Live data from Hacker News

You wouldn't steal a font

fedi.rib.gay

191–200 of 421 posts

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#191
There was a nice video on how you can't copyright a typeface recently by "Ok, so" over on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J06tluN7rtE

But you can copyright a font name, so if someone copies your work and releases it under a new name... that's that's like creating a copy of the car piece by piece and giving it your own name.

So they were right: we not downloading a car, we never were. We were all just making copies.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#193
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is using some of the thousands of freely available fonts out there even remotely the same as using Calibri for everything? You're making absurd comparisons and not being sincere.

No, I think we're just looking at it from different perspectives. Yes, most people are fine choosing from the fonts available on their computer when writing a document. But that's not what me nor OP are talking about. We're talking about shipping software (like a mobile app), or publishing a blog post. In that case, the best you can specify is either a very common font (Helvetica, etc), or a high-level classification…

Something tells me that some designers care about fonts a heck of a lot more than most consumers do. As a consumer, I care about legibility above all else. There are plenty of metrics that affect that, but many of the freely available (albeit, not necessarily free) fonts are perfectly fine on that front. More bluntly, some of those freely available fonts are going to be better than the vast majority of fonts that you can pay for because: (a) companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft have invested in their development or licensing to ensure their customers have access to high quality fonts with coverage for most languages; and (b) they have wide availability, since font substitution is going to have a much larger impact upon the perceived quality of a document than its use of quality fonts.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying a Michelin chef can complain about a 50x increase in the cost of truffles without negating the fact that a lot of people happily survive on ramen.

No, those things aren't comparable. Truffles have a functional role in a dish. A typeface does not have a meaningful functional role in a document, compared to the high-quality freely-available alternatives. This is like complaining about some kind of specially-carved or dyed truffle.

Typefaces do have functional roles, they {exude} a point in culture and time (the fonts that HN supports certainly time-stamps it).

edit: HN won't allow Fraktur[1] characters, even though they are in the unicode standard. Yet more evidence that font matters for the tone of the message you deliver.

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

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So "Typefaces are incredibly important", just not important enough to pay for (or create yourself)???

The OP didn't say they didn't want to pay, they're saying there's been a shift toward per-impression pricing which is often unsustainable for even the most lucrative apps.

So, using the OP's own comparison, I should be able to pay a one off "saffron purchase", and then be able to use as much saffron as I want from the supermarket for every meal I ever make in the future? ;-)

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#197
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Under the Feist ruling in the US, mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and thus not protected by copyright, no matter how much work went into collating them. This person isn't just collecting existing letter shapes; inventing a new letter shapes would be protected by copyright?

You aren't inventing a new letter shapes - letters already exist. You are modifying how they look, and that's not considered creative enough. There are lots of things that can't be copyrighted. For example you can't copyright an anatomy drawing: https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/licensing (i.e. the layout of the bones, etc) but you can copyright your specific drawing - but someone else could draw in the same style and…

You can say the same about drawing of a cat: you are not inventing new animal here. But for some weird reason cats are copyrighted and letters are not.

There are many ways to draw the same letter, as there are many ways to draw a cat.

Also if one draws letters that look like cats, will they fall under copyright protection?

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#198
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't copyright a font.

You can copyright just about anything as long as you have the _money_ T-Mobile trademarked a very specific pink, "Magenta" There’s even a company that holds trademarks on a set of colors, Pantone. Courts have yet to reverse or revoke these silly trademarks.

Trademark and copyright are not the same thing..

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US you can't copyright the shape of a font. You can copyright the programmatic description of a font. Design patents have been awarded for fonts. Trademark and trade dress protections could apply to the specific use of a font but not the font itself. The name of a font itself can be protected by trademark, as well. It's kind of a fascinating topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti..…

But you can Copyright the Name of a font. But yes long standing rule says you can copyright how letters & numbers look. Note that if you make a font that contains your own “artwork’ that does not represent a letter or number you can get protection for that. And only fairly recently (in the past 30 years—I forget when Adobe won this court case) the courts ruled you can protect the code for generating a fonts look from…

You can't copyright the name of a font in the US. You can trademark it.
Post reply on HN