An IP lawyer once explained to me that "fonts" are copyrightable because they are technically computer programs, and computer programs are copyrightable.
I actually find it odd that "typefaces" are not copyrightable, but I think that's more of an historical quirk than some wise feature of the legal system.
perfumes and recipes are not copyrightable either. It's because theses issues have been setteled in court in better times before media got in bed with politicians and lobbied til they got their monopoly
Isn't that because copyrights protect creative works in a tangible form? Perfumes are instead physical compositions; and recipes are functional, not just creative.
> An IP lawyer once explained to me that "fonts" are copyrightable because they are technically computer programs, and computer programs are copyrightable.
Yes, and if you’re interested in learning more, the link above goes into considerably more detail than my excerpt on why scalable fonts/typefaces (typically used interchangeably, though technically a typeface is generally a family of fonts) are copyrightable in the US while bitmapped fonts/typefaces are not.
I actually find it odd that "typefaces" are not copyrightable, but I think that's more of an historical quirk than some wise feature of the legal system.