; whereas Swifte's knock off is improved by omitting about the alternate "t", subtle changes in letter spacing, and by having an italic set, although I concede that most typesetting software will italicize, bold, super and subscript a font on the fly. But go ahead, write something out with both side by side, the original and the knock off Avalon Quest is better and has a cooler name. : ) One more point, I have read that Barnbrook himself largely based his NixonScript font on a logo he saw on an old camera from the fifties. Is this not also plagiarism? And if not, how minute is your definition going to become before you give it up because of its smallness? Trying to control such improvements is morally and aesthetically small. It would be like trying to claim copyright of slogans like "keep on trucking," or "have a nice day." I realize that some of you may know that the former is the work of the comic artist R. Crumb but as such I would point out that he had very little success maintaining control of either the slogan or the image of the walking figure he created to go with it. Basically it's the model of how the street has its own uses for things, and that no amount of control can stop it.

Like Walsh before him (supra), Stephen Moye asserts in his book on Fontographer: that copyright of a font in the U.S. is not allowed, and that legal protection of a font is more or less limited to branding of the name by trademark. At the same time, he certainly seems to be in favor of altering and manipulating fonts in Fontographer to suit the needs of the designer/user. Like Walsh, he seems to suggest that merely naming a font something else would generally circumvent the legal difficulties of trademark protection, but he does leave open and unanswered the question of patent of the font design.

Which brings us to the question of font patent. Patent does exist for font designs in the U.S. Here we may look again to the Font FAQ. Walsh claims that patent is a possible, if tedious route to legally protecting one's font work. Despite this, I would like to see such a case concerning font patent infringement defended upon the grounds that knocking off the types of other foundries is a well established practice in the industry and that no such protection against infringement should or does actually exist de facto. As Walsh himself notes in his short discussion about copyright: The reluctance of Americans to press for typeface copyright may have been influenced by a feeling that typeface plagiarism was good for U.S. high-tech businesses who were inventing new technologies for printing, and plagiarizing types of foreign origin (Europe and England). If the situation becomes reversed, and foreign competitors (from Japan, Taiwan, and Korea) threatens to overcome American technological superiority in the laser printer industry, then American firms may do an about-face and seek the protection of typeface copyright to help protect the domestic printer industry. Such a trend may already be seen in the licensing of typeface trademarks by Adobe, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Imagen, and Xerox in the U.S. laser printer industry. Now go back and read it again. Yes, it does actually say that the thieves themselves will be seeking copyright protection of their ill-gotten booty. Leeches all!!! Is this what some of you are defending? I would recommend you rethink your position on the subject. I also fail to see how the patent protection available is of general use to individual font designers. Walsh points out that it is "slow, expensive, and uncertain" read useful only to huge corporations. So despite what Walsh himself might assert in the Font FAQ, much of what he describes about the industry as a whole undermines his own views; he merely doggedly follows certain, perhaps antiquated, ideals, morals, and ethics. Do not as Walsh does but as the large corporations do: steal it!

Now, I would like to take a moment to digress and discuss the collecting of fonts that takes place here on the newsgroup. I would liken it to the way steel engravers use to copy the work of the renaissance masters. These widely distributed printed engravings made it so that the renaissance masters could gain fame all of the world for work actually on display in only one location on earth and nobody ever said anything about copyright infringement under those circumstances even though such a case could, and most likely would, be made for today. The font trading that takes place here is largely that of the connoisseur, intent only in owning for him or herself that one special font for a probably very limited usage. These fonts are used to decorate and pretty up pages intended as invites to parties, a website banner, or some other such highly specialized and limited use. I think it's generally harmless and the font companies that troll the newsgroups do so at the denigration of themselves before a public that will not now look upon them favorably. Alternatively, these companies could have turned the blind eye and decided that pirate copies of fonts represented a kind of free advertising and an acceptable loss.

Do note what may be taking place in AOL chatrooms as I have posted about previously. I do not believe that anything can be done to stop it either, the fonts are definitely being traded: I admit to innocently trading some fonts with someone already, before I had stopped and considered the legal implications of the act.

Moreover, what is to be done about publishing technologies like Adobe Acrobat where the PDF files generated themselves contain the much protected fonts. Do I now no longer have the right to distribute a document using fonts I have actually paid for just because the technology requires it if I am to maintain the formatting I have designed for the document? That seems grossly unfair.

Lastly, what is to come of the current copyright impasse when another technology takes the stage one that will allow total formatting of web pages with embedded font designs as well? Will the creation of these sites also be against the strictest interpretation of various font licensing agreements? More importantly, as a paying customer to these foundries, will I care if it does infringe their rights? I am more interested in my need to publish a thing as I wish it published than I am to concern myself overmuch over the possible or quasi-infringement of a font licensing agreement.

Did I not purchase the font in order to use it, modify it, alter it in Photoshop, post a banner formed from it to the web? You bet I did!!! If it were otherwise, I certainly would not have spent my own money on it. So at last we come to see where the true position of the font artist lies, it is the position of the skilled craftsman---no more, but certainly no less. These craftsmen may be able to attain a certain fame, notoriety, even a degree of wealth---but I would hope it will no longer be because of the presumption of invention or originality. Let us view it as more of an act of refinement, shall we? Fonts are, after all, works in progress... Comments? I welcome the input of professionals and even that of Messrs. Moye and Walsh if possible.

Okay, here is a slightly new topic on my main theme... I love these collections made available by the likes of Dan X. Solo (Dover books) and Scriptorium, but have you ever noticed the small print? For example, Dan Solo's books contain the following statement under the copyright notice: "Up to six words may be composed from the letters in these alphabets and used in any single publication without payment to or permission from the publisher. For any more extensive use, write to Solotype Typographer's... [etc.]" Now, from what I understand of it -- Solo has no such rights on the typeface designs that he may claim as the designs themselves are not copyrightable. Scriptorium's David F. Nalle likewise attempts to copyright his material, but of course he has the law on his side as to the specific software copyright issue. All well and good. The real question becomes who really can or should own these font properties? I mean, both Solo and Nalle (and there are other examples that could be made easily, like the P-22 foundry) seem to largely be digging through old tomes on design and art and putting together alphabets based upon the specific designs of people like Macintosh, Mucha, Bradley, Koch, etc. Now I realize that the age of a design factors into this as well, so that fonts over say 75 years of age are in the public domain. But, let's say I wanted to do the Mucha alphabet that Scriptorium labels "Abaddon." Would I now have to contact Nalle and get his permission to likewise knock-off Alphonse Mucha, as long as I don't actually use Nalle's protected software program? You see, if the original owner of the copyright would have been Mucha, and it lapses into public domain, but then Nalle snatches it up again -- isn't the copyright of the digital typeface design now his? This seems to me exactly the state of things some of you are trying to establish legally in pushing for a copyright on the designs themselves. It seems a largely untenable position to me.

Actually, I do think mine has more veracity (hey, isn't that the name of a famous font?) -- because only the software of a font is protectable. My copies of Avalon Quest do not look like straight knock-offs of Exocet's program -- ergo not protectable by Emigre. And that is not at all like beating up an old man and taking his accounts recievable from him. The main problem with this argument in favor of protection, is the manner in which it merely defends the dying corporate interests of certain foundries. Go read how Monotype screwed Zapf (in John's essay). Has Zapf sued successfully or are the only ones able to defend their turf corporate monoliths like Adobe? Point being that Monotype gets away with it wants when it wants to. And I would like to point out that this matter is not even a U.S. situation (isn't Monotype English, Zapf German? -- I am no final expert on this question), and I thought fonts were given so much more protection abroad. If Zapf can get screwed -- all of us designers can just bend over and grease up. Everyone keeps saying how nobody gets rich designing a face, so I have decided that when I get to a point of releasing my typefaces I will maintain a rather small interest on whether it even returns a dime for all my work. Or is there something else going on here? Is the cry of poverty merely to defeat more creative competition? Why are you all fighting tooth and nail for protection of something that has never made anyone rich anyway? Most of these clones go around without Zapf's or Morison's names on them anyway, proving you will also not become very famous -- do you fight to protect what others have likewise not recieved (i.e. recognition for authorship)?

BTW, what knowledge I have at this point is gleaned from reading books like "Letters of Credit," "The Crystal Goblet," and "The Alphabetical Labyrinth." The way I read these texts tells a pretty sordid little tale of font "creation." People like Morison apparently tended to view their works with considerable humility, why cannot you others do the same? I think all this latter day demand for recognition as artists or creators of intellectual property is a sham. Fonts are not art, although I find them interesting; they are more like cool edits or remixes of existing material, more the work of skilled craftsmen. Being able to make a beautiful wood cabinet does not place a carpenter on equal footing with Michelangelo.

Richard