10 point Helvetica When night falls over the small towns scattered through the hilly Basque country of northern Spain, the villagers huddle in their homes and wait for unwelcome visitors--the agents of the Guardia Civil. And more and more frequently these days, Spain's paramilitary policemen, with their automatic weapons, their flowing cloaks and their patent-leather hats, do indeed come calling. At least 550 Basques have been hauled out of their beds for "questioning" and hundreds more have been picked up on country roads and in city streets. Cars are routinely stopped and searched. Increasingly, there are charges of police torture. "The Guardia has created a climate of hatred so intense," protests one Basque nationalist, “that I fear a revolution." 10 point Times When night falls over the small towns scattered through the hilly Basque country of northern Spain, the villagers huddle in their homes and wait for unwelcome visitors--the agents of the Guardia Civil. And more and more frequently these days, Spain's paramilitary policemen, with their automatic weapons, their flowing cloaks and their patent leather hats, do indeed come calling. At least 550 Basques have been hauled out of their beds for "questioning" and hundreds more have been picked up on country roads and in city streets. Cars are routinely stopped and searched. Increasingly, there are charges of police torture. "The Guardia has created a climate of hatred so intense," protests one Basque nationalist, "that I fear a revolution." classifies typeface designs historically. A discussion of the British and German systems (then in draft form) and of the Vox systems appears in an article entitled "New Approaches To The Classification of Typefaces" by James Mosley, Librarian of the St. Bride Printing Library in London, published in The British Printer in March 1960. The most comprehensive reference work in the classification of typefaces is probably The Encyclopedia of Typefaces (W. Pincus Jaspert, W. Turner Berry and A. F. Johnson, London, Blanford Press, 4th Edition, 1970). The British Standard Classification of Typeface appears as part of the preface on "typeface nomenclature and classification." The bibliography in the encyclopedia, at page 406, lists seventeen works concerned with typeface classification. Another work which the Copyright Office may find useful is An Atlas of Type Forms (James Sutton and Alan Bartrom, Lund Humphries, London, 1968), in which the AABCCD EFGHIJ KK LM NO PQQ RRS TVUWW XYZ Æ fig. 9 historical antecedents of the main families of type are concisely explained and lucidly illustrated. In short, there exists today various classification systems for typeface designs. If the Copyright Office felt inclined to create its own classification system, Mergenthaler would be pleased to work with the Copyright Office in such an undertaking. 49 VII. Refutation of the Submission by Dan X. Solo At the November 6, 1974, Mr. Dan X. Solo presented the Copyright Office with a printed statement entitled "An Argument in Opposition to Copyright Protection of Printing Types." But Mr. Solo's arguments do not stand the test of examination. Mr. Solo maintains that the registration of copyright on new designs of the alphabet is unwarranted because the entire matter of design protection for printing types is now and has been for 132 years in the province of the United States Patent Office. Mr. Solo overlooks that the Supreme Court, in Mazer v. Stein, supra, and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in In Re Yardley, supra, have made it abundantly clear that the patent and copyright laws must be read together, and they are not mutually exclusive. Curiously, Mr. Solo urges that typefaces are primarily functional and not creative, and, therefore, any protection should be sought under the design patent laws. He forgets that the design patent laws will not protect utilitarian designs, but only ones which are "new, original and ornamental,” 35 USC 171. Mr. Solo also contends that the registration of the claim of copyright in typeface designs would be unworkable because there is not and cannot be any practical system of standards and guidelines by which typeface designs can be differentiated. But as indicated in the closing remarks of the preceding section on "Originality," not only is it possible to classify typeface designs, but there are presently classification systems in existence. In addition, as was eloquently demonstrated at the Copyright Office hearings on November 6, 1974 by Mr. Ed Rondthaler, one typographer with more than 10,000 typefaces in his library has been able to establish a classification system for locating any particular typeface design by its design characteristics in literally a matter of minutes. On the point of classification, it is noteworthy that it is considerably easier to classify typeface designs than works of fine arts. Similarly, it is significant that the Copyright Office has never attempted to create a classification system for search purposes of works of fine art. There are no searches to determine "originality," nor should there properly be such. The purpose of the Copyright Law is to provide a cheap and efficient means of registering a claim. For $6.00, the Copyright Office is not expected to make nor should it make an examination except for the basic formalities and for such matters which are known to be in the public domain. Unlike the Patent Office, the Copyright Office does not have search and examination procedures. The ultimate originality of a particular work has always been left to the courts to determine. So it should be in the case of typeface designs. As for the argument that the Copyright Office would not have a search procedure available to the public for determining prior registrations of claims to copyright in typeface, there are two answers. The first is that the Copyright Office can establish a classification system for searching, if it felt such a system was necessary. The second is that there are numerous reference works in which typeface designs are reproduced. These are the sources which would be consulted by a typographer in determining whether a particular typeface design is or is not original. At page 3 of his "Argument," Mr. Solo states: "To the artist who works with letter forms, this [approach by the Patent Office] may seem unnecessarily severe. He will argue, with some justice, that it is not novelty but subtlety that gives one design superiority over another. He can illustrate how a few quite subtle changes in a limited number of characters can create an entirely new alphabet design. Conversely, he will show that a large number of changes may not substantially alter the visual effect of words and phrases composed in a particular alphabet." "This is art in its truest sense. To the accomplished letterer, there may be guidelines but there are no rules. The overriding consideration is that the result be harmonious and pleasing within the context of the alphabet's intended function. Such a result comes about through subjective judgment rather than through mathematical precision. Once completed and in use, we evaluate a design in terms of its function. We set it up in words and phrases and paragraphs, to see if it communicates as we want it to. We never make this judgment on the alphabet alone, for that would be meaningless. It is only in practical use that we can determine whether or not a particular alphabet fulfills its intended purpose." (Bracketed matter added). Subject to one qualification, Mr. Solo appears to |