14 ms·

Not that ripping it from there has become any more legal in the meantime.

• thrusong 7y ago
  This is an honest question, but how can they charge for something they do not own? I mean, wouldn't you be able to use those letter forms just like they are?
  • beefhash 7y ago
    Font copyright is a weird thing[1]. In the U.S. at least, the letterforms themselves cannot be subject to copyright, but font files themselves as "software" may be. This may differ between jurisdictions (or even be entirely unclear and yet undecided by the courts in some places). [1] See for a gentle overview in the U.S. e.g. https://practicaltypography.com/the-copyright-status-of-fonts.html https://practicaltypography.com/the-copyright-status-of-font...
  • alpaca128 7y ago
    According to the article the digital font was created before the recovery of the original letter forms, and seemed to take quite some time. So it's more than just "copy-pasting". I'm not sure how a lawyer would interpret that, but considering the original font is 120 years old I think it was fine to use it as a basis for something they charge for. From a practical standpoint it would cost me less to just buy it instead of manually recreating it for myself.
  • bartvanH 7y ago
    In the article the creator of the font said that they see it as "an echo or a simulacrum", IANAL, but i would say that that recreation is a work of its own under at least copyright law. And ignoring the legal angle for a moment, they did put a lot of work into it, so asking money for it is not wrong imho
    • beefhash 7y ago
      Though the irony of charging money for type design that was thrown in the river to prevent a certain someone from doing so is not lost on me.