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

381–390 of 421 posts

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#381

Post by pc86 »

WillAdams wrote: post #369
pc86 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I'm not saying it's never possible in any case, just that in cases where it's not you can't prove infringement.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#382

Post by tptacek »

dwaite wrote: post #298
tptacek wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This claim that system fonts are the "bottom of the barrel" is just so clearly false that I don't understand how you can be an advocate of typography and say it. Both Microsoft and Apple put huge amounts of effort into typography, contract or employ well-regarded designers, and their outputs are themselves well-regarded. If you wanted to say "most of what's on Google Fonts is bottom of the barrel", you'd have a color…

San Francisco is a great font. Arial is a perfectly functional semi-clone of Helvetica, Times New Roman is a decent interpretation of Plantin. Roboto is an interesting mash-up of Helvetica, DIN, and a few others. System font from a web standpoint means you get one of these depending on the user's choice of phone, desktop, and/or browser. It is somewhat like buying art because the frame covers a blemish on the wall. T…

Around the time Matthew Carter was creating Georgia, one of the most widely-used system fonts in the world, for Microsoft, he was also widely considered one of the best typographers in the world. Georgia is not hotel room wall art.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#383

Post by Gormo »

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.

Corel's "Swiss" font is identical to Helvetica. Arial has many differences.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#384

Post by Gormo »

raincole wrote: post #277
colechristensen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, entirely legally, make a copy of any font and distribute it freely. You can't copy the font files themselves, but you can make visually indistinguishable new fonts with the same shapes because the shapes are not protected by copyright. Additionally though, some fonts have design patents, which does protect the shape. Unlike copyright which has absolutely crazy expiration (like 150 years occasionally?) these…

So if I already have the file (legally acquired or not), I'm free to use it for print? Cause obviously distributing T-shirts isn't distributing font files?

In the US, yes.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#385

Post by colechristensen »

raincole wrote: post #277
colechristensen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, entirely legally, make a copy of any font and distribute it freely. You can't copy the font files themselves, but you can make visually indistinguishable new fonts with the same shapes because the shapes are not protected by copyright. Additionally though, some fonts have design patents, which does protect the shape. Unlike copyright which has absolutely crazy expiration (like 150 years occasionally?) these…

So if I already have the file (legally acquired or not), I'm free to use it for print? Cause obviously distributing T-shirts isn't distributing font files?

It depends on if it has a design patent on it or not.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#386

Post by tptacek »

graemep wrote: post #356
tptacek wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't mean anything. Things are not generally sold at their bill of materials cost. If you don't want to pay what Monotype is charging, don't use Monotype faces. It's exactly that simple. There a gajillion alternative faces, and a very large number of them are of high quality.

> Things are not generally sold at their bill of materials cost In a perfectly competitive market things are sold at cost of production + a small markup.

Do you understand what a perfectly competitive market is? Typefaces structurally cannot be one.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#387

Post by wizzwizz4 »

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.

https://www.coderelay.io/fontemon.html

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#388

Post by dcow »

wubrr wrote: post #260
tptacek wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

I am rebutting what the previous commenter said, sentence by sentence (almost), I don't know why that tells you that I'm not actually thinking about what they said though. Did I misunderstand or misrepresent something they said?

Because it’s easy to respond to one-off sentences. It’s harder to respond to the substantial argument they make.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#389

Post by dredmorbius »

psychoslave wrote: post #342
dredmorbius wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All law is a fiction, by that argument.

Just because it’s a fiction doesn’t meant it’s not effective in triggering human responses and proactive actions. In a broad sense, fiction is all we get as human minds, whether it’s representative representation of our actual embedding universe or not.

That would in fact be part of my argument.

Some fictions are readily dispensible. Most are not.

What they are not however is laws of nature, divine right or revelation, or immutable.

Limit on the law-of-nature bit: law is often a highly probable outcome of various power dynamics, political, economic, social, cultural, etc.

Re: You wouldn't steal a font

#390

Post by dredmorbius »

int_19h wrote: post #351
dredmorbius wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is strongly jurisdiction-dependent. US patent and copyright derive from A1S8C8 of the US constitution, "to promote science and useful arts". Much EU law derives from a French tradition based on droight d'auteur , or moral rights. International copyright code (Berne Convention) rips and mashes from both traditions.

A law claiming that something is a "moral right" doesn't make it so, though. Just as e.g. sodomy laws claiming that something is immoral doesn't make it so.

I'd agree with this.

The point I was addressing was whether or not copyright is grounded in moral rights, and as my earlier response notes, it depends on jurisdiction and foundations.

That said, I've come to a general view that moralising of pathologies or other behaviours is often highly counterproductive. Medicine progressed little when illness, disease, or dysfunction were rationalised as will of gods or divine retribution. Germ theory and other causal etiologies broke that dam. Left-handedness was widely viewed as literally malevolent, a sign of the devil. Which did little to prevent the condition, and greatly hampered opportunities and life-paths of the roughly 10% of the population which is left handed. Oppression of LGBTQIX+ individuals is often presented as a similar situation. Mental health and illness still carry strong moralising-of-pathology overtones, though the situation's improving. Justice and penal systems are presented by some as another such case (see in particular Robert Sapolsky).

Back to copyright and patent: both foundations, authorial/inventor support and moral rights strike me as grossly flawed in both grounding and consequence.

Post reply on HN