On the originality of typefaces/fonts
浅析字库字体的独创性
On the originality of typefaces/fonts
撰稿人：区永强、林雅
Co-authors:?Edmond Au, Shirley Lin
随着我国经济的快速发展，国内企业的知识产权保护意识逐渐增强，近年来，以北京北大方正电子有限公司等企业为代表的著作权维权诉讼日益增多。那么，字库的制造商是否拥有正当的权利来对抗第三方未经其授权的使用行为呢？其关键要分析相关的字库字体及其字库中的单字字形是否具有著作权法意义上的独创性。
Growing together with economic development is the Chinese enterprises’ awareness of enhancing the protection of their intellectual property rights. An example is the increasing copyright lawsuits filed by font makers such as Beijing Founder Electronics Co., Ltd. against unlicensed uses of their products. Whether their claims to protection should be supported depends largely on how original their typefaces/characters of typefaces are, as required of copyrightable works.
针对字库中的单字字形设计是否能成为具有独创性的美术作品，北京市的三级法院给出了不同的答案。在北京北大方正电子有限公司诉滩坊文星科技开发有限公司一案中，北京市第一中级人民法院直接确认单个字体具有独创性，受著作权法保护：“该字库中的字型是方正公司独立创作完成的数字化表现形式，是由线条构成的具有审美意义的平面造型艺术作品，属于美术作品……方正公司对字库中的每个文字的字型以及由这些文字的数据坐标和指令程序构成的字库软件享有著作权。”①在二审判决中，北京市高级人民法院同样认定单个字体为受保护的美术作品。②与北京一中院和北京高院几乎毫无保留地承认单个字体的美术作品属性相比，北京市海淀区人民法院在北京北大方正电子有限公司诉广州宝洁有限公司一案中则持另一种观点，即认为字库中的单字不能成为美术作品，而字库字体的整体内容由统一风格和笔形规范构成，具有独创性，能够作为美术作品受保护：“对于字库字体，受到约束的使用方式应当是整体性的使用和相同的数据描述，其中的单字无法上升到美术作品的高度。”北京海淀法院在否定单字字形的独创性时，提到字库字体的风格对单字字形设计的限制，从而影响单字字形的独创性：“因字库字体需要整体风格的协调统一，其中单字的独特风格更受到较大限制，与书法家单独书写的极具个人风格的单字书法作品，无法相提并论，也不同于经过单独设计的风格极为特殊的单字。”③笔者认为，北京海淀法院在否定单字字形的独创性的同时，又肯定了字库字体整体内容的独创性的观点值得商榷。
Do the characters of a typeface count as original works of art? Courts in Beijing gave varying answers in similar cases. In Founder v. Wenxing, the first-instance Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court affirmed the characters’ originality and their eligibility for copyright – “The characters are works of art as they are digital expressions created by Founder independently, and they are graphic designs consisting of lines and possessing aesthetic value. Founder enjoys copyright on every character of its typeface as well as the font made of data and codes.” While the Beijing Higher People’s Court shared similar opinions, the Beijing Haidian People’s Court ruled differently in another lawsuit brought by the same plaintiff. In Founder v. P&G, the court, while denying copyright to individual characters of the typeface, found the opposite for the aggregate, citing the latter’s originality given rise by the unified style and shape – “A typeface (as a work of art) is normally used as a whole for its innate continuance, while the characters, when used separately, are not up to the standards (for artistic works)”. The court elaborated on how the originality of characters could be undermined by the typeface’s style, in general, ： “Constrained by the typeface which requires a consistent expression, the characters cannot be as distinctive as calligraphies bearing personal traits or single topographic designs independently developed.” In our opinion, the Beijing Haidian Court’s acknowledging copyright on the overall yet denying it on the parts may not be soundly grounded.
首先，不能因为字库字体在整体上需要保持统一的风格，就因此否定各个单字的字形的独创性，应根据个案情况具体分析。例如，一旦每个单字的字形设计都较为抽象，实用性不强，与公有领域已存在的字体形成明显差异，即为有独创性，不会因为字库中的每个单字的风格相同而失去独创性。因此，不能一概而论字库中的单字字形是否具有独创性，需要将单字的字形设计与公有领域已有的字体相比，分析其设计风格是否足够独特、传情达意的实用性是否依然为其主要功能，即其审美功能是否已覆盖实用性功能。实践中，大多数的字库字体都是在公有领域已存在的字体（如宋体、隶书、楷体等）的基础上，经稍作修改后设计而成的，在设计风格上不够独特，且字库字体本身带有工业产品的属性，致使字库中的单字的字形设计依然以其实用性为依托，其审美意义不大，从而缺乏独创性，不能作为美术作品受保护。在这种情况下，北京海淀法院认定字库中的单字字形设计缺乏独创性，不应作为美术作品来保护的结论并无不妥。在因实用性导致独创性不够鲜明的情况下，必然导致著作权的权利边界不够清晰，字库制造商的竞争对手和社会公众无法准确地预知著作权的保护范围，很容易在无意之中陷入侵权状态，也对汉字这一文化符号的正常使用和发展构成障碍，不符合著作权法保护作品独创性的初衷，若给予这样的单字字形以著作权保护，会过度增加社会的成本。
First, the consistent style of a typeface does not necessarily hurt the originality in the consisting characters. Conclusions should be made case-by-case. For example, if each of the elements can be distinguished by themselves (such as for not being concrete or utilitarian enough) from existing designs in the public domain, they should be deemed original regardless of the typeface’s limitations. Therefore, rather than rush to conclusions, comparison, as mentioned above, is necessary when deciding whether the aesthetic or utilitarian value weighs more in the characters. In practice, the majority of typefaces have been generated based on existing ones in the public domain (Mincho, Clerical Script, Regular Script etc.) without any modifications. As industrial products, they are developed more for practical use. In the lack of enough distinctiveness and originality, they fail to produce aesthetic effects that are part and parcel of artistic works. If this was the case that the Beijing Haidian Court was judging, the court would have had quite sold grounds to grant the rulings. The denial of protection in such cases is for the good of society. Copyright on typefaces less original would risk confusing font makers and the general public in terms of the legal boundaries. If too broad protection was given, there would likely be more infringements unconsciously committed and obstacles to the use and development of characters as a communication tool. At the core, it would run contrary to the essence of copyright that was supposed to protect originality.
其次，字库字体整体内容上缺乏独创性，不应作为美术作品受保护。在制作字库（类似传统的装订成册的字帖，字库程序除外）的过程中[H1] ，设计者主要是遵照国家标准或参考大众的使用习惯，选择和编排了成百上千个需要纳入字库中的单字，并为每一个单字设计具体的字形。一旦每一个单字的字形缺乏独创性，设计者付出的智力劳动是较为细微的，无法达到著作权法规定的独创性要求。因此，北京海淀法院在否定单字字形的独创性的同时，又肯定字库字体整体内容的独创性的观点是错误的。
Second, a typeface (rather than the font, the program for producing a typeface), as a compilation of characters, should not be original enough to be considered as an artistic work. When making a typeface, designers mainly work on the individual characters which have been picked based on national standards or user behavior to have the parts carry similar traits. When designers do not invest much intellectual work in the process to give their products sufficient originality, copyright should not be granted to the characters even, let alone the overall typeface. Therefore, it would not be reasonable for the Beijing Haidian Court to have favored the compilation while voting against the elements.
除了上述列举的案例以外，最高人民法院在北京北大方正电子有限公司诉暴雪娱乐股份有限公司一案中，认定涉案的方正兰亭字库（字库程序）属于计算机程序，能作为作品进行保护，同时确认涉案的每款字体（字库）均由相关的指令及数据构成，并非由线条、色彩或其他方式构成的具有审美意义的平面或立体的造型艺术品，不属于美术作品；关于字库经计算机程序调用运行后产生的汉字单字是否具有独创性，需要具体分析后尚能判定。最高院在判决中同时强调了即使涉案的方正兰亭字库中的单字字形具有独创性，暴雪娱乐股份有限公司等主体的使用行为也不构成著作权侵权：“……但鉴于汉字具有表达思想、传递信息的功能，由于暴雪公司、第九城市公司在其游戏运行中使用上述汉字是对其表达思想、传递信息等功能的使用，无论前述汉字是否属于著作权法意义上的美术作品，其均不能禁止他人正当使用汉字来表达一定思想，传达一定信息的权利。”④
As for fonts, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) found in Founder v. Blizzard et al. that the plaintiff’s Lan Ting Font Family was a computer program eligible for copyright, but the typeface as the result of codes and data was not a copyrightable work of art. When it came to the characters generated by running the program, their originality could not be determined without a context. However, the SPC also emphasized that, the defendants would not be deemed infringing even if the characters of the Lan Ting Font Family were found original– “…in the consideration of the characters’ expressive and communicative functions, which were highlighted in the defendants’ uses, the characters could be reasonably used for these purposes regardless of whether copyright was applicable or not.”
综上所述，若要确认对相关字库字体的使用行为是否侵犯他人的著作权，既要考虑具体的使用方式以及使用意图，也要考虑字库中的单字是否具有独创性。若使用的是字库中的数个单字字形，并用于传达一定的思想或信息，而非用于展示其视觉效果，在此种情况下，即使单字的字形具有一定的独创性，也不会认定此种使用行为构成侵权。若作为字库经营者，对他人的字库内容进行整体性使用，如通过复制等手段重新制作新的字库程序，使其显示的每一个单字的字形与在先字库的字体特点相近，则很有可能构成侵权。总体而言，基于字库字体本身带有工业产品的属性，其实用性较强，要达到公众能轻易识别的效果，这间接决定了每一个单字的字形设计的独创性受到较大的限制，导致目前绝大部分的字库字体的设计风格无法达到著作权法意义上的独创性要求，公众在使用相关字库中的单字字形用于传达一定的思想或信息，不构成著作权侵权。
In a nutshell, in order to determine whether there is a copyright infringement upon a typeface/font, we should not only factor in the originality of the object used but also consider how and why it has been used. As in the last example, if stylized characters are used for communication rather than their visual effects, infringement may not be affirmed even if the characters bear originality. But for font makers, re-programming fonts with other’s works and producing similar results might risk violations. All in all, few current typefaces are original enough to be copyrightable due to their industrial nature: they are more than often required to be recognizable for pragmatic use, which puts a cap on how far the originality could possibly go. Under these circumstances, copyright infringement is rather avoidable when such typefaces/characters are used in ordinary communications only.
Notes:
①北京一中院（2003）一中民初字第4414号；
Judgment No. (2003) YZMCZ4414 by Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court
②北京高院（2005）高民终字第443号；
Judgment No. (2005) GMZZ443 by Beijing Higher People’s Court
③北京海淀法院（2008）海民初字第27047号
Judgment No. (2008)HMCZ27047 by Beijing Haidian People’s Court
④最高院（2010）民三终字第6号
Judgment No. (2010)MSZZ6 by Supreme People’s Court
If you would like some more personalized review of the news from us, please kindly let us know by writing to:public.relation@hongfanglaw.com. Thank you.
