<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7> <DIV>>> 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.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You guys really should see the Font Myths website:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>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. <A name=ILO> </A> <HR noShade SIZE=3> 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? <A name=ILO> </A> <HR noShade SIZE=3> 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 <UL>There is no such thing as an 'international copyright' that will automatically protect an author's writings throughout the entire world. ....</UL> <UL>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. </UL> 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. <A name=ILO> </A> <HR noShade SIZE=3> QUESTION Isn't there stronger protection in some other countries? <A name=ILO> </A> <HR noShade SIZE=3> 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.</DIV> <DIV CLASS="aol_ad_footer" ID="5997229279ddaddc18cb13ce3d25faaa"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. <a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001 ">Search Now</a>.</DIV></BODY></HTML>