4 ms·
I could be wrong here but my understanding is that the letter forms of a font are not subject to copyright, only the font file itself. This is why Microsoft was
by mantap 7y ago
I could be wrong here but my understanding is that the letter forms of a font are not subject to copyright, only the font file itself. This is why Microsoft was able to create Arial which is a virtual clone of Helvetica without it being a derivative work.
- slim 7y agoyou mean I could copy a font as long as the resulting font file is different from the original one?
- gen3 7y agoYes. The file is the only thing with legal protections.
- big_chungus 7y agoActually, not necessarily. Drawing font glyphs is certainly protected by copyright (even if not filed, an implicit one) as artwork. You probably wouldn't get prosecuted because they probably couldn't prove if you copy-pasted, but it's still the work of an artist.
- amaranth 7y agoTypefaces are not covered by copyright in the US. Bitmapped fonts aren't either as that's just a computerized version of a typeface. Other types of fonts are covered by copyright as they're computer programs that tell the computer how to draw the typeface. This means unless a typeface was created for and used in a trademarked logo there is no protection on it and you can freely recreate it by tracing the output of an existing font.
- CriticalCathed 7y agoSo, it's legal to make a business that consists in copying all of the pay fonts and selling them for half the price under a different name?