Alright, you made me add references :)

It comes down to this: Typefaces/glyphs are not copyrightable. The font code that produces those glyphs is.

> Typefaces cannot be protected by copyright in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e); Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer)...However, there is a distinction between a font and a typeface. The machine code used to display a stylized typeface (called a font) is protectable as copyright. [1]

In software, a similar "black-box" derivation process has happened many times, e.g. UNIX/GNU. Copyrights applies to software source code, but not software functionality.

Determining what is the "essential, creative work" in each case in a nuanced way is a matter for courts and armies of lawyers: Apple round corners, Oracle Java APIs, etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti...

Presumably copyright law makes this allowance for type because the point of typefaces is to be reproduced.

That is in fact, the point of all digitized information, including recorded audio.

(But yes, I do agree that typefaces are exceptionally commonly distributed.)

Thanks for supporting your point :) I have to admit that the difference in copyrightability of fonts vs. typefaces is new to me.

Now at least the inane font-vs-typeface distinction made by modern designers has some practical distinction to it, albeit a legal one.