Copyright Aid Forum Index
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in   Main siteC A Main Site 

How are typesetting and copyright related?

 
   Copyright Aid Forum Index -> Copyright Law

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Copyright Aid Forum Index -> Copyright Law
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Anna
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:24 am    Post subject: How are typesetting and copyright related? Reply with quote

Hi folks,

Am I allowed to imitate the typesetting of a book, picture or document to typeset my own material?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndyJ
Oracle
Oracle


Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 1562

PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Anna,
By 'imitate' I assume you mean copy in a facsimile way, rather than create a parody of the original. And by 'typesetting' I assume you mean the font used in the original, rather than the layout of the text. Copyright exists for any font or typeface, but it does not apply to users of the typeface (printers, publishers etc). This may appear contradictory, but in fact the protection exists to prevent other manufacturers from producing a copyright typeface belonging to someone else, and goes back to the old days of letterpress printing when individual pieces of type were used to make up the text to be printed. The only application of the law these days is in the software which is used to generate typefaces on the screen or as output to a printer.
However, if you mean that you want to copy the layout of the text, a bit more caution may be required, as this feature could be protected as a form of artistic work which would be infringed if a substantial amount was copied. Much will depend of how 'original' the original text pattern was, For example where the layout of the text is merely dictated by having to flow around other objects such as images or page margins, this may not be sufficient to indicate the creativity of the publisher, whereas something like a poem by ee cummings, which is deliberately structured in a particular way by the author, may well involve the necessary originality. However the exception for quotation could be sufficient to get round the problem of reproducing some of his poetry set out in this way. However to truly infringe, you would need to use the actual words of the original, which of course would probably amount to infringement of the literary element anyway. What is more, the protection for a typographical layout of a printed edition only lasts for 25 years from first publication. This would apply to the use of a house style used by a particular publisher, by which I mean a particular combination of font(s), capitalisation, indenting and line length/spacing and in combination with other objects such as illustrations, which was instantly identifiable. An example of this might be the style of the Ladybird books from previous decades, which have recently been parodied (with permission) in an adult series of books which uses the same house style.

I hope this answers your question.
_________________
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anna
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andy,

Allow me to clarify my question. Speaking of "typesetting", I mean layout, that is the arrangement of contents; and "imitation", I mean using the similar style to the original works (of course with different elements, fonts, themes, wordings and so on.).

I've read your replies to these earlier posts: http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/topic1810.htm
http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/topic1480.htm
http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/topic1426.htm

What I see from these posts is it'll be alright to use the similar typesetting of a book cover that cannot meet the standard of a artwork as long as it causes no passing off, right? So is it OK to copy the style of book covers or copyrighted documents? And what about posters? Will the condition be the same? Some posters can meet the requirement of copyright protection.

You mentioned font and typeface in your replay. I understand that font and typeface are different, and fonts(the software) are covered by copyright while typefaces (appearance and design of words) are not covered. According to this, can I use a font freely(in whatever ways I wish, e.g. subtitle, graphic design, printing, etc.) as long as I have a legal access to that font? And moreover, can I do whatever I want with the appearance of words typed from that font(such as modification)?

Thanks ahead!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndyJ
Oracle
Oracle


Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 1562

PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Anna,
Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps a better description for what you propose is 'graphic design' since that includes the layout, the use of colours and text (possibly combined with more conventional images such as photographs or paintings). However it doesn't really matter what we call it, it all (including fonts and typefaces) comes under the general heading (for copyright law purposes) of artistic work, which is defined in section 4 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act:
Quote:
4 Artistic works.

(1) In this Part “artistic work” means—
    (a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,

    (b) a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or

    (c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.

(2) In this Part—

“building” includes any fixed structure, and a part of a building or fixed structure;

“graphic work” includes—

    (a) any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, and

    (b) any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work;

“photograph” means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;

“sculpture” includes a cast or model made for purposes of sculpture.

Let us assume for a moment that the work you want to imitate is protected by copyright because it demonstrates sufficient originality as an artistic work. Infringement will occur if you copy a substantial part of the other work; generally speaking this means reproducing the essence or heart of the work, rather than a quantitative measurement of the amount which is copied. This particularly difficult to assess where artistic works are concerned, say compared to literary or musical works, where a more quantitative approach may be possible. So your imitation can be inspired by the earlier work, but mustn't re-use too many of the main features which make the other work distinctive. It also helps to be clear about why you wish to imitate the earlier work. If it is to cash in on the popularity or success of the other work then, like passing off, this is more likely to lead you into trouble. However if your aim is parody, pastiche or caricature, then the law recognises this and will accept a greater amount of taking from the earlier work. This is a new exception and we have very little idea of how the courts will interpret the law, except in one detail. The Court of Justice of the European Union has decided in an earlier case that parody must include an element of humour, but without defining what kind or degree of humour is expected.

So that's the obstacle you face if the original work qualifies for copyright. If due to its banality or unoriginality, the work cannot attract copyright in the first place, or if you are certain that any copyright that once existed has now ceased, then of course you do not need to be careful about what you copy. You can freely re-use the earlier work, save that if there are current trade marks involved, you need to avoid copying them, unless your purpose is strictly non-commercial.

So that is an overview. Looking specifically at typefaces and fonts, there is little you need to worry about, as an end user. Occasionally, someone will design a typeface solely for a specific purpose, and there may be copyright issues in an unauthorised use of it outside that special purpose. But generally speaking if you have what most software packages call a 'font' pre-installed or you have downloaded it from a legitimate source, then you can freely use it however you wish. If you have time and are feeling 'nerdy' about the lengths some companies go in protecting their proprietary typefaces, see this Wikipedia article on the typeface adopted by Microsoft for its corporate identity. And the distinction* between the two words is not worth dwelling on. If you treat them as synonyms, you won't go far wrong.


* Originally in the days of letterpress printing, a typeface was a family of designs of individual alphanumeric characters which conformed to a specific aesthetic. A font was the name of a group of pieces of type of a given size and style, made to the design of the typeface. So for example Times Roman was the name of a typeface: a typical font of Times Roman might be 12 point bold where 'point' is a printer's measurement: there are 72 points to the inch. Other styles might include italic, or condensed. With the arrival of photo-typesetting and much later, word-processing software, these distinctions have all but disappeared for the layman.
_________________
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anna
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andy,

Thanks again for your kind reply. I'm much clearer about what to do with the layout.

However, concerning fonts, I still have questions. Could you please continue helping me?

Now, I have Adobe CC, Mac and Windows, and the fonts pre-installed in them can be used freely, according to what I understand from your reply. But what about other free fonts licensed under SIL Open Font License, GNU General Public License, Apache License, etc.? Can fonts licensed under these agreements be used in printed material and embedded in documents? My usage includes graphic design, book covers, logos, websites, e-posters, e-cards, subtitles, etc..

I've read their EULAs. SIL have this question in their FAQ:
https://gyazo.com/0df573aed3d3c2a61fb2bb8d10e791b5
GNU GPL mentioned font exception in their license:
https://gyazo.com/404db76bdd3375b92590db43ee0cec61
I haven't studied Apache carefully.

These policies show that fonts licensed under SIL can be used in the ways I like without worry, while fonts under GUN GPL should be paid attention to the font exception. If there's one, then I can use that font freely as well. Am I right?

Or is there any restriction that I haven't known about those free fonts? I just want to make sure, lest I'd get into trouble.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndyJ
Oracle
Oracle


Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 1562

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Anna,

You are to be applauded for being so thorough in seeking out these details. I can see why you might be confused. Fonts (more precisely 'typefaces') are quite a tricky area as far as copyright is concerned. This stems in part from the different approaches of the USA where the look or design of a font isn't protected by copyright (but might be by a design patent), whereas in most European states the design can be protected by copyright (and also by registered design right which is the EU near-equivalent to the US design patent). The software behind font rendering is protectable with copyright in both jurisdictions, although the tests for originality differ somewhat.

However in this instance, you have nothing to worry about. The GNU GPL and the SIL OFL do allow you to do exactly what you want, namely to use the fonts which came with these kinds of EULAs in any way you wish.

There is a snag with the main GNU GPL in that software released under it shouldn't, ordinarily, be mixed with copyright protected material as this compromises the GPL. However sometimes a GPL font needs to be embedded in a document which itself is made up of literary or artistic copyright material, so a mechanism is required to resolve the issue. The mechanism is called the 'font exception' or +FE. This wikipedia article explains it very well so I won't repeat it all here. The +FE doesn't affect your ability to use the fonts supplied under it, any more than it would to fonts supplied without it. The +FE is intended to protect the integrity of the open software concept.

You also mentioned the Apache licences (there are 3 versions). These are generally compatible with the GNU GPL, but since the Apache licence, unlike the SIL OFL, isn't really intended for use with fonts, they don't specifically mention font software, and they don't have an exception like +FE.
_________________
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anna
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andy,

Thanks again. It's always great to have someone who is nice to answer your detailed questions patiently. I felt more assured from your confirmatory reply. I think I know more about what to do with fonts licensed under these agreements.

But I still have difficulty understanding requirements of fonts under multiple licenses. Here's this particular font, Liberation fonts ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts#Distribution ). Wikipedia says it's licensed under SIL Open Font License and GPL v2 with some exceptions. What does "some exceptions" mean? Is there any aspect that is not covered by font exception? Can I use this font freely?

Since there's SIL, can the potential risk brought by GNU GPL's inadequate assurance (according to my own understanding) be neglected? Which licenses have the final say? I also noticed a passage from wikipedia, "Due to licensing concerns with fonts released under a GPL license, some projects looked for alternatives to the Liberation fonts. Starting with Apache OpenOffice 3.4 Liberation Fonts were replaced with the Chrome OS Fonts – also known as Croscore fonts: Arimo (sans), Cousine (monospace), and Tinos (serif) – which are newer versions of the same designs but made available by Ascender Corporation under the Apache License 2.0. As of July 18, 2012, Liberation Fonts 2.00.0 and above are a fork of the Chrome OS Fonts released under the SIL Open Font License, and no longer include the Liberation Sans Narrow fonts."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AndyJ
Oracle
Oracle


Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 1562

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi again Anna,

The only time the OFL or GNU GPL run into problems is when you want to embed the font concerned in a document. Embedding is different to just 'using' a font to produce a piece of text on a printer. If you supply someone with a document in some electronic form (say in a Microsoft Word .doc, or OpenOffice* .odt) and you want the recipient to see it exactly as you produced it, the font characteristics need to be embedded in the document in case the recipient doesn't have that particular font on his/her computer.

The open software licence generally permits software to be freely reproduced and modified but with the provision that someone who modifies it may only release their modified version free of any copyright restrictions. Where the software which 'draws' (either as a bit map or using vector graphics) a font is used in the context of a document which contains copyright text, the open source principle is theoretically being breached because the user is not releasing their document without any copyright restraints. This means that where a font is embedded (and you as a user won't always know if this has been done) then the user may breach the open software licence, unless the +FE exception has been applied by the owner of the rights in the font. This is a real technicality and no user, as far as I am aware, has ever been taken to court over this kind of licence breach, nor is it likely to happen. The problem is mainly one for the big companies who release the licensed fonts, and who are understandably keen to avoid any litigation.

Proponents of open software licensing tend to be purists which is why there are several different open software licences, each finely tuned to meet a particular need of its proponents. The Apache Open Software licence is described as a permissive licence as it contains slightly more restrictions on how any derived software may be exploited.

So to summarise, interesting though all of this licensing is, you as a user do not need to worry the copyright implications of using any fonts which you have acquired legally, irrespective of the specific open software licence which comes with it. If you want, you can even use FontForge to create your own fonts, based on more established font designs.


*OpenOffice was originally developed by Sun Microsystems as a free alternative to Microsoft's Office software. When Sun was bought by Oracle in 2010 there was much concern within the development community (who were not employees of either Sun or Oracle) that the new owner was trying to depart from the true open software licence model. As a consequence, some distributions of Linux (notably Ubuntu) stopped bundling OpenOffice and started using Libre Office instead because of these concerns.
_________________
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anna
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andy

Thank you for your thorough explanations. They're great help to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Copyright Aid Forum Index -> Copyright Law All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
 

You must be logged in to post  Log inLog in
Want to join in? New members are always welcome  RegisterRegister & join the discussion

 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group