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

361–370 of 421 posts

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#361

Post by ototoForward »

tptacek wrote: post #92
phony-account wrote: post #24

Is this the wrong time to rant about font licensing though? I’ve always bought and paid for fonts, but as I’ve gradually transitioned to mobile app development, I one day realized that all the fonts I bought for print are now worthless to me. These crazy outdated licenses that let you print as many magazines or books you want forever, for a one-time price. But if your hobby is making apps, then suddenly the same font…

There is maybe nothing in the entire world that I am less sympathetic towards than the cause of font piracy / font liberation. You have perfectly good --- in fact, historically excellent --- fonts loaded by default for free on any computer you buy today. Arguing for the oppression of font licenses is, to me, like arguing about how much it costs to buy something at Hermès. Just don't shop at Hermès.

[flagged]

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#362

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

rafram wrote: post #346
echoangle wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are fonts really programs? Is a digital image file also a program? A font file is more like a config that’s used by your OS to render something, there’s no real interactivity in fonts (except some ligatures but those are just static tables, right?).

TrueType, which has been around since the 80s, includes a full Turing-complete instruction set for hinting: https://developer.apple.com/fonts/TrueType-Reference-Manual/...

This is sophistry. Does anyone write apps in ttf? Can I download a calendar app? Has anyone even cranked out some proof of concept?

Fonts aren't software in any meaningful sense of the word.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#363

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

djfivyvusn wrote: post #300
echoangle wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are fonts really programs? Is a digital image file also a program? A font file is more like a config that’s used by your OS to render something, there’s no real interactivity in fonts (except some ligatures but those are just static tables, right?).

Yes. And they're also copyrightable. That's why this shit is so stupid.

Many things are copyrightable that shouldn't be. When you can spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress to get them to extend copyright protections beyond reason, that tends to happen.

In the United States, it is settled precedent that typefaces are not copyrightable. That doesn't change just because they became digital in 1984.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#364

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

snypher wrote: post #166
ars wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> takes a lot of work The "sweat of the brow" argument is not valid in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

>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?

> inventing a new letter shapes would be protected by copyright?

It is settled law that letter shapes aren't copyrightable. Period.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#365

Post by pc86 »

sct202 wrote: post #33
crazygringo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence XBAND Rough was extracted from a digital source bit-for-bit, unless someone can point to any? It seems like it was just a hobbyist project to recreate the look of the font from the anti-piracy ads? Which is 100% legal. Edit: OK, so the original font appears to be "FF Confidential"? Why didn't the post even mention that? So maybe it is a digital clone, which would be illegal. But then strange that…

Idk if it's provable how it was recreated but if you type in "XBAND Rough" into the sampler box at the bottom of the page https://www.myfonts.com/collections/ff-confidential-font-fon... and compare to https://fontzone.net/font-details/xband-rough it's exactly the same and the letter splotching is very distinct in the lower case letters.

"It looks the same" is completely different than having been directly extracted from digital source.

If the digital source is the only thing that can be copyrighted, then you have to prove the digital source is what was used inappropriately. If you can't prove that, either because it didn't happen or because there's no technological way to prove it, then you can't prove copyright infringement.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#366

Post by glacier5674 »

weinzierl wrote: post #58
EvanAnderson wrote: post #9

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..…

In the 90s Corel Draw came with a Helvetica named Swiss. Microsoft wasn't as bold and called theirs Arial.

[dead]

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#367

Post by pc86 »

codedokode wrote: post #78
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was itself arguably a copyright-infringing knock-off. In US law, there is no such thing. The shape of a glyph (or many) isn't even slightly copyrightable. This is settled law. Fonts (on computers) have a special status that makes them semi-copyrightable in that some jackass judge from the 1980s called them "computer programs" and so they have the same protection as software... but this won't protect against knockof…

Is this fair? It actually takes a lot of work (I assume) to design letter's shapes. Of course, not counting those who just trace 16-th century font without paying a compensation.

Who are you paying for a 400-year old font? Who deserves to get paid for a 400-year old font?

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#368

Post by glacier5674 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #362
rafram wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TrueType, which has been around since the 80s, includes a full Turing-complete instruction set for hinting: https://developer.apple.com/fonts/TrueType-Reference-Manual/...

This is sophistry. Does anyone write apps in ttf? Can I download a calendar app? Has anyone even cranked out some proof of concept? Fonts aren't software in any meaningful sense of the word.

[dead]

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#369

Post by WillAdams »

pc86 wrote: post #365
sct202 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk if it's provable how it was recreated but if you type in "XBAND Rough" into the sampler box at the bottom of the page https://www.myfonts.com/collections/ff-confidential-font-fon... and compare to https://fontzone.net/font-details/xband-rough it's exactly the same and the letter splotching is very distinct in the lower case letters.

"It looks the same" is completely different than having been directly extracted from digital source. If the digital source is the only thing that can be copyrighted, then you have to prove the digital source is what was used inappropriately. If you can't prove that, either because it didn't happen or because there's no technological way to prove it, then you can't prove copyright infringement.

Ages ago, I consulted on a case where a converted font was included in a product --- it was even simpler than https://luc.devroye.org/kinch.html since no transformations were applied --- just had to figure out which version of which font editor was used to open up the font file and then which settings were used to re-generate the font in the new format used for the infringing product.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#370

Post by mikey_p »

Suppafly wrote: post #99
kccqzy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you suppose they should do to the original authors? Perhaps the original author is Claude Garamond who died in the sixteenth century? Or the unknown workers who carved the inscription at Trajan's column in the second century AD?

So you understand the issue, it's derivative works all the way down.

Clearly nothing based on Latin script can be original, which itself is based on the Etruscan Old italic alphabet, which itself it based on the Euboean alphabet — ergo, any typeface developed after say the 8th century BC is just a silly derivative.

Everything is derivative, there is nothing new under the sun, and your argument proves nothing.

Post reply on HN