Eltra Corp. v. Ringer: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
bg |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
'''''Eltra Corp. v. Ringer''''' 579 F.2d 294 was a case in the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit]] which determined that [[typefaces]] were not eligible for protection under [[U.S. copyright law]]. The [[United States Copyright Office]] had refused to register a typeface design owned by [[AlliedSignal|Eltra Corporation]], who filed suit in the [[U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia]]. The district court held that the design submitted did not qualify as a "work of art" under the [[1909 Copyright Act]]. The appellate court affirmed this decision. |
'''''Eltra Corp. v. Ringer''''' 579 F.2d 294 was a case in the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit]] which determined that [[typefaces]] were not eligible for protection under [[U.S. copyright law]]. The [[United States Copyright Office]] had refused to register a typeface design owned by [[AlliedSignal|Eltra Corporation]], who filed suit in the [[U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia]]. The district court held that the design submitted did not qualify as a "work of art" under the [[1909 Copyright Act]]. The appellate court affirmed this decision. |
||
==Background== |
|||
Eltra Corp is a typesetting equipment manufacturer who filed a copyright registration on an alphabet and other typographical symbols for it's equipment. Eltra hired a designer to produce a custom typeface for $11,000. Eltra registered the typeface with the Copyright Office as a "work of art", which was rejected. Following the rejection Eltra filed a case with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia who denied a motions for summary judgment and dismissed the action arguing that no element in combination or alone can be considered a work of art under § 5(g) of the [[Copyright Act]]. Eltra appealed the decision. |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
* [http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/eltra.pdf text] of the Fourth Circuit opinion |
* [http://www.sanskritweb.net/forgers/eltra.pdf text] of the Fourth Circuit opinion |
||
Revision as of 06:15, 21 November 2021
| Eltra Corporation v. Barbara A. Ringer | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |
| Full case name | Eltra Corp. v. Barbara A. Ringer, International Typographic Composition Association and Advertising Typographers Association of America, Inc. |
| Argued | June 14 1978 |
| Decided | June 14 1978 |
| Citation | 579 F.2d 294 |
| Case history | |
| Prior history | Appeal from The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Holding | |
| Found that typefaces were not protectable expression. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Harrison Lee Winter, Donald S. Russell, Hiram Emory Widener, Jr. |
| Keywords | |
| Typeface, United states copyright law | |
Eltra Corp. v. Ringer 579 F.2d 294 was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which determined that typefaces were not eligible for protection under U.S. copyright law. The United States Copyright Office had refused to register a typeface design owned by Eltra Corporation, who filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court held that the design submitted did not qualify as a "work of art" under the 1909 Copyright Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision.
Background
Eltra Corp is a typesetting equipment manufacturer who filed a copyright registration on an alphabet and other typographical symbols for it's equipment. Eltra hired a designer to produce a custom typeface for $11,000. Eltra registered the typeface with the Copyright Office as a "work of art", which was rejected. Following the rejection Eltra filed a case with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia who denied a motions for summary judgment and dismissed the action arguing that no element in combination or alone can be considered a work of art under § 5(g) of the Copyright Act. Eltra appealed the decision.
External links
- text of the Fourth Circuit opinion
 | This typography-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |