Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

pixelambacht.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 145 posts

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#11

Post by pavlov »

Nextgrid wrote: post #7
jchw wrote: post #4

Interestingly, typefaces are not copyrightable in the US, though fonts, being computer code, can be. Not sure how this influences the situation, though.

Wouldn’t it then be legal to make your own font (so you own the copyright on the computer code) representing a commercial typeface?

Yes. That’s why Windows bundled Arial instead of Helvetica. Although the design of Arial is slightly modified, it’s fundamentally a straightforward Helvetica clone with metrics compatibility (you can plug it in a layout in place of Helvetica and not break anything).

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#12

Post by c3534l »

Nextgrid wrote: post #7
jchw wrote: post #4

Interestingly, typefaces are not copyrightable in the US, though fonts, being computer code, can be. Not sure how this influences the situation, though.

Wouldn’t it then be legal to make your own font (so you own the copyright on the computer code) representing a commercial typeface?

Yes.

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#13

Post by alunchbox »

ketralnis wrote: post #3
jancsika wrote: post #2

Is this "piracy" in the sense of Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean?" Like, Github is taking an niche subject matter, packaging it up for a more general audience, and then distributing it worldwide?

No? This is taking copyrighted material owned by somebody else and distributing it to people that haven't paid for it.

From a legal standpoint, based on the article most of these developers are keeping the fonts in their assets (debatable if this is good or not).For public repositories, not to be malicious and be offer free fonts... How much trouble would they be in?

I Assume this is probably possible for FontAwesome premium icons as well ?

Having the server host the assets is probably the best solution (same rep) but if it's not in Git then it needs to be managed in the build for other open source developers. What's the Correct way of handling this situation?

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#15

Post by c3534l »

pavlov wrote: post #11
Nextgrid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t it then be legal to make your own font (so you own the copyright on the computer code) representing a commercial typeface?

Yes. That’s why Windows bundled Arial instead of Helvetica. Although the design of Arial is slightly modified, it’s fundamentally a straightforward Helvetica clone with metrics compatibility (you can plug it in a layout in place of Helvetica and not break anything).

You have it wrong. Arial was created to not have to bother with international typeface laws as a legally distinct Helvetica. Apple just paid the licensing fees in those countries where they were required to.

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#16

Post by toomuchtodo »

c3534l wrote: post #10
wnevets wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but I believe you may have a license (paid money) to use the font on your site but you may not have a licence redistribute the font. You paid for the right to air the latest UFC fight at your bar but that doesn't grant you the ability to sale DVDs of it. However a user of yours could just download the font from your web server or record the fight on their phone.

But it's not like a webpage renders an image for you and then you rend an image: you send the user a font so that they can render the page themselves with that font. It's being distributed either way.

Correct. Article OP is making the argument for a font to be treated as a secret when it is not a secret. Intent and context is important; users aren't putting them up on torrent sites in this case, but simply storing them alongside the rest of their assets in source control.

EDIT: TLDR Downloading a publicly available font you don't have a license to use violates copyright.

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#17

Post by wodenokoto »

wnevets wrote: post #8
Gracana wrote: post #5

What's the difference between putting webfonts on your public website vs putting them on your public github? This seems like a distinction that only lawyers would care about, but I'm not a web developer (and I don't know much about webfonts) so maybe there's something I'm missing.

IANAL but I believe you may have a license (paid money) to use the font on your site but you may not have a licence redistribute the font. You paid for the right to air the latest UFC fight at your bar but that doesn't grant you the ability to sale DVDs of it. However a user of yours could just download the font from your web server or record the fight on their phone.

The analogy you are looking for is: You can give away DVD's of the fight inside your bar, but not outside.

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#18

Post by snek »

Gracana wrote: post #5

What's the difference between putting webfonts on your public website vs putting them on your public github? This seems like a distinction that only lawyers would care about, but I'm not a web developer (and I don't know much about webfonts) so maybe there's something I'm missing.

Even better, what if I have it on github because github pages is my site host?

Re: Github became the web's largest font piracy site (2017)

#20

Post by sp332 »

stefan_ wrote: post #9

Wait until they find out that when people visit the finished website in their browser, it will download the font! Oh the piracy! Just like in the real world, someone handing you the keys to their car doesn't mean you own it.

The legal issue is with the repo owner putting it in the repo. The problem is that it's a violation of the copyright license, that's the only reason it's an issue. Downloading the font file from the website is included in the license, so it's fine.
Post reply on HN