Ink to Ink: Copyright Protection for Fonts and Typefaces

Choosing the right typeface and font is like selecting the perfect outfit for your brand's personality. It's the sartorial essence of design, where a timeless serif font whispers tales of trustworthiness and deep-rooted tradition, while the elegant contours of a font like "Avenir" propel your brand into the realms of innovation and visionary thinking. Moreover, the fonts act like the final brushstrokes on a masterpiece, leaving an indelible mark on the minds of your audience, ensuring your brand's distinctiveness is not easily forgotten. This is why the protection of fonts and typefaces under the law is crucial, as it safeguards the creative identity of brands, ensuring they can maintain their distinctive visual voice and prevent unauthorized usage or imitation, ultimately preserving their brand's integrity and equity. Thus, it is imperative to have a comprehensive understanding of the intellectual property rights associated with fonts and typefaces. 

When it comes to typography, "font" and "typeface" are frequently used interchangeably in everyday conversation, but they hold distinct meanings. A typeface encompasses the entire design and style of a group of characters, including characteristics such as their shape, size, and weight. This aspect relates to the overarching visual identity of the characters. For instance, "Times New Roman" and "Arial" represent different typefaces, each showcasing unique design characteristics. In contrast, a font designates a specific instance or variation within a typeface. It serves as a digital file specifying a particular style and size for the characters, facilitating practical implementation. For example, within the Arial typeface, various fonts like Arial Regular, Arial Bold, and Arial Italic exist, each embodying a distinct style and weight.

Copyright Considerations in India

In India, the Copyright Act, 1957 is silent on providing copyright protection for typeface and fonts. The Act explicitly mentions that there shall be no copyright or any similar right, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Delhi High Court, in the case of The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of Oxford & others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & others clarified that the copyright is not a natural or common law right, but a statutory right, and the scope of rights under the Indian copyright law is subject to the contours and framework of the statute. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory provisions for the copyrightability of typeface and fonts, there would not be any inherent copyright protection granted.

The issue of whether fonts and typefaces met the criteria for copyright protection under the law was deliberated upon by the Copyright Board in the case of Aananda Expanded v. Unknown. In this case, M/s. ABP Ltd. submitted four copyright registration applications to the Copyright Office under the category of artistic works. These applications encompassed a collection of fonts featuring Bengali alphabets and symbols. However, the Copyright Office rejected these applications, asserting that they did not meet the criteria to be classified as artistic works. In response to this decision, the Applicant filed a writ petition with the High Court of Calcutta, contesting the rejection. The Hon'ble High Court subsequently quashed the initial order and directed the Copyright Office to reevaluate the applications, ensuring the Applicant had an opportunity to present their case. The primary question at hand was whether fonts and typefaces could qualify for registration as artistic works. The Applicant argued that these fonts and typefaces displayed a sufficient level of originality and artistic quality, with substantial labor and skill invested in their creation. They contended that the unique representation of the ordinary alphabet in a specific font should be eligible for copyright protection, falling within the category of 'any other work of artistic craftsmanship' as outlined in Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act.

The Registrar's decision was based on the premise that fonts and typefaces do not fall within the scope of works eligible for copyright protection. According to Section 16 of the Copyright Act, copyright protection is only extended to works expressly defined in the Act. Therefore, for a work to be eligible for copyright protection, it must be explicitly mentioned in the Act's definition of protected works. The Registrar pointed out that typeface design could not be categorized as an artistic work due to the limitations imposed by the principle of 'ejusdem generis.' Additionally, unlike English law, which includes a specific provision for protecting typefaces under 'typographical arrangement of published editions,' distinct from 'a work of artistic craftsmanship,' the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 lacks such specific provisions and does not establish a term of protection for fonts and typefaces. This suggests the absence of intent to grant them protection in the first place. Furthermore, no international treaty explicitly mentions fonts and typefaces as eligible for copyright protection. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that even if typefaces were to be regarded as artistic works, their designs could still be eligible for registration under the Design Act, 1911. This aligns with Section 15(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, which specifies that copyright is not conferred on any design that can be registered under the Design Act, 1911.

Global Copyright Perspectives on Fonts and Typefaces

The legal perspective on the copyrightability of typefaces and fonts varies internationally. In the United States of America, copyright law generally does not extend protection to typefaces, typefonts, lettering, calligraphy, or typographic ornamentation. However, there are specific circumstances in which the U.S. Copyright Office may grant registration for certain elements related to these categories. For instance, if pictorial or graphic elements are integrated into uncopyrightable characters or are used to represent an entire letter or number, they may be eligible for copyright registration. This could include original pictorial art forming the shape of typeface characters, such as an oak tree or a ball representing a specific letter. Additionally, typeface ornamentation that is distinct from the characters and involves flourishes, swirls, vector ornaments, scrollwork, borders, and similar features can be considered for copyright protection if they exhibit original pictorial or graphic authorship. Furthermore, the Copyright Office may register a computer program that creates or uses certain typeface or typefont designs, but the registration covers only the source code that generates these designs, not the typeface, typefont, lettering, or calligraphy itself. The same was held in the landmark case of Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.  In contrast, the United Kingdom grants protection to typefaces as artistic works under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. Moreover, exceptions, similar to the concept of fair use, are outlined, allowing for specific use cases of typefaces, such as their ordinary use in typing, printing, composing text, and the like.

Conclusion

In an increasingly digital and interconnected world, a strong legal foundation for font and typeface copyright protection becomes a cornerstone in defending the rights and creativity of designers and the brands that rely on their work. The menace of typeface piracy highlights the urgent need for a well-defined jurisprudence concerning the copyright protection of typefaces and fonts. It is imperative that both domestic laws and international agreements explicitly address the rights and protections of typeface creators.