Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Now on Niergendaler photocomp equipment Auriga, a new letterform.

THIS IS BACK COVER OF
"ART DIRECTION" ISSUE
OP AKCH, 1974 PURLISHED
BY ADVERTISING TRADE PUBLICACIONS,
INC., 1997, WL ST., NEW YORK,
N.Y. 20036

Matthew Carter has devised a new roman letterform based on gothic structure and logic: Auriga. The large and simple forms normal to sanscrifs bring a deliberate simplicity and spaciousness to the traditional roman. The figure-ground relationship of these large shapes and small block serifs provides visually interesting letterforms in display. It unites the wordshapes in text. Auriga's structural innovation provides sound legibility by simplifying detail. Less is more. Auriga is truly a state-of-the-art typeface, the latest typeface on Mergenthaler's latest photocomposition system.

COQU$& ceos IJ !ilj? HMNU hmnu
BRDGP rft 142 TFEL agdpqu VWXY kz
AKZ967 S3580'' vwxy.,;:

COQU$& ceos IJ !ilj? HMNU hmnu .
BRDGP rft 142 TFEL agdpqu VWXY kz
AKZ967 S3580 ''vwxy.,;:.

COQU$. ceos IT !ilj? HMNU hmnu
BRDGP r 142 TFEL agdpqu VWXY kz
AKZ967 S3580''WIY :

Typeface copyright 1974, Elva Corp.

For a comprehensive specimen of the Auriga family of typefaces contact SIC" Byers, Typographic Development Div. Menthaler Linotype Co, P. O. Box 82, Plainview, New York 11803; or telephone, area code 516, 694-1300, extension 385.

Wiargenthaler

EXHIBIT F

[blocks in formation]

SMENDER Straighten

30 Point

id la

[ocr errors]

BRIGHTER Neckerchief

21 Point

9A 17 a

146

REBUILDING Machine Shop

18 Point

13 A 25 a

15

GUIDES REGAIN Distinguished Men

115%

1+ Point

IN A 312

[ocr errors]

SHREWD INVESTOR County Disbursements

[ocr errors]

21 A 40 a

4

IMPROVES FURNISHING Inspect College Auditorium

16 Point

[ocr errors]

23 A 46 a HANDSOME SHIP DESIGNS Foreign Manufacturers Pleased

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Characters in Complete Font

A B C D E F G H I J

K L M N O P Q R S
T U V W X Y Z & $

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

abcdefghijklmn o p q r s t u v w x y z ff fi Affi ff.,

':; !?

>

MUSIC

Gebring-Smithe
now commands
attention from the
most conservative
as well as the more
fastidious lover of
music. The shelves
are piled high. Miss
Mayson entertains

Your selections

played

GEBRING-SMITHE

EQUIRE ZUSINESS TECHNIQUE Supipilitenden! Prevented Deficiency

BLOOMINGTON

29 A 58 a

VERSATILE OSSA

! ir...CHT GOLDEN SUNSET HOURS S... :leos Delicht Outdoor Enthusiast

EXHIBIT G

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234567890 Excellence in typography is the result of nothing more than anattitude. Its appealcomes from theunderstanding used in its planning; the designer must care. In contemporary advert ising the perfect integration of design elements often deman

170

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Excellence in typography is the result of nothing m orethananattitude. Its appealcomes from the und erstandingusedinits planning; the designer mustc are. In contemporary advertising the perfect integ 201

16

18

229

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Excellence in typography is theresult of noth ing more than an attitude. Its appeal comes f romtheunderstanding used in its planning;t hedesigner must care. In contemporary adv

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX Excellence in typography is the result of nothing more than an attitude. Its appeal comes from the understanding used in it splanning; the designer must care. In co

20

253

EXIBIT H

AMSTER & ROTHSTEIN,

COUNSELORS AT LAW,

New York, N.Y., July 18, 1975. Hon, ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Room 2232, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. KASTENMEIER: I want to thank you and the other members of the Committee for the opportunity to present our views on the typeface issue during the hearings conducted on July 17, 1975.

At the end of my testimony, you inquired whether Mr. Irwin Karp of the authors League of America and Mr. Alan Latman, in their testimony at the November 6, 1974 hearings before the Copyright Office, merely expressed opposition to change of the Copyright Office Regulations, or whether they also spoke against creation of exclusive rights in typeface designs under the Copyright Laws generally.

I have reviewed the transcript of their testimony and enclose a copy for your use. It seems clear to me that both Mr. Karp and Mr. Latman opposed the creation of exclusive rights in typefaces under the Copyright Laws, whether effectuated by regulation or legislative action. From their statements, this would include Title I of H.R. 2223.

Specifically, Mr. Karp stated at page 83 of the enclosed text:

"The League believes that type designs and fonts for the printing of books and magazines do not, and by their nature cannot, meet the requirements of copyrightability. The extension of protection to these tools of book publishing would be self defeating, creating unacceptable risks in the use of any variations from the countless presently available designs which are in the public domain."

Mr. Latman stated, at page 99 of the enclosed text:

"My clients share my view that creative designing deserves its reward, and that very often federal statutory protection is necessary to achieve that reward. At the same time, my clients and I believe that copyright is not the proper vehicle for protection of type face designs, and that the established practice of the Copyright Office is well-founded."

I do not believe that Mr. Karp addressed himself to the inclusion of typeface designs under potential design legislation (such as Title II of H.R. 2223). I read Mr. Latman's comments as suggesting that Title II would be the appropriate place to consider this issue.

Again, I cannot purport to speak for Mr. Karp or Mr. Latman, and urge that you read their own statements.

I am taking the liberty of forwarding a copy of this letter to the other members of the Committee and counsel in the hope that this clarifies the point which you raised. Very truly yours,

DANIEL EBENSTEIN.

EXCERPTS FROM NOVEMBER 6, 1974, COPYRIGHT OFFICE HEARINGS Mr. Solo. Yes, you are right when you say I am pushing design patents. I feel that they have not been explored to the fullest.

Ms. RINGER. My final question is, have you looked at the design legislation that was evolved several years ago and is now hooked onto the Copyright Revision Bill?

Mr. Solo. Yes, but it's only hooked onto the bill, it doesn't exist. And who knows when the bill is going to be passed. Yes, that design legislation I find very interesting, and probably is the answer. But all of these same points about examination and classification and the availability of public search and so on, still apply. I think, to the design bill. I mean, there would be the same problems. Ms. RINGER. I think that's probably true.

Mr. SOLO. So I suppose that really is the thrust of my argument, and I would push for design patent protection.

Ms. RINGER. Thank you. The next witness is Irwin Karp of the Authors League of America. We will go on until 1:00. We're about a half hour behind our schedule, but perhaps we'll want to go on.

Mr. KARP. Miss Ringer, my name is Irwin Karp and I am counsel for the Authors League of America, which is a national society of professional writers and dramatists. The Authors League opposes the proposed amendment to the Regulations governing the resignation of type faces, fonts, and typography as promulgated in your notice of proposed rule making. The League urges the Copyright Office to retain present Regulations and your interpretation of them, which have been in effect (the Regulations) for at least 18 years, and reflect the practice of even longer standing.

The Regulation prohibits the registration of mere variations in typographic ornamentation, lettering and coloring, and as the Regulation has been interpreted by the Copyright Office, it prohibits the registration of faces and fonts generally, and certainly those used for ordinary publishing of books and journals. At the outset may I note that I can't apologize as my distinguished colleague Mr. Wasserstrom did for repetition because I have the horrible feeling that repetition is one of the few forensic tools left for us in this area.

Here we have a very sound study completed by the Copyright Office only two years ago, after all the relevant cases were decided, which concluded with, I think, unanswerable logic that the Regulations are correct and at best subject to only modest modification. We have a whole file of studies prior to that made by Mr. Strauss and other distinguished scholars, and yet you've got us back at the board here. What else can we do but repeat, is a question which I find difficult to answer. And I learn that now you're having the author of the last memorandum rewrite it and take the other side, which is an exercise in logic and perhaps in legal training—but I'm not sure it is sound administrative practice.

In any event, we submit that the registration should not be allowed for, (and I repeat this only for the purpose of making the distinctions which Ms. Oler made, and which you pointed out again, Barbara) type face in the sense of design of an individual letter, type font, the assortment of types of one size or style, or for the typography in the sense of arrangement on the printed page. The League believes that type designs and fonts for the printing of books and magazines do not, and by their nature cannot, meet the requirements for copyrightability. The extension of protection to these tools of book publishing would be self defeating, creating unacceptable risks in the use of any variations from the countless presently available designs which are in the public domain.

We also be ieve that if any change ultimately ought to be made in the status of publishing typography-font and face-it should certainly not be done by the inflexible method of change in your registration regulations. Neither you or the regulations have the capacity to cope with multitudinous problems that would be created, some of which were so plainly and effectively illustrated by Mr. Solo just a moment ago.

You are not a legislator. You can only say yes or no. Register or not register. And you can't mediate or modify the impact of that absolute judgment on many industries and the whole process of disseminating information and culture in this country.

Why do we contend that typography, especially publishing typography is not copyrightable? First, the studies made for the Copyright Office, to which I referred, concluded that ordinary type face and fonts are not copyrightable material under the present copyright law. We think these conclusions are correct. There are no authoritative decisions holding otherwise. As Mr. Strauss noted, the primary function of publishing type face is to present the text of a book or article in a readable form. The design of letters in any font used for publishing does not have an aesthetic function or independent standing as a work of art separate from that primary function of conveying the author's work, his sentences and paragraphs, his ideas and expressions.

Indeed as Mr. Strauss and Ms. Oler note, type that has sufficient decorative value to stand separately as works of art probably could not be legible enough for use in books intended to be read, nor as Ms. Oler has pointed out, could they probably be produced by modern methods. Encyclopaedia Britannica put it this way: “Typography is the art of printing. It has as its first object not ornament but utility. The printer must never distract, even with beauty, the reader from his text. In the printing of books there is less room for individuality of style than in the typography of propaganda." I assume by propaganda the Britannica probably meant advertising.

I might also note, since we're prone to talk about cases, that a functional analysis is not something strange to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court recently made a functional analysis in the case of United Artists v. Teleprompter. I would daresay that were your Regulations changed and challenged, as they undoubtedly would be, and we ended up in the Supreme Court,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »