Re:Smallest Typeface (3x3)
by kube-system on Thursday December 28, 2023 @11:44PM
(#38801820)
Well yeah, sophistication isn't part of the criteria for copyright protection. I think the perspective applied here is along the lines that typefaces are more of a tool that authors use, rather than an product of authorship. Likewise, the design of a paintbrush wouldn't be eligible for copyright. Even a very sophisticated paintbrush. Both typefaces and paintbrushes are eligible for patents, though.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Speculating a bit: I think the historical perspective had a much narrower focus on what could be put under copyright. That's why (in the US at least) photographs and movies (and computer code?) wasn't originally included, and only got included over time via judicial decisions.
Typefaces just naturally fell outside of the original narrow focus, and just never got moved into the focus.