My ESPC adventures.... for what they are worth.

TJ ODonnell wrote: ...

...

Interesting that they should pick on your alphabets. Letters of the alphabet are one of the only kind of design that can NOT be protected by copyright in the United States. Names of alphabets/fonts/designs can be trademarked, and computer implementations such as actual font files, specific sets of nodes, and stitch files can be protected.

The rationale in the US is that the alphabet itself is open, and specific designs that represent it are merely interpretations.

Here is an abstract from the AIGA Journal of Graphic Design, 1997

"By law, type designers in the U.S. cannot protect their work by copyright. Currently, copyright law is meant to protect the expression of a creative idea; it does not cover any object or design that is intrinsically utilitarian, which the Copyright Office considers type fonts to be. The Copyright Office will, however, protect the software as a literary work that creates the font. The Copyright Office still requires that no claim be made for the actual design of the font."

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER - copyright or otherwise!

- Herb

Oh ya- i know! its funny- no they are accusing me of using their "designs" (i digitize from the same sources)....

I find it interesting especially when so many of the ESPC members use commercial typefaces to create their embroidery typefaces (technically that is illegal in the US). In fact, someone on this board (will remain nameless) has her faces promos on this board and they are taken from truetype fonts- commercial - I can tell she did not draw each of those letters herself- (BYB that is also technically a violation of the font's licensing agreement). but to each there own ---

-- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service ------->>>>>>

...snipped... ~ ~I find it interesting especially when so many of the ESPC members use ~commercial typefaces to create their embroidery typefaces (technically ~that is illegal in the US). In fact, someone on this board (will remain ~nameless) has her faces promos on this board and they are taken from ~truetype fonts- commercial - I can tell she did not draw each of those ~letters herself- (BYB that is also technically a violation of the font's ~licensing agreement). but to each there own ---

So how do you know which fonts are commercial typefaces and why are they copywrited when other fonts cannot be?

ALL fonts can be copyright protected, regardless of whether they're commercial or free. Many free fonts are created whose copyright notice states that the author has waived all protection rights, or has maintained a limited subset of those rights, such as restricting sale or commercial use, but allowing copying and restribution.

BTW - the word is copyright, not -write. It's the right to copy.

First of all, just about everything is subject to copyright protection, including your email message and this response. Letters of the alphabet are unique in that the US courts and copyright office have determined that the shapes of the letters - designs - of the alphabet cannot be copyrighted, because they are utilitarian and common and different designs are just variations on an already established, public domain concept. Shapes that are NOT alphabetical CAN be copyright protected; this includes photographs, cartoons, works of art etc. There are many gray areas. Is a font consisting of Mickey Mouse in various poses representing letters of the alphabet an infringement of Disney's copyright or a free expression of the alphabet? Who knows!

Now back to your question. The IMPLEMENTATION of a design can be copyrighted; That is, the actual outlines and their determining node points, the font file itself, and any software internal to the font can be protected. If you were to decide to look at a copyright-protected commercial font, draw it by hand, scan your drawing, and make a font or embroidery design from it, you have not violated the copyright, since the © applies to the implementation, not the design. (Don't name it the same either - font NAMES can be trademarked and copyrighted, and some DESIGNS have been PATENTED. It's complicated)

In the European Union, however, it's a totally different story. Alphabet DESIGNS CAN be copyright protected, so it's not legal to create your own version if it looks the same. Another gray area - at what point does something stop looking the same ...

- Herb

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:35:51 GMT, Herb typed:

~Sew Savvy wrote: ~ ~> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:57:45 -0400, TJ ODonnell ~> typed: ~> ~> ...snipped... ~ ~I find it interesting especially when so many of ~> the ESPC members use ~commercial typefaces to create their ~> embroidery typefaces (technically ~that is illegal in the US). In ~> fact, someone on this board (will remain ~nameless) has her faces ~> promos on this board and they are taken from ~truetype fonts- ~> commercial - I can tell she did not draw each of those ~letters ~> herself- (BYB that is also technically a violation of the font's ~> ~licensing agreement). but to each there own --- ~> ~> So how do you know which fonts are commercial typefaces and why are ~> they copywrited when other fonts cannot be? ~ ~ALL fonts can be copyright protected, regardless of whether they're ~commercial or free. Many free fonts are created whose copyright notice ~states that the author has waived all protection rights, or has ~maintained a limited subset of those rights, such as restricting sale ~or commercial use, but allowing copying and restribution. ~ ~ ~BTW - the word is copyright, not -write. It's the right to copy. ~ ~First of all, just about everything is subject to copyright ~protection, including your email message and this response. Letters of ~the alphabet are unique in that the US courts and copyright office ~have determined that the shapes of the letters - designs - of the ~alphabet cannot be copyrighted, because they are utilitarian and ~common and different designs are just variations on an already ~established, public domain concept. Shapes that are NOT alphabetical ~CAN be copyright protected; this includes photographs, cartoons, works ~of art etc. There are many gray areas. Is a font consisting of Mickey ~Mouse in various poses representing letters of the alphabet an ~infringement of Disney's copyright or a free expression of the ~alphabet? Who knows! ~ ~Now back to your question. The IMPLEMENTATION of a design can be ~copyrighted; That is, the actual outlines and their determining node ~points, the font file itself, and any software internal to the font ~can be protected. If you were to decide to look at a ~copyright-protected commercial font, draw it by hand, scan your ~drawing, and make a font or embroidery design from it, you have not ~violated the copyright, since the © applies to the implementation, not ~the design. (Don't name it the same either - font NAMES can be ~trademarked and copyrighted, and some DESIGNS have been PATENTED. It's ~complicated) ~ ~In the European Union, however, it's a totally different story. ~Alphabet DESIGNS CAN be copyright protected, so it's not legal to ~create your own version if it looks the same. Another gray area - at ~what point does something stop looking the same ... ~ ~ - Herb

Thank you for your detailed response Herb, it's all clear now. At least as clear as you can get when looking at gray. Yes, copyRIGHT (forgot to slow down the brain to keep speed with the typing fingers).

I was considering digitizing some fonts, but was concerned about some of them being copyrighted.

clear as you can get

speed with the

being copyrighted.

That should be no problem. Just remember not to name them the same. Some foundries, like Linotype, guard their trademarked names such as Helvetica zealously. It's not really important whether they'd win their cases or not, but they make things VERY difficult for anyone who produces a font named, for example, Smellvetica. It's OK to have a note somewhere saying that this is based on whatever, or similar to, or took inspiration from, etc.

the design of the face is not copy protected, the CODE in the truetype , postscript or opentype font IS. SO.. if you use a commercial typeface you are breaking the license of the manufacturer (programmer) of that face. Does that make sense?

If you drew the face (say in illustrator or by hand thats fine-- letters are not protected by copyright.

-- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service ------->>>>>>

Not to me; it's no more violating the license than is using a commercial font to print text on paper, or using it directly (without creating an intermediate design) with an embroidery program that interprets the fonts.

You are not doing anything with the code that's outside of the normal use of the font. You're neither copying the code nor even copying the points that make up the outline. Your embroidery program is, in effect doing exactly what you would be doing manually if you chose to copy the letters by hand.

To put in another way ... I can open Artista to create a design, and add text using Helvetica. Do you see any problem with that? And if the design is only text? Still no problem? And if the text consists of only one letter? By your interpretation, the last would be illegal but the others legal. Now let's take it one step further - that text design I created, which we all agree (I think) is OK - break it up into its component letters ... oh well, you see where I'm going.

And since neither of us are copyright attorneys, it's all probably moot - except that in your position, I'd be equally leery of doing anything at all questionable unless I was prepared to take the time and money needed to take things to court.

- Herb

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:30:11 GMT, Herb typed:

~TJ ODonnell wrote: ~ ~> the design of the face is not copy protected, the CODE in the truetype , ~> postscript or opentype font IS. SO.. if you use a commercial typeface ~> you are breaking the license of the manufacturer (programmer) of that ~> face. Does that make sense? ~ ~Not to me; it's no more violating the license than is using a ~commercial font to print text on paper, or using it directly (without ~creating an intermediate design) with an embroidery program that ~interprets the fonts. ~ ~You are not doing anything with the code that's outside of the normal ~use of the font. You're neither copying the code nor even copying the ~points that make up the outline. Your embroidery program is, in effect ~doing exactly what you would be doing manually if you chose to copy ~the letters by hand. ~ ~> If you drew the face (say in illustrator or by hand) thats fine-- letters ~> are not protected by copyright. ~ ~To put in another way ... I can open Artista to create a design, and ~add text using Helvetica. Do you see any problem with that? And if the ~design is only text? Still no problem? And if the text consists of ~only one letter? By your interpretation, the last would be illegal ~but the others legal. Now let's take it one step further - that text ~design I created, which we all agree (I think) is OK - break it up ~into its component letters ... oh well, you see where I'm going. ~ ~And since neither of us are copyright attorneys, it's all probably ~moot - except that in your position, I'd be equally leery of doing ~anything at all questionable unless I was prepared to take the time ~and money needed to take things to court. ~ ~ - Herb

I'm not a legal expert either. But let me see if I understand this... as long as you did not use the font with malice and did your due diligence in determining that the font was not a TM, would that not suffice? (Did I get the wording right TJ?) We are also not talking about selling a CD of TTF's for sale. So if we use a font as a basis to "digitize" an alphabet or a series of words/phrases and then offer the digitized designs for sale, we are not in violation. Right?

as you did not

font was not a TM,

TM? Whatever it is, there should be absolutely no need to analyze the font's legal status at all.

talking about

an alphabet or a

not in violation.

That's my take on it.

If you look at the library of alphabets offered by such stalwarts as Embroidery Library, Keepsakes Embroidery, A.B.C. embroidery fonts, and all the others, just about ALL of their plain alphabets are simple digitizations of other people's copyrighted fonts.

- Herb

...snipped ~ ~TM? Whatever it is, there should be absolutely no need to analyze the ~font's legal status at all.

TM=Trade Mark. Like Coca-Cola. I believe they have the font and the word trade-marked. An exception to the rule perhaps? I think you can use the font but not if you use it to spell out the words "Coca-Cola".

~ ~> would that not suffice? (Did I get the wording right TJ?) We are also not talking about ~> selling a CD of TTF's for sale. So if we use a font as a basis to "digitize" an alphabet or a ~> series of words/phrases and then offer the digitized designs for sale, we are not in violation. ~> Right? ~ ~That's my take on it. ~ ~If you look at the library of alphabets offered by such stalwarts as ~Embroidery Library, Keepsakes Embroidery, A.B.C. embroidery fonts, and ~all the others, just about ALL of their plain alphabets are simple ~digitizations of other people's copyrighted fonts. ~ ~ - Herb

Thanks, you've been helpful.

use it to spell

Yes, Logos are a different story entirely. There is no Coca-Cola font. The company has been lax in enforcing its copyright, so a number of pseudo-fonts have been created, such as "Loki-Cola".

A particularly loathsome example of enforcement had to do with a font based on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", where Fox gave the author of the font "Buffy" a VERY hard time.

- Herb