字体是否是美术作品?字体是否应受法律保护?如果应受法律保护,究竟应受何种法律保护?本文以北大方正字体著作权案为题材,探讨这些问题。一、对一审、二审判决的简要评价先看二审判决。二审判决认定两被上诉人(宝洁公司和家乐福公司)的行为不构成对上诉人(北大方正)“飘柔”字体著作权的侵害。其判决理由是:两被上诉人实施的复制、发行行为获得了上诉人的默示 Should fonts be art works? Should fonts be protected by law? What kind of legal protection should be protected if they should be protected by law? In this paper, we will explore these issues with the theme of Beijing Founder Fonts Copyright. First, the first instance, second instance verdict First look at the second instance verdict. The judgment of the second instance found that the actions of the two appellees (Procter & Gamble and Carrefour) did not infringe the copyright of the appellant (Founder Founder) “Gone with the Wind”. The reason for the decision was that the two appellees had obtained the implication of the appellant in their copying and distribution activities