[OpenFontLibrary] Font Myths

[Fontfreedom at aol.com]

>> I don't see any reason typefaces first released in the UK or  Europe
>> would enjoy any copyright protection in the U.S. All  typefaces (not
>> fonts) are automatically and immediately public  domain in the U.S.
>
> Because it seems that under international  copyright conventions
> countries have agreed to respect each others  copyright. So if something
> is created in the UK and copyright there it  should also be copyright in
> the US ~ whether or not a creation of the  same sort created in the US
> would be copyright there. At least this is  how the working of the
> conventions was explained to me.
 
You guys really should see the Font Myths website:
 
 
MYTH # 3 - If Copyright Does Not Provide Font Protection,  Treaties Do So.  
In a font, the name, any programming code not describing the font design (and 
 possibly non-alphanumeric designs that are not common and don't carry  
information) are all that can be copyrighted. This leaves the door open in the  USA 
to have anyone pay for the output of each character from a typesetter and  
redigitize it or extract the design from a font program (and rename it), easily  
duplicating the design. Most foundries have very similar fonts derived from 
work  largely designed by others.  
 
____________________________________

QUESTION As signatories to the Berne Convention,  isn't the USA obliged to 
provide full artistic copyright protection to typefaces  originating in 
countries with design protection? And weren't there recent  "accords" that 
strengthened the treaty?  
 
____________________________________

ANSWER NOPE!  
Other countries' copyright laws do not and never did supercede US laws  
regarding US acts and sales.  
Copyright is highly individualistic from country to country (and is even  
administered differently by each court in the cantons of Switzerland and  
provinces of Italy, for instance) unlike the international monolithic consensus  
these other guys would have you believe.  
Because of the strongly held, idiosyncratic beliefs of most nations, there  
was a core set of articles that most countries would subscribe to and there 
were  large numbers of articles that some countries felt were important, where 
others  were adamantly opposed. The only way to do the deal was to get a group 
of  nations to sign on to the "core" copyright treaty and as many of the other  
articles as they would assent to.  
An appropriate analogy might be that of a cafeteria, where each country's  
legislative body picked their own choice of vegetables to go with the basic  
meal.  
The US registered several "reservations" of articles. These were articles  
that they refused to sign on to as part of the treaty. This placed all other  
countries on notice that these rejected articles would not be enforced in the  
US. For the US, the rejection of these areas became law as well as the  
acceptance of other terms. As part of the signing of the treaty, each nation  agreed 
to respect the "national sovreignty" of other countries in these areas.  
The only way to add articles to a treaty would be by treaty and full approval 
 of the senate.  
Any time a treaty is signed with another country, it must be ratified by the  
Senate. Their debate, passage and any reservations they include in the treaty 
 even supercede any other Federal or State laws in effect. So, there can be 
no  modification of this "higher level of treaty law" without a modification of 
the  terms of the treaty. No "accord" signed by the executive branch of the  
government has any standing to compete with law - especially treaty law!  
The executive branch of the government has no right to go against the direct  
wishes of Congress, regarding a law, duly passed by both houses and signed by 
 the President. This is why the Copyright Office's final regulations so 
closely  mirror the intent of Congress.  
Regardless of what "accords" have been signed by "whomever", the Copyright  
office has coordinated all current law in a publication that they call  
Circular 1 - Copyright Basics as published by the US Copyright Office (I  
believe,free to all upon request.) Page 7 says  
There is no such thing as an 'international copyright' that will  
automatically protect an author's writings throughout the entire world.  ....

By joining the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989, the United States  gained 
protection for it's authors in all member nations of the Berne Union  with 
which the United States formerly had no copyright relations or had  bilateral 
treaty arrangements. Members of the Berne Union agree to a  certain minimum level 
of copyright protection and agree to treat nationals  of other member 
countries like their own nationals for purposes of  copyright. A work first published 
in the United States or another Berne  Union country (or first published in a 
non-Berne Union country, follower by  publication within 30 days in a Berne 
Union country) is eligible for  protection in all Berne member countries. There 
are no special requirements. 
Please notice that, "Members of the Berne Union ... agree to treat nationals  
of other member countries like their own nationals for purposes of 
copyright."  This means that everybody has to play by the US rules in the US.  
In signing the Berne Convention, all signatory governments assented to the  
treatment of their nationals in the US according to current US law. So, all  
countries which have signed the Berne Conventions have agreed, in treaty, for  
the designs of their citizens to receive no protection in the US. They do not  
treat the US position as outside the bounds of decency. They understand it, 
and  allow it.  
 
____________________________________

QUESTION Isn't there stronger protection in some  other countries?  
 
____________________________________

ANSWER You are right, in some countries there are  laws protecting font 
companies more than the common law rights of the people.  
Restriction of rights of the press is much less a problem in England. Or in  
France under Napoleanic Law, where you are guilty till proven innocent. There  
are benefits to this country and drawbacks.  
In England, I understand, the font legislation was written by a font company  
who was lobbying Parliment! But, you chose to live here, all things  
considered. Please don't choose to live here and then yell at me because I drive  on 
the right side of the road and tell me how it's so much better "over there"!  
Every government takes some things from it's citizens and distributes  them 
to the masses. In our country there is a 100% tax on exclusivity of font  
designs.
**************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other 
Holiday needs. Search Now. 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from
-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/attachments/20081107/cb61efb6/attachment-0001.htm