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

You wouldn't steal a font

fedi.rib.gay

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 421 posts

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#241

Post by Animats »

dredmorbius wrote: post #206
Animats wrote: post #173

What happens if you present an image of a page in some font to an LLM, and ask it to make you a font file for that font? An LLM could probably not only do that, but create matching characters for ones not already present. Oh, and tell it to fix the kerning.

As a matter of US law: - Font letterforms are not copyrightable. (Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eltra_Corp._v._Ringer >) - Font programmes are. (Generally 1980 Computer Software Copyright Act.) - Cleanroom reimplementation of software is not copyright infringement. An AI without access to original source code would likely pass this test. - As a further twist, it app…

Right.

A good question to work on is whether an LLM, given a reasonable number of characters of a font, can generate letter forms for the entire Unicode character space. Probably. It's a style matching problem, and LLMs are good at that.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#242

Post by tptacek »

davidivadavid wrote: post #240
tptacek wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to get too deep into this because it doesn't matter to my point (you're also not entitled to eat truffled dishes any more than you're entitled to eat ortolans). But: set a document in one text face or another; it won't much matter at all to the experience of reading it (unless you pick a bad text face). Leave the truffle out of a risotto and you've made a different dish. The important subtext of this thr…

Take any famous wordmark and replace it with a different typeface. You have a different wordmark. Typefaces aren't only used in body text. If you've read Bringhurst and are a typeface nerd, you should know you're arguing in bad faith. (Also generally like your comments, fyi, but you should know not to chime in that way about that topic on HN where the average attitude to anything design related is a mix of contempt a…

There are plenty of wordmarks that use no pre-designed typeface at all (NASA, Disney, Coca Cola); you're clearly not entitled to the vectors of those marks so you can repurpose them in your own work. Not to mention that most of the greatest wordmarks of all time were designed without any access to per-impression-licensed commercial fonts!

(I do not think it is the case that HN shuns design and I do not think you will be able to support with evience a claim that I'm ignorant of type design or commenting in bad faith).

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#243

Post by [deleted] »

bravura wrote: post #189
tptacek wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a typeface nerd. Bringhurst is one of 3 books on the end-table next to me right now. I spend a stupid amount of money for Hoefler fonts for my dumb blog. This to me is like the Menswear Guy on Twitter, who will explain in very great detail to you why the Hermès product is significantly better than the generic alternative. He's right, but he also understands that you buy the Hermès product to make a statement. Spe…

I usually like your takes, but where I disagree today is when you say: "Truffles have a functional role in a dish." but fonts don't. Either both do have functional roles or both are luxuries like Hermès.

[deleted]

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#244

Post by fooker »

grishka wrote: post #105
refulgentis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, AFAIK, the general assumption is every font is absurdly easy to steal, and that you'll do so before purchasing it. So it's de facto "free unlimited trial, free for personal use, pay for business if you have a soul and shame"

Depends on the country. I researched it for Russia recently and apparently the law is much stricter about fonts here than in the US. Both the character shapes and the "code" are copyrightable so you ain't getting away with converting it into a different format either. Companies did get sued over this and did have to pay millions of rubles in fines and licensing fees for their past usage. Not sure about individuals bu…

Huh, this is interesting. Given that Russia has been the hub of internet piracy for theast three decades.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#245

Post by tptacek »

wubrr wrote: post #237
rondini wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve been combative throughout this thread, and it's clear that you don’t see typography or design as disciplines that warrant serious thought. I don't think you're actually willing to engage with an explanation of why it matters but I'll try anyway. System fonts are the absolute bottom of the barrel. Some are well designed but using any of them is a visual shorthand that you didn't care enough to put thought into…

> You’ve been combative throughout this thread Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm combative. (Not that I care) > typography or design as disciplines that warrant serious thought. We are talking about fonts here, more specifically fonts used in software, more specifically the quality of free fonts used in software. Not 'design' as a whole which is much more than that. > System fonts are the absolute bottom of the b…

You should care if you're being combatative, but, even more importantly, quoting previous comments the way you're doing doesn't work well on HN and is also a flamewar trope. Everybody can read the comments you're responding to. Just refer back to them in prose. A single quote, maybe 2 in a long comment, fine, but what you're doing now creates the impression that you're sort of rebutting what the previous commenter said as you read them, sentence by sentence, which is a tell that you're not actually thinking about what they said.

Also: they're pretty clearly wrong, so you shouldn't need any of this to refute them.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#246

Post by edm0nd »

cyberpunk wrote: post #27
jll29 wrote: post #19

What saddens me is that a lot of people are so ignorant that they don't even realize a font is something that takes creativity, tradecraft and a lot of work/time/effort to design.

I remember trying to explain to some colleagues why I paid about 100 bucks for the font I use and why I wouldn’t share it with them and they just couldn’t get it. (It’s Berkeley mono). I don’t even know how many glyphs it is (it’s thousands) but for something I’m looking at for 6-8 hours a day, every single day and is the absolute peak of perfection (at least to me), 100 bucks seems like a fucking bargain to me. shru…

how does that work? you set this font to be used by all your computers and devices?

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#247

Post by tptacek »

wubrr wrote: post #238
michaelmrose wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last sentence is the variety that is super tempting to make but counterproductive because it shuts down discussion or poisons it thereafter its made to impress bystanders not actually communicate with the person.

Agree that it might not be the best, but seems like a fairly appropriate response for someone trying to back up their rhetoric with 'thousands of books out there'. How is it 'made to impress bystanders'?

Who cares? They're part of a line of argumentation that dunks on the typography work of Matthew Carter. This is very much the same thing as a thread on industrial design dunking on Dieter Rams. You don't get angry at that kind of argument; you laugh at it.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#248

Post by davidivadavid »

tptacek wrote: post #242
davidivadavid wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take any famous wordmark and replace it with a different typeface. You have a different wordmark. Typefaces aren't only used in body text. If you've read Bringhurst and are a typeface nerd, you should know you're arguing in bad faith. (Also generally like your comments, fyi, but you should know not to chime in that way about that topic on HN where the average attitude to anything design related is a mix of contempt a…

There are plenty of wordmarks that use no pre-designed typeface at all (NASA, Disney, Coca Cola); you're clearly not entitled to the vectors of those marks so you can repurpose them in your own work. Not to mention that most of the greatest wordmarks of all time were designed without any access to per-impression-licensed commercial fonts! (I do not think it is the case that HN shuns design and I do not think you will…

Correct. And those are the wordmarks I'm not talking about. Let me try it differently: Would you say typeface choice plays no functional role in the branding of companies that do rely on pre-designed typefaces? Vignelli's work would look the same with different fonts? No, you know that's just absurd. Or are we just equivocating on "functional" here? If we're talking about letter forms, certainly looking a certain way is part of their function? And I know you know more than the average guy about type design, which is precisely why I'm confused as to why you would go for that seemingly meta-contrarian take.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#249

Post by Dylan16807 »

davidivadavid wrote: post #248
tptacek wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of wordmarks that use no pre-designed typeface at all (NASA, Disney, Coca Cola); you're clearly not entitled to the vectors of those marks so you can repurpose them in your own work. Not to mention that most of the greatest wordmarks of all time were designed without any access to per-impression-licensed commercial fonts! (I do not think it is the case that HN shuns design and I do not think you will…

Correct. And those are the wordmarks I'm not talking about. Let me try it differently: Would you say typeface choice plays no functional role in the branding of companies that do rely on pre-designed typefaces? Vignelli's work would look the same with different fonts? No, you know that's just absurd. Or are we just equivocating on "functional" here? If we're talking about letter forms, certainly looking a certain way…

His argument is about body typefaces, not wordmarks at all, so yes this is talking past based on a different definition of "functional".

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#250

Post by tptacek »

davidivadavid wrote: post #248
tptacek wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of wordmarks that use no pre-designed typeface at all (NASA, Disney, Coca Cola); you're clearly not entitled to the vectors of those marks so you can repurpose them in your own work. Not to mention that most of the greatest wordmarks of all time were designed without any access to per-impression-licensed commercial fonts! (I do not think it is the case that HN shuns design and I do not think you will…

Correct. And those are the wordmarks I'm not talking about. Let me try it differently: Would you say typeface choice plays no functional role in the branding of companies that do rely on pre-designed typefaces? Vignelli's work would look the same with different fonts? No, you know that's just absurd. Or are we just equivocating on "functional" here? If we're talking about letter forms, certainly looking a certain way…

It's not a contrarian take. The argument I'm making is simple. If you're doing functional type design, such as setting a book or a magazine article or a user interface, you have a wealth of viable faces available that do not involve per-impression licensing; many are free, some even came installed with your computer. If you're doing logo design, everything is out the window anyways: a wordmark is an aesthetic statement. If you're a designer, and you're designing a mark, and your best idea requires you to license a Monotype font with per-impression licensing, and you don't want to do that, just use your next best idea. That design challenge is really not much different than having your best idea depend on access to NYT Cheltenham, which you can't use at any price. Or, for that matter, the vectors of the FedEx logo.

I'm not blowing you off. I'm taking your argument seriously. It just doesn't hold.

Post reply on HN