R.R. Fonts

This is a compilation of what was posted earlier this week by a lot of folks who contributed.:

Free railroad roman font:

**************************************************** Roman TrueType Font $10 "shareware" fee

-- Corelane

************************************************

The cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/travel.html lists Logan's Line Art as having rr roman, at

- small fee

- Steve Caple

*****************************************************

You might also try

- Brial Paul Ehni

****************************************************

US$4 RAILROMA.TTF - US 'Railroad Roman'

- Corelane

-- Jim McLaughlin

**************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** I am getting really tired of spam, so the reply address is munged. Please don't just hit the reply key. Remove the obvious from the address to reply. **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** Special treat for spambots: snipped-for-privacy@ftc.gov, snipped-for-privacy@ftc.gov, snipped-for-privacy@ftc.gov

Why on earth would anybody do business with that guy? Have you read the "licensing agreement" he posts on his site? In it, he cries about how hard he's worked on those computer files, and doesn't want to get ripped off. Yet, it appears he's seriously violating trademark and copyright laws by selling derivative works involving existing material already protected by law. Without authorization from the registered owners, what he's doing is a big no-no under Title 17 of the US Code.

I just find it plain wrong that the proprietor appears to be ripping off the registered owners of the material he's reproducing, but then acts like it's a federal crime if someone buys a CD-ROM from him and uses it on more than one computer...

If you look at the fonts very carefully, you will see very minute differences from the original ones we saw on railroad equipment.

Guess you've never read the licensing agreements on every damn piece of software you've ever bought....IF you've ever done so. Just about every last licensing agreement I have seen (yes, I have read a few in my day of purchasing legally much softeware) says the same thing.

differences from the original ones we saw on railroad equipment.<

I don't care about this thread but the answer is interesting. If you have been following the UP thread many have stated that "very minute differences" mean nothing to the original holder and the courts. I suggested for models very minor changes that wouldn't matter to a model but would be different than the original UP emblems and printing. Many folks said this didn't matter that UP could still sue. Are you saying the opposite?

We are discussing a copyright issue (Title 17 of the US Code) here.

The Union Pacific debate involves trademark issues.

Not to stretch this out but I understand the emblem being a trademark but wouldn't the words "Union Pacific", etc. (in the correct font) be a copyright. After all that's what one sees on Mickey Mouse, etc. Don't we see the little c with a circle around it. And in fact the whole reason they changed the copyright laws recently was for MM and Disney as the copyright was running out for them! Slang term now, mickey mouse copyright laws.

If this issue is really important, then, I suggest you take it to one of the legal newsgroups when the correct "skinney" might just be found...

Patent, copyright and trademark law are rather unique and most everyday attorneys are not that well-versed in it.

Just a suggestion if us R.M.R. want accurate legal commentary.

No, Mickey Mouse is a trademark of Disney. They own the copyright to the Mickey Mouse movies that they produce.

The copyright protects the original work and prevents others from copying it, while the trademark protects the work when used to identify a product or service.

But -- as you noted -- strangely, you can use the phrase "the Union Pacific marketing department is a mickey mouse operation" without a problem because it is a common phrase that doesn't literally refer to Mickey Mouse.

The fonts are one thing, but the proprietor also sells products containing the logos of multiple RR's... including many of the UPRR logos, as well as those of its predecessors. IIRC, even if he were to change to logo slightly, it would still be a violation for using a derivative version of a registered trademark without the owners' permission.

Yes, I have... and I don't have a problem with software licenses as long as the company in question is following the letter of the law on their end. In this particular case, I just find it hypocritical that the proprietor mentions how long he's worked on what he "thinks" is his material, when he may in fact be violating the law by using registered trademarks without the owners' permission.

In reading his "license" agreement, he claims that all of the artwork and files are copyrighted materiall owned by him. Unless you have the permission of the trademark owner, how can you copyright material that doesn't belong to you?

Heck, nearly every package that software come in has a lot of small print, usually on the back of the box or manual, that talks of what material is trademarked and owned by whom, and that it is used with permission. Mr. Coifman doesn't mention anywhere in his site about having permission to use those trademarks.

So, IF he does happen to be reproducing trademarks without permission, why would anyone support him when it's exactly for reasons like this that UP now insists on charging licensing fees?

And yes, as others have pointed out, I had Title 17 and Title 15 mixed up. Title 15 is the one that covers trademarks. My bad...

No problem. I understand everything you are saying....BUT, have you questions Mr. Coifmann (his e-mail IS listed in his page) about permissions/licensing, etc.???

Posting info regarding his catalog here is one thing to assist those who don't want to violate copyrights etc., by making them aware that there possibly could be infringements in his products, but perhaps links to his permissions/licensing may have just been overlooked in his catalog.

Then the problem becomes, if he has NO copyright usage permission, that lengthy list of commercial customers he has listed....I wonder if they are aware of the situation?

To the best of my knowledge, yes... quite some time ago. IIRC, my rather polite inquiry was completely ignored.

It may depend upon the situation. For customers such as WC or CSX, he probably didn't need permission as he became an outside contractor supplying a form material they already owned, such as when advertising agencies put together campaigns for a client. He would still need, however, a licensing agreement to sell that material to outside parties.

It could be an oversight in his website, it could be an assumption that his material was hobby related and fell under the same arrangements that model companies have used for years (where the RR's didn't require licensing fees), or it could be none of the above.

I do know that, as a RR employee for one of the eastern Class 1's, we had to follow strict guidelines when making up hats and sweatshirts for distribution to employees. We were selling them at cost to employees who wanted them, and was able to use our employer's logo as long as it met the company's standards, and we weren't reselling the products for a profit. The company went so far as to send us corporate logo standards compliance guidelines to make the process easier.

Had our intended items been for resale at a profit to anyone, the process would have been much more complicated, such as filing requests, waiting for trademark usage approval, and supplying necessary information to the RR's legal department.

To me, with all the effort involved in obtaining permission, that's why it would seem strange that one would take such pains to write their own licensing agreement, but never mention that they've gone through the process of obtaining licensing agreements with the owners of the trademarks they're reselling...

Ahh, maybe all he did was grab someone else's licensing/copyright agreement, change wording to suit HIS products, and toss it in there.

I doubt he wrote the thing....

And I do remember when all those fonts, about ten years ago, were distributed as freeware, then they became shareware, and I guess Mr. Coifmann figured there was profit to be made, so now there's on price n them. I obtained the ones I have as freeware....and still have them, two computers later. When I get rid of a computer, I usually clean it up and put the original restore disks back in, soit's like when I bought it -- and then it gets donated to some charity that can really use it. (heck, they don't need all the train fonts....)

~~~~~~~~~

All fonts and accompanying files are ©/®1994-2003 Benjamin Coifman

~~~~ Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 37, Volume 1] [Revised as of July 1, 2002]

[CITE: 37CFR202.1] [Page 487]

TITLE 37--PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, AND COPYRIGHTS

CONGRESS

PART 202--REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT--Table of Contents

Sec. 202.1 Material not subject to copyright.

The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:

(e) Typeface as typeface.

[24 FR 4956, June 18, 1959, as amended at 38 FR 3045, Feb. 1, 1973; 57 FR 6202, Feb. 21, 1992]

~~~~~ Methinks Mr Coifman goes overboard in his claims. His software can be copyrighted, but the fonts themselves cannot. Given that, can he really enforce the restrictions of his licence, such as : Without additional licensing agreements, you may not sell products (including, but not limited to: stickers, decals, T-shirts, and models) containing the fonts or artwork in printed or hardcopy format.)

You'd think he went to the Bill Gates School of Software Restrictions.

Val