US Copyright Office policy on fonts
Richard Kinch
Office's policy decisions of 1990 and 1992 regarding copyrights for digitized
typefaces. I hope this will enlighten any ongoing discussion.
This is a plain TeX file of about 9 pages, formatted.
Richard Kinch ki...@holonet.net
(607) 273-0222
============================ cut here =================================
\raggedright
\raggedbottom
\emergencystretch=0.5in
\parindent=0pt
\centerline{\bf Policy Decision on Copyrightability of Digitized Typefaces}
\centerline{\bf Copyright Office, Library of Congress.}
\centerline{Federal Register Vol.~53, Pg.~38110}
\centerline{Thursday, September 29, 1988}
\parskip=6pt
\bigskip
\centerline{\bf SUMMARY}
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the Copyright
Office has decided that digitized representations of typeface designs are not
registrable under the Copyright Act because they do not constitute original
works of authorship. The digitized representations of typefaces are neither
original computer programs (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101), nor original
databases, nor any other original work of authorship. Registration will be
made for original computer programs written to control the generic
digitization process, but registration will not be made for the data that
merely represents an electronic depiction of a particular typeface or
individual letterforms. If this master computer program includes data that
fixes or depicts a particular typeface, typefont, or letterform, the
registration application must disclaim copyright in that uncopyrightable data.
\bigskip
{\bf 1. Background}
Under section 410(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, title 17 of the United
States Code, the Register of Copyrights determines whether the material
submitted for registration ``constitutes copyrightable subject matter and that
other legal and formal requirements have been met'' before issuing a
certificate of registration.
To be registrable and copyrightable, a work must constitute an ``original
work of authorship.'' 17~U.S.C.\ 102. Useful articles are not protected
except to the extent the articles contain artistic features capable of
existing separately and independently of the overall utilitarian shape.
Variations of typographic ornamentation [or] ``mere lettering'' are not
copyrightable. 37~CFR~202.1(a). In {\it Eltra Corp.~v.\ Ringer},
579~F.2d\ 294 (4th Cir.~1978), the Fourth Circuit upheld the Office's
refusal to register a claim to copyright in typeface design under its then
regulation, 37~CFR\ 202.10(c)(1978) [now codified in the Copyright Act in
the definition of ``pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works'']. The Eltra
court reasoned that ``it is patent that typeface is an industrial design in
which the design cannot exist independently and separately as a work of art.''
579~F.2d at 298.
The decision in {\it Eltra Corp.~v.\ Ringer\/} clearly comports with the
intention of the Congress. Whether typeface designs should be protected by
copyright was considered and specifically rejected by Congress in passing the
Copyright Act of 1976. The 1976 House Report states:
{\parindent=0.5in\narrower\noindent
A ``typeface'' can be defined as a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic
characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently
applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles
whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other
cognizable combinations of characters. The Committee does not regard the
design of typeface, as thus defined, to be a copyrightable ``pictorial,
graphic, or sculptural work'' within the meaning of this bill and the
application of the dividing line in section 101. [H.R.\ Rep.\ No.\ 1476, 94th
Cong., 2d Sess.~55 (1976)].
\par}
In rejecting copyright protection for typeface designs, the Congress in
addition deferred a decision on a more limited form of protection under
proposed ornamental design legislation. Title II of the 1976 copyright
revision bill as passed by the Senate could have protected typeface designs,
but the House of Representatives had doubts about even this limited form of
protection. Consequently, only copyright revision passed. H.R.\ Rep.\ No.~1476
at 50 and 55. Design legislation has yet to be enacted, and Congress has
chosen not to include typeface designs within the Copyright Act's definition
of pictorial, graphic or sculptural works.
The Copyright Office has received applications to register claims to copyright
in material variously termed ``data,'' ``database,'' ``computer program,''
``compilation of data,'' and ``typefont data set,'' which relate to, or
represent, digitized versions of typeface designs. A Notice of Inquiry was
published in October 1986 requesting public comment regarding the
registrability of this material. ((51~FR 36410 (Oct.~10, 1986)). The Notice
raised primarily four questions about the nature and extent of any
copyrightable authorship in digitized typography, apart from the typeface
design itself: whether there exist a variety of ways to express instructions
for creating the same typeface design; are there any copyrightable elements,
apart from the unprotectible typeface design, which comprise the ``original
work of authorship;'' does the ``information,'' ``instructions,'' or ``data''
comprise a computer program, compilation or database; and, finally, if
registration is permitted, what would be the appropriate form of deposit?
The comment period was extended twice (52~FR 3146 and 52~FR 23476) to allow
full public comment. A total of 19 initial and reply comments were received,
including a videotape demonstration of the digitization process and other
exhibits.
\bigskip
{\bf 2. Technology and the Digitizing Process}
In describing the process of the digitization of typefont characters, the
Office will employ technical terms, for which we adopt the following
definitions. ``Digital typefont'' is a bitmapped digital representation of an
actual analog typeface design, stored in binary form on magnetic or optical
media, or Read-Only-Memory (ROM) mounted on a circuit board. Sometimes, the
ROM on the circuit board is assembled into a plastic cartridge which is
inserted into a laser printer or other microprocessor-driven device. When
decoded and interpreted, by the ``bitmapping code'' software, the digital
representation of the design will reproduce the appropriate character.
``Bitmapping'' refers to the technology that allows control of individual
pixels on a display screen to produce graphic elements of superior resolution,
permitting accurate reproduction of arcs, circles, sine waves, or other curved
images. A ``bitmapped character,'' whether used on a computer screen or on a
dot-matrix or laser printer, is a dotted representation of an analog letter or
character image where dots are so close together that when reduced to actual
printed or displayed size, they form an image or character without the need to
connect the dots.
To create a digitized typeface from an existing analog typeface, analog visual
representations of characters are scanned and represented as a collection of
discrete picture elements, called pixels. Pixels can be efficiently encoded in
digital form on any convenient storage medium. The medium can be magnetic
(e.g. tape, disk or diskette), electronic (e.g., ROM cartridge), or optical
(e.g., video-disk). The encoded digitized representation is then organized as
bits of information, manipulated and changed (usually reduced to minimize
storage requirements) and placed in a format usable with a specific program
and compatible digital typesetter.
Typically, a specialized computer circuit in the printing device reads the
information from the storage media or cartridge and causes a laser beam to
draw a representation of a particular typefont character on a cylindrical
surface in direct response to the digital data and instructions in the media
or cartridge. This image is then transferred by a process, similar to
printing, to paper from which the information is read or the printer may drive
a set of wires against an inked ribbon that places dots on the paper. The
visual representation appears once again.
There are basically three techniques applied to represent characters
digitally: Bitmapping, outlining and stroke definition. A digitized typeface
could be prepared by bitmapping alone, but it is more common to use a
combination of the three techniques to improve the quality of the typeface.
Bitmapping is a dot-by-dot representation of each character. A different
bitmap is required for each size and style of a character, and there are
several ways to create a bitmap. The most popular ways are by scanning black
and white images, scan converting a digital outline representation (soft
scanning) using software written for this purpose, building up an image
bit-by-bit using an interactive editor on a computer, and through a
combination of scanning and editing.
In the outline method, lines or curves define the boundaries of typeface
characters. The outlines can consist of straight line segments only or
straight line segments along with abstract representations of the curves. The
digital information, comprised of instructions and data, is fixed by a
computer operator who digitally locates only the outlines of characters. In
order to form a completed letter on a screen display or on paper when printed
out, an outline font program instructs a computer or printer logic to fill in
the outline of the character. If a laser printer is used, the beam sweeps from
side to side or up and down within the boundaries of the letter, filling in
the bounded area with dots that will show up as solids on the paper or screen.
In the stroked definition method, characters are represented like the
``strokes'' of a pen or brush following the path of a straight or curved line.
The computer operator must define the characteristics of the ``pen'' or
``brush,'' such as what occurs at corners and stroke endings. Ultimately,
these descriptions must be converted into bitmaps.
Finally, digitization techniques may be used to create a new typeface---one
that has no prior analog counterpart.
\bigskip
{\bf 3. Summary of Comments}
The Copyright Office received 19 initial and reply comments in response to its
Notice.
Two comments maintain that the digitized typefaces are not copyrightable. The
first argues that the only difference between the digitized version and the
unprotectible typeface itself is that the former is ``read'' by a machine to
create the visually perceptible typeface. The ``look-up'' table in a bitmap,
this comment continues, is a one-on-one correlation which involves no
creativity. The algorithms used in the outline method likewise involve {\it de
minimis} judgment and creativity. Finally, the commentator cautions that
protection of digitized versions of typeface may inhibit the standardization
of character matrixes that facilitate the compatibility of software for
personal computers.
The second comment opposing registration declares that bitmaps are static
data, fixed representations of images at a given resolution. This comment
compares the static dot pattern representation of each letter to the patterns
cast and carved onto metal in medieval times.
In support of registration, eleven comments espouse variations of the basic
proposition that the data and instructions which comprise the digital typefont
are computer programs, copyrightable databases or some protectible hybrid of
the two. The themes which run through their various comments are that the data
and instructions are a ``work'' apart from the typeface itself, the ``work''
is ``used directly or indirectly in a computer to bring about a certain
result'' and qualifies as a computer program within the meaning of section 101
of title 17, and/or the ultimate shape of the typefont character does not
predetermine its digital representation and elements of human selection and
arrangement are required, constituting a protectible database.
One comment states that the ``work'' is a computer program which operates on a
data stream and is configured in a particular format. Another amplifies this
position, explaining that execution of the program calls up stored data in the
form of digitized typeface instructions and converts the instructions into
printed typeface characters.
Two comments take the position that the ``rule of doubt'' should be used. The
first argues that digitized databases are both databases and programs, and,
since neither can be read by the Office, ultimately the courts should decide
on their copyrightability. This comment advocates that, in any event, the
``work'' is protectible as a program, compilation or separately as a literary
work. Another comment claims protection for the edited, compiled set of
instructions and data as a literary work. The second comment espousing rule of
doubt would limit the registration to the typeface database.
Several comments state that not all typeface programs and databases are
protectible. Purely mechanical translations from analog to digitized
typefaces, they acknowledge, are not copyrightible. For example, they state
that protection should not be extended where an analog typefont is merely
scanned into digital form with no editing or selection of font
characteristics, or where there is mere duplication of preexisting digital
typefont without further editing.
One comment recommends considering typefont a special class of program.
Another one opines that the protectible work is a digital photograph.
Copyrightable expression attaches, another comment contends, in that
programming choices exist apart from the functional data and algorithms
utilized in the program expressing the typeface design.
One comment recommends protecting the typefont as a software/database hybrid.
The ``work'' is the integration of all elements of the software and database.
The software should be protected separately also, this comment continues,
because it is a different work then the typeface, and programs are
protectible, it is argued, even if they ultimately produce an uncopyrightable
end product.
Another comment describes the choices inherent in font digitization, and
argues that the combination of data and instructions statisfies the Copyright
Act's definition of the term ``computer program.'' The digital image, it
maintains, can be represented in different computer languages using different
techniques. This comment also states that no distinction is drawn at the
machine language level between data and instructions. In general purpose
programming languages, the surface separation between data and algorithms is
for the ease of human programmers. Programs are like sentences: Algorithms
(verbs) act upon data (nouns). In some languages, data and algorithms are
tightly bound in a single program. In others, the data and algorithms are
initially stored separarely, though they must be conjoined in order for the
computer to successfully execute the instructions for rendering digital type.
This comment further argues that the conversion from analog to digital is not
an automatic computer process-different printers read different computer
languages and this must be factored into the translation; the translation is a
derivative work.
Another comment states that programs to generate typeface design can be
written in various languages and for many different machines with distinct
programs. Typeface programs, it is argued, are original and creative and
should be protected.
\bigskip
{\bf 4. Policy Decision and Rationale}
The proponents of copyright registration for data or other elements related to
digitized typefaces seek, as they must, to present arguments for protection of
data, or program instructions, or hybrid works consisting of both data and
instructions that are entitled to copyright apart from the uncopyrightable
typeface designs and typefonts. Both the Congress and the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals in {\it Eltra Corp.~v.\ Ringer\/} decided that analog typeface
designs are not now copyright subject matter. The Copyright Office concludes
that typefaces created by a computerized-digital process are also
uncopyrightable. Like analog typefaces, digitally created typefaces exhibit
no creative authorship apart from the utilitarian shapes that are formed to
compose letters or other font characters.
Congress has not only rejected copyright protection for typeface designs. It
has refused to enact a more limited form of protection, the proposed ``design
protection law,'' which might be a vehicle for typeface design
protection.\footnote{$^1$}{The Senate design bill, S. 791, would specifically
protect typeface designs. The House bills (H.R. 379; H.R. 1179; H.R. 1603)
omit specific reference to typeface, but the definitions of the bills probably
include typeface protection.}
In making this decision on registration for digitized versions of typefaces,
the Copyright Office has been conscious of the need for caution to avoid a
decision that would undermine the clear congressional and judicial findings
that typeface designs are not copyright subject matter. Moreover, a typefont
is not copyrightable since it constitutes the useful article itself.
The issue then is whether the process of computer assisted digitization of
uncopyrightable typeface designs and typefonts creates compilations of data or
computer program instructions that are copyrightable and separate from the
uncopyrightable elements. We conclude that computer programs used to control
the general digitization process and that otherwise meet the standards for
protection are registrable notwithstanding their use in generating
unprotectible typefonts, but the claim to copyright must exclude any data that
merely depicts the typeface or letterforms.
Although most comments favored protection of the data/instructions actually
depiciting particular digital typefonts, our analysis of the copyright statute
and relevant judicial precedent, as well as the arguments of the comments that
opposed registration (and even the comments of some of those supporting
registration of some elements), convinces us that any data that merely
transforms an analog visual representation of a typeface or letterform into a
digital electronic typefont or letterform is not protectible as a work of
authorship.
The Copyright Act, 17~U.S.C.\ 101 {\it et.\ seq.} (1976),
defines the term compilation as ``a work formed by the collection and
assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated,
or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an
original work of authorship.'' 17~U.S.C. 101. To be an original work of
authorship, a compilation must include subjective elements of human selection
and arrangement. {\it Financial Information, Inc.~v.\ Moody's Investor Service,
Inc.}, 808~F.2d 204, 206--08 (2d Cir.\ 1986), {\it cert.}\ denied, 108 S.Ct.~79
(1987). Because the typefont data is determined by the ultimate shape of the
typeface character, and requires de minimis, if any, selection and
arrangement, it does not qualify as a compilation or any other original work
of authorship.
Proponents of registration argued that the data representing a digitized
typeface should be copyrightable because, after the initial rendering of the
letterform into electronic digital form, there is selection, coordination, or
arrangement of data/instructions in order to generate an acceptable, final
typeface image. One commentator drew an analogy to ``connect-the-dots'' or
``fill-in-the-blanks'' illustrations in children's books. The analogy is
unpersuasive. A ``connect-the-dots'' illustration is copyrightable only if the
``connected'' illustration is a copyrightable pictorial or graphic work. In
the case of typeface ``connect-the-dots,'' the ``connected'' illustration is
an uncopyrightable typeface, and the connecting process is indistinguishable
from the creation of the typeface design itself.
Proponents also argued that the data representing a digitized typeface is
copyrightable even though the end result---a typeface or typefont---is
uncopyrightable. By analogy to a cookbook, they argued that the explanation
and illustration of recipes is copyrightable even though the end result---the
food product---is not. The Copyright Office agrees, of course, that original
explanations and illustrations in cookbooks are copyrightable. But neither
lists of ingredients nor the method of preparing the food product is
copyrightable. The Copyright Office finds that digitized typeface data is more
like an uncopyrightable list of ingredients than a copyrightable explanation
or illustration of a process.
Before the advent of digitized typeface technology, arguments were made that,
in creating new typeface designs, artists expended thousands of hours of
effort in preparing by hand the drawings of letters and characters that
ultimately would lead to the creation of an original typeface design. After
several years of consideration and a public hearing, the Copyright Office
found that this effort did not result in a work of authorship. The Office
refused to register claims in typeface designs or in the drawings of the
letters and typefont characters because the design choices were responsive to
the functional characteristics of typefonts used in high-speed printing. That
is, no work of authorship existed separate from the utilitarian aspects of
typefonts and letterforms. That decision was upheld in {\it Eltra Corp.~v.\
Ringer}.
Under earlier technology, typeface designs were fixed in wood blocks, in cold
metal, or in film fonts. With computer-digital technology, the typeface is
fixed in an electronic font. The Copyright Office finds that no work of
authorship is created by the process that fixes or depicts a particular
typeface in a digital electronic form. Like analog typeface design, the design
choices or any selection of data involved in the bitmapping, outlining, and
stroke definition techniques are limited by the objective of rendering or
fixing the uncopyrightable electronic font. This finding applies both to the
initial scanning of the letterforms and to the subsequent refining of the
typeface by ``curving,'' ``connect-the-dots,'' and other techniques. The data
created is an electronic depiction of the typeface. In fact, there are fewer
authorship choices involved in transforming an existing analog typeface to an
electronic font than in using the digitization process to create a new
typeface design. Yet clearly the typeface design and the process of creating
it are uncopyrightable whether the process is digital or analog. The use of
the computer in this process neither diminishes nor adds to the factors that
determine copyrightability.
The Copyright Office observes that more digitization of even a pre-existing
copyrightable work does not result in a new work of authorship. The digitized
version is a copy of the pre-existing work and would be protected as such, but
no new work of authorship is created. A novel may be digitized and stored in
an electronic medium. Protection depends on the status of copyright in the
novel; digitization does not add any new authorship.
Although the master computer program used to control the generic digitization
process is protectible and may be registered, if original, this protection
does not extend to the data fixing or depicting a particular typeface or
typefont or to any algorithms created as an alternative means of fixing the
data. The Office will register a program that can be used to create digitized
versions of various typefaces but will not register the data used to depict a
particular typeface or individual letterforms. If the computer program
submitted for registration includes data that fixes or depicts a particular
typeface, typefont, or letterform, the Office requires an appropriate
disclaimer of copyright on the application to exclude the uncopyrightable
data.
The Copyright Office in this decision has been conscious of the interests of
typeface developers and the interests of typeface users, who, in accordance
with a congressional decision not to protect typefaces, are entitled to copy
this uncopyrightable subject matter. While copyright protection is not
available for digitized versions of typefaces, the typeface industry has other
avenues of protection through unfair competition laws, contract, and perhaps
trade secrecy and trademark protection.
On the other hand, the congressional decision not to protect typeface designs,
in addition to adhering to traditional standards of original authorship,
reflects a concern about inappropriate protection of the vehicles for
reproducing the printed word. If copyright protection existed for the data
representing a particular typeface design, a printer who innocently used an
infringing electronic typefont to print a public domain book would presumably
infringe the copyright in the data fixed in the electronic font. The Copyright
Office is persuaded that this result would undermine the congressional policy
against protection for typeface designs.
The Office therefore concludes that, if copyright protection for the master
computer program alone is not adequate to encourage creativity in the field of
computer-assisted typeface design, any broader protection, if appropriate,
should be legislated by Congress rather than established by administrative
decision-making. Congress is the appropriate forum for debating the concerns
that infect the question of legal protection for typeface designs or digitized
representations of typefaces. Congress can legislate limitations on the scope
of protection, including any appropriate exemptions for printers or other
secondary, ``innocent infringers.''
\bigskip
Dated: September 13, 1988.
Ralph Oman, Register of Copyrights.
Approved by: James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress.
Contact: Dorothy Schrader, General Counsel, Copyright Office,
Library of Congress, Washington, DC 20559. Telephone (202) 287-8380.
\vfill\eject
\centerline{\bf Registrability of Computer Programs That Generate Typefaces}
\centerline{\bf Copyright Office, Library of Congress.}
\centerline{Federal Register Vol.~57, Pg.~6201}
\centerline{Friday, February 21, 1992}
\bigskip
\centerline{\bf SUMMARY}
The purpose of this Final Regulation is to clarify the Copyright Office's
practices regarding registration of claims to copyright in computer programs
used in the generation of digitized representations of typeface designs. This
regulation amends 37~CFR 202.1 to state the Office's existing practice in this
respect. Pursuant to Congress's judgment in the 1976 Act\footnote{$^1$}{See
H.R.~Rep.\ No.~94-1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.\ 55 (1976):
``Congress has considered, but chosen to defer, the possibility of protecting
the design of typefaces.'' Thus, Congress could protect typeface designs under
the Copyright Act if it chose.} and case law,\footnote{$^2$}{See {\it Eltra
Corp.~v.\ Ringer}, 579~F.2d\ 294 (4th~Cir.\
1978).} the Copyright Office does not register claims to copyright in typeface
designs as such, whether generated by a computer program, or represented in
drawings, hard metal type, or any other form.
The Office does, however, register claims in original computer programs
whether or not the end result or intended use of the computer program involves
uncopyrightable elements or products. In the past, the Office has required a
disclaimer for computer programs containing data depicting digitized
representations of typeface designs. Due to changes in the industry and the
administrative burden caused by correspondence, the Office will no longer
require such disclaimers. Instead, in order to avoid any confusion about the
scope of certificates of registration for computer programs used in the
generation of digitized representations of typeface, the Office will not
accept a nature of authorship statement of ``entire work,'' ``entire computer
program,'' ``entire text,'' or the like. Only descriptions such as ``computer
program'' should be used. The scope of the copyright will be, as in the past,
a matter for the courts to determine.
\bigskip
\centerline{\bf SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION}
On September 29, 1988, the Copyright Office published a {\it Notice of Policy
Decision\/} regarding registration practices for computer programs used in
conjunction with digitized typeface, typefont, and letterforms. 53~FR 38110.
That decision was the result of a {\it Notice of Inquiry\/} published on October 10,
1986. 51~FR 36410. The Policy Decision, based on the 1986
{\it Notice of Inquiry},
reiterated a number of previous registration decisions made by the Office.
First, under existing law, typeface as such is not registrable. The Policy
Decision then went on to state the Office's position that ``data that merely
represents an electronic depiction of a particular typeface or individual
letterform'' is also not registrable. Second, original computer programs are
registrable, regardless of whether or not the functional result achieved is
the generation of unregistrable typeface, typefonts, or letterforms. The
Policy Decision concluded that, where a ``master computer program includes
data that fixes or depicts a particular typeface, typefont, or letterform,
the registration application must disclaim copyright in that uncopyrightable
data.''
The Copyright Office has received a number of applications stating claims for
computer programs used in conjunction with the generation or design of
typeface, typefonts, or letterforms. In 1991, the Office became concerned that
these claims indicated there had been a significant technological advance
since the 1986 {\it Notice of Inquiry}. Of particular interest was the fact that
some companies now license typeface in digitized form before they write a
computer program permitting users to generate the typeface on low resolution
and other printers. {pg\.~6202}
In order to gain information, the Copyright Office held a Public Hearing on
October 4, 1991 and received 21 written submissions. The majority of those
testifying and submitting comments favored abandoning the disclaimer
requirement. After a careful review of the testimony and the written comments,
the Copyright Office is persuaded that creating scalable typefonts using
already-digitized typeface represents a significant change in the industry
since our previous Policy Decision. We are also persuaded that computer
programs designed for generating typeface in conjunction with low resolution
and other printing devices may involve original computer instructions entitled
to protection under the Copyright Act. For example, the creation of scalable
font output programs to produce harmonious fonts consisting of hundreds of
characters typically involves many decisions in drafting the instructions that
drive the printer. The expression of these decisions is neither limited by the
unprotectible shape of the letters nor functionally mandated. This expression,
assuming it meets the usual standard of authorship, is thus registrable as a
computer program.
The Office has also gained considerable administrative experience in the last
three years with the use of disclaimers. A large amount of correspondence has
been necessitated by the requirement of disclaimers. The public has also been
confused about the effect, if any, of variants in the language of particular
disclaimers. We are persuaded that the usefulness of disclaimers is outweighed
by these drawbacks, and, thus, we will no longer require a disclaimer where
the applicant does not state a claim in uncopyrightable material.
\bigskip
{\bf Final Regulation}
In light of the heavy administrative burden imposed by disclaimers, the
Copyright Office has concluded that the best course is to amend its
regulations to state its opinion that digitized typeface as typeface is
unregistrable, and to delete the disclaimer requirement. The term ``typeface''
is intended to encompass typefonts, letterforms, and the like. As part of the
deletion of the disclaimer requirement, in order to avoid public confusion
regarding the scope of certificates of registration issued for computer
programs containing original instructions as well as digitized representations
of typeface, applicants should not describe the nature of authorship as
``entire work,'' ``entire computer program,'' ``entire text'' or the like.
Instead, descriptions such as ``computer program'' should be used. This
preference regarding the nature of authorship statement will be included in
Compendium~II of Copyright Office Practices, but not in the Code of Federal
Regulations. Because this regulation does not represent a substantive change
in the rights of copyright claimants, claimants possessing already-issued
certificates cannot submit a supplementary application for an already
registered work for the purpose of removing the disclaimer.
With respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Copyright Office takes the
position that this Act does not apply to Copyright Office rulemaking. The
Copyright Office is a department of the Library of Congress and is a part of
the legislative branch. Neither the Library of Congress nor the Copyright
Office is an ``agency'' within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act
of June 11, 1946, as amended (title~5, chapter~5 of the U.S.\ Code,
subchapter~II and chapter~7). The Regulatory Flexibility Act consequently does
not apply to the Copyright Office since that Act affects only those entities
of the Federal Government that are agencies as defined in the Administrative
Procedure Act.
Alternatively, if it is later determined by a court of competent jurisdiction
that the Copyright Office is an ``agency'' subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Register of Copyrights has determined and hereby
certifies that this regulation will have no significant negative impact on
small businesses.
\bigskip
{\bf List of Subjects in 37~CFR Part~202:}
Registration of claims to copyright, Claims to copyright, Copyright
registration.
\bigskip
{\bf Final Regulations}
In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Office is amending part~202
of 37~CFR, chapter~II in the manner set forth below.
\bigskip
\centerline{\bf PART~202---REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS---AMENDED}
1. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows:
{\parindent=0.5in\narrower\noindent
Authority: Section~702, 90~Stat.\ 2541; 17~U.S.C.\ 702. Sec.~202.1 Amended.
\par}
2. Section 202.1(e) is added to read as follows:
{\parindent=0.5in\narrower\noindent
(e) Typeface as typeface.
\par}
Dated: February 4, 1992.
Ralph Oman, Register of Copyrights.
Approved by: James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress.
Contact: Dorothy Schrader, General Counsel, Copyright Office, Library of
Congress, Washington, DC 20540. Telephone (202) 707-8380.
\vfill\eject
\bye