Article illustration 1

When approached by major font companies to endorse efforts restoring copyright registrations for font software, attorney and type designer Matthew Butterick declined. His reasoning cuts to the core of a decades-long legal ambiguity: digital fonts probably aren't copyrightable under U.S. law.

The Historical Precedent

Butterick outlines the legal landscape:

"Fonts have traditionally been excluded from U.S. copyright protection. This principle was judicially affirmed in the 1978 case Eltra Corp. v. Ringer ('typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright')."

Despite the rise of digital fonts, a 1988 U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) regulation explicitly stated that "digitized representations of typeface designs are not registrable." Subsequent regulations in 1992 maintained this stance while allowing registration for unique software programs that generate fonts.

The 1998 Adobe v. Southern Software decision fueled industry hope by granting limited copyright protection to font software where Adobe demonstrated "some creativity… in the selection of the points." This led to an urban legend: converting fonts into software-like formats (e.g., XML) could bypass registration barriers.

The Workaround That Wasn't

Butterick dismantles this approach:

  1. Human Authorship Requirement: Automatically converted "software" may violate copyright's human authorship mandate, similar to AI-generated content exclusions.
  2. Limited Protection Scope: Even if registered as software, the USCO explicitly excludes the resulting font itself from protection. "Defeating the point of the contortion," Butterick notes.

Laatz v. Zazzle: The Wake-Up Call

The 2024 Laatz v. Zazzle opinion exposed flaws in relying on the Adobe precedent. The court distinguished between:
- Adobe, which "created the software that produced the font programs"
- Designer Nicky Laatz, who used third-party software (FontLab) to generate code

"Adobe does not support Laatz’s argument that her copyright registrations are valid," the court concluded, signaling that most designers' registrations wouldn’t meet Adobe's narrow criteria.

When Zazzle later succeeded in dismissing Laatz's infringement claim due to registration flaws, it highlighted a chilling reality: many existing font copyrights could be vulnerable if challenged in court.

Practical Implications for Designers

Butterick, who runs a small font business, argues copyright enforcement is impractical regardless of legal status:

"Like every other kind of digital-media file, anyone who wants to pirate my fonts can do so if sufficiently motivated… My business necessarily runs on something more akin to the honor system."

He contrasts large font companies relying on IP enforcement with independents focused on attracting customers through quality and fair pricing. For most designers, chasing copyright registrations via flawed workarounds is a distraction from sustainable business models built on trust and value.

Source: Matthew Butterick