[comp.fonts] font.copyrights

nf@ccicpg.UUCP (Ned Foboe) (07/06/90)

Whats legal and whats not seems to be pretty well established. I have
some gray areas for y'all.

I have a PS printer. I also own a set of Compugraphic outline fonts,
plus a tool to convert them to type 1 PS fonts, or Amiga (screen) bitmap
fonts.

Is it legal for me to distribute the bitmaps that I generate?

What about the PS fonts that _I generate_ from the CG outlines? I 
understand that a copyright is held by CG for their outlines, but
is the resulting PS program still covered by their copyright ? Yes ?
No ? Gray area ?

I don't have any plans to do these, I'm just curious.

--
Ned. No, really.

dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (07/09/90)

In article <79250@ccicpg.UUCP>, nf@ccicpg.UUCP (Ned Foboe) writes...
>Whats legal and whats not seems to be pretty well established. I have
>some gray areas for y'all.

>I have a PS printer. I also own a set of Compugraphic outline fonts,
>plus a tool to convert them to type 1 PS fonts, or Amiga (screen) bitmap
>fonts.

>Is it legal for me to distribute the bitmaps that I generate?

This is a gray area; a bitmap can be copyrighted as computer
data, and the program that generates a bitmap can be copyrighted
as a computer program, but the output from that program... under
current law, it would be difficult for somebody to prosecute you
for doing this (and in fact some vendors actually do this sort of
thing), but ATypI, the international association of typographers
does not look kindly on such things and I suspect that if the
Compugraphic outline fonts are copyrighted in Germany, France or
the UK, your bitmaps could not be legally brought into those
countries.

>What about the PS fonts that _I generate_ from the CG outlines? I 
>understand that a copyright is held by CG for their outlines, but
>is the resulting PS program still covered by their copyright ? Yes ?
>No ? Gray area ?

In this case, there is NO gray area. The resulting PS program is
still covered by their copyright. The translation here does not
produce the program's output, but rather creates a derivative
work which is covered under international copyright law (an
appropriate analogy is to consider a translation of a novel; the
translation is still subject to the copyright on the original
work).

-dh

---
Don Hosek                         TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont Consulting and
dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu         production work. Free Estimates.
dhosek@ymir.bitnet                
uunet!jarthur!ymir                Phone: 714-625-0147

tp@mccall.com (07/09/90)

In article <79250@ccicpg.UUCP>, nf@ccicpg.UUCP (Ned Foboe) writes:
> Whats legal and whats not seems to be pretty well established. I have
> some gray areas for y'all.
> 
> I have a PS printer. I also own a set of Compugraphic outline fonts,
> plus a tool to convert them to type 1 PS fonts, or Amiga (screen) bitmap
> fonts.
> 
> Is it legal for me to distribute the bitmaps that I generate?

I haven't signed any agreements with Compugrahic, so I don't know what
their contracts look like. Several other firms, with which I have
non-disclosure agreements as a result of an (unsuccessful) vendor search,
have clauses in their contract that specifically cover this. I suspect you
signed a contract with CG to get what you have. I suggest you look very
carefully at the fine print. I think you will find that you have signed
away your right to do this, whether it would have been legal or not. It
doesn't matter what copyright law says if you signed a contract.
-- 
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp)     615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041        Manhattan, KS 66502, USA

nf@ccicpg.UUCP (Ned Foboe) (07/11/90)

In article <3076.2698446f@mccall.com> tp@mccall.com writes:
>> 
>> I have a PS printer. I also own a set of Compugraphic outline fonts,
>> plus a tool to convert them to type 1 PS fonts, or Amiga (screen) bitmap
>> fonts.
>> 
>> Is it legal for me to distribute the bitmaps that I generate?
>
>I haven't signed any agreements with Compugrahic, so I don't know what
>their contracts look like. Several other firms, with which I have
>non-disclosure agreements as a result of an (unsuccessful) vendor search,
>have clauses in their contract that specifically cover this. I suspect you
>signed a contract with CG to get what you have. 

Nope. I bought the things, and there was a little sticker that you are
suposed to read before you open the envelope, but I just ripped it off
and threw it away. If people want me to read things they're gonna
have to use something other than 1.5 point Bocklin.

>I suggest you look very
>carefully at the fine print. I think you will find that you have signed
>away your right to do this, whether it would have been legal or not. It
>doesn't matter what copyright law says if you signed a contract.

Within reason. Their contract (implied or not) does not superscede
your rights.

Thanks for your opinion though. Thats what I love about the net - you
ask: ``Is it legal to do this?'' and you get: ``Yes'', ``No'' and
``Maybe'' :-)

--
Ned. Artiste.

briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian D Diehm) (07/12/90)

>Thanks for your opinion though. Thats what I love about the net - you
>ask: ``Is it legal to do this?'' and you get: ``Yes'', ``No'' and
>``Maybe'' :-)

Funny. The net isn't the only place where this happens.  How about the courts?
"Well. And just how much justice can you AFFORD?"

>Ned. Artiste.

With the label artist, not only are you proof against legal systems, you can
be supported by the Federal government. Amazing.

-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 47-780
Beaverton, OR   97077                        (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
-- 
-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 47-780
Beaverton, OR   97077                        (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)