7 ms·

I never thought I'd get to see if a font could be fair use due to the parody exemption - but I'd suspect there would be a good chance that this is the case.

jchw 7y ago
In the US, typefaces themselves are not subject to copyright law (though that doesn’t mean ‘font piracy’ is legal - the ‘computer code’ backing a font is still copyrightable - but you could presumably extract the outlines and replicate a font exactly without running afoul of U.S. copyright law.) (disclaimer: IANAL)
- planteen 7y ago
  A rasterized (imaged) font is not copyright-able. However the vector control points are considered a creative work and therefore subject to copyright. This was established in Adobe v. Southern Software: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems,_Inc._v._Southern_Software,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems,_Inc._v._Souther.... So even stripping out the hinting and OTF shaping "computer code" would still presumably leave you in violation of a font copyright.
  - smrq 7y ago
    What a bizarre ruling -- like saying that a parabola is not copyrightable, but three points defining a parabola are (because one could express the same parabola using many combinations of three points). Surely, then, one could write a program to generate a copyright-free copy of a font by selecting different control points that yield the same curves. Or would the computer be the copyright-holder, as it selected those points?
    - Filligree 7y ago
      > Surely, then, one could write a program to generate a copyright-free copy of a font by selecting different control points that yield the same curves. Or would the computer be the copyright-holder, as it selected those points? The new three points would be derived from the old ones; hence it's still a derived work, and still falls under the old copyright. Your bits have the wrong color.[1] 1: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
      - gowld 7y ago
        Why would that argument apply to alternate point-triples, but not to rendered parabolas?
        paulddraper 7y ago
        Because a font is parabolas, not point-triples.
      - ars 7y ago
        Only if it's directly derived from the TTF file itself. But if you rasterized the font (and as a specific representation of the front, it no longer has a copyright), and then had a computer generate curves from that, you'd be fine. But from my understanding the hard part is creating the file that does a good job at every different font size. Creating a font for just 1 size is relatively easy. So your computer would be doing the easy part, not the valuable part.
        fwip 7y ago
        I have a hard time imagining a judge taking a sympathetic ear to this defense. Do you happen to know if there's relevant existing case law on this subject that you could point me to?
        ars 7y ago
        I don't have case law, but there are tons of fonts that explicitly say they are based on a copyrighted one: * libre baskerville * Liberation Mono is a sans-serif font metrically equivalent to Courier New * Liberation Serif is metrically equivalent to Times New Roman. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts Arial is based on Helvetica and we created specifically because of copyright on Helvetica.
        yellowapple 7y ago
        "Metrically equivalent" just means they take up the same amount of space when typeset (i.e. if you take a document in Times New Roman and change the font to Liberation Serif, nothing should move around). As you can see in the case of Courier New v. Liberation Mono, the two fonts can be very different visually while still being metrically equivalent.
    - ars 7y ago
      Remember that a copyright is not like a patent. If you were to regenerate those "parabola points" by looking at non-copyrighted material, you are in the clear, even if you end up at the same values. So to public domain a font, all you do is display it on one screen, then recreate it on another. Because the appearance of font itself is not copyrighted.
    - sarah180 7y ago
      Note: there is only One True Parabola: https://youtu.be/hoh4TmPzu1w https://youtu.be/hoh4TmPzu1w
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    Wow. That means you can take a vector font (copyrighted) and convert that to a rasterized font (non-copyrighted). If you take that non-copyrighted rasterized font and produce a vector font from it, I presume that product falls under the original copyright?
    - ars 7y ago
      Yes. Which is why the DRM in .EOT was so bizarre. Images are also copyrighted, but no one is adding DRM to them. Even with .OTF, IE only is willing to use them if they have their "evil bit" set in a particular way. Font companies are desperate to convince everyone they have more copyright than they actually do. > If you take that non-copyrighted rasterized font and produce a vector font from it, I presume that product falls under the original copyright? No, the new product (font file) is copyrighted to you.

jchw 7y ago

In the US, typefaces themselves are not subject to copyright law (though that doesn’t mean ‘font piracy’ is legal - the ‘computer code’ backing a font is still copyrightable - but you could presumably extract the outlines and replicate a font exactly without running afoul of U.S. copyright law.) (disclaimer: IANAL)

planteen 7y ago
A rasterized (imaged) font is not copyright-able. However the vector control points are considered a creative work and therefore subject to copyright. This was established in Adobe v. Southern Software: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems,_Inc._v._Southern_Software,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems,_Inc._v._Souther.... So even stripping out the hinting and OTF shaping "computer code" would still presumably leave you in violation of a font copyright.
- smrq 7y ago
  What a bizarre ruling -- like saying that a parabola is not copyrightable, but three points defining a parabola are (because one could express the same parabola using many combinations of three points). Surely, then, one could write a program to generate a copyright-free copy of a font by selecting different control points that yield the same curves. Or would the computer be the copyright-holder, as it selected those points?
  - Filligree 7y ago
    > Surely, then, one could write a program to generate a copyright-free copy of a font by selecting different control points that yield the same curves. Or would the computer be the copyright-holder, as it selected those points? The new three points would be derived from the old ones; hence it's still a derived work, and still falls under the old copyright. Your bits have the wrong color.[1] 1: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
    - gowld 7y ago
      Why would that argument apply to alternate point-triples, but not to rendered parabolas?
      - paulddraper 7y ago
        Because a font is parabolas, not point-triples.
    - ars 7y ago
      Only if it's directly derived from the TTF file itself. But if you rasterized the font (and as a specific representation of the front, it no longer has a copyright), and then had a computer generate curves from that, you'd be fine. But from my understanding the hard part is creating the file that does a good job at every different font size. Creating a font for just 1 size is relatively easy. So your computer would be doing the easy part, not the valuable part.
      - fwip 7y ago
        I have a hard time imagining a judge taking a sympathetic ear to this defense. Do you happen to know if there's relevant existing case law on this subject that you could point me to?
        ars 7y ago
        I don't have case law, but there are tons of fonts that explicitly say they are based on a copyrighted one: * libre baskerville * Liberation Mono is a sans-serif font metrically equivalent to Courier New * Liberation Serif is metrically equivalent to Times New Roman. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts Arial is based on Helvetica and we created specifically because of copyright on Helvetica.
        yellowapple 7y ago
        "Metrically equivalent" just means they take up the same amount of space when typeset (i.e. if you take a document in Times New Roman and change the font to Liberation Serif, nothing should move around). As you can see in the case of Courier New v. Liberation Mono, the two fonts can be very different visually while still being metrically equivalent.
  - ars 7y ago
    Remember that a copyright is not like a patent. If you were to regenerate those "parabola points" by looking at non-copyrighted material, you are in the clear, even if you end up at the same values. So to public domain a font, all you do is display it on one screen, then recreate it on another. Because the appearance of font itself is not copyrighted.
  - sarah180 7y ago
    Note: there is only One True Parabola: https://youtu.be/hoh4TmPzu1w https://youtu.be/hoh4TmPzu1w
- paulddraper 7y ago
  Wow. That means you can take a vector font (copyrighted) and convert that to a rasterized font (non-copyrighted). If you take that non-copyrighted rasterized font and produce a vector font from it, I presume that product falls under the original copyright?
  - ars 7y ago
    Yes. Which is why the DRM in .EOT was so bizarre. Images are also copyrighted, but no one is adding DRM to them. Even with .OTF, IE only is willing to use them if they have their "evil bit" set in a particular way. Font companies are desperate to convince everyone they have more copyright than they actually do. > If you take that non-copyrighted rasterized font and produce a vector font from it, I presume that product falls under the original copyright? No, the new product (font file) is copyrighted to you.