An Analysis On The Copyrights Protection Of Single Character Of Computer Font

With the development of science and technology, new problems emerge in the field of intellectual property protection. Online download of songs, videos about five years ago till today’s computer font infringement, all have caused heated discussion. Computer font should be subject to the "Copyright Law" Protection has been widely recognized by the judiciary circle, especially by local courts. But whether a single character should be protected by the "Copyright Law" is still controversial both in theory and practice.China’s current "Copyright Law" system hasn’t clearly defined the originality and belonging of single character of the computer font. Nowadays, the discussions about single character of computer font focus on the legal property, i.e. the originality and aesthetic meaning both in theory and practice. In addition, whether it will do harm to the public interest is the focus of debate. The unclear law, controversial opinion, practical chaos are unfavorable to protect the single character. I believe that it is necessary that the clarification of law attributes of single character to build its reasonable protection mode. This article reviews the practice of two classic cases: Founder vs Procter & Gamble and Hanyi vs Shuangfei Ltd. and Prince Fog company and summarize their controversy and analyze their legal attributes, then come to an conclusion that single character of computer font should be protected by "copyright law".In this paper, in addition to introduction and conclusion, it is divided into six parts.The first part is question, through the practice of the two classic case:Founder vs Procter & Gamble and Hanyi vs Shuangfei Ltd. and Prince Fog company, and the author will sum up different views, such as whether the single character of computer font has originality, aesthetic sense, or whether it is harmful to the public interest. The focus of controversy present further evidence and ideas.In the second part, the author describes the process of making single character of computer font and related concepts. The concept is the cornerstone of solving the problem, this part will help to explore following analysis.In the third part, the author introduces protection mode of foreign countries, and it is divided into three parts:the introduction of international treaties,non-Chinese area protection mode and Chinese character protection mode and summarize experience aimed to bring some ideas for the protection of single character of computer font in China.The fourth part is the main part of the article,in this part, the author will make concrete analysis and focus on the topic mentioned in the first section, and come to conclusion that single character of computer font has originality and aesthetic meaning, and should be protected by the copyright law.In the fifth part, the author introduces relevant points of view of computer font protection and gives rationality of previous conclusion. I believe such kind of protection is in line with the copyrights law, and it is conducive to the development of the font industry, fair market competition, and the single character of computer font protection will not affect the public interest, and should therefore be carried out.In the sixth part, the author puts forward suggestions for such copyright protection, and should be listed under undefined arts of work of copyrights law, and also increase the originality and clarify how the content is protected, and the components and reasonable range of protecting single character in computer font.Through the above analysis of six parts, the author draw two conclusions as followed:Firstly,part of the single character of computer font has originality and aesthetic significance, and should belong to the "Copyright Law" Protection and this effort is in line with "Copyright Law", and it is conducive to the development of computer font industry, fair market competition without harming public interest.Computer word font should be used as to protect art works, but it does not belong to calligraphy works, as the law does not set out to protect works of art. In conclusion, the author suggest to raise the clarification standards, content and infringement components and the protection doesn’t exclude proper use of single character of computer font.