3 ms·
Ew. I don't blame tholman for complying with the takedown, but my layman's understanding is that Monotype had no legal grounds for their complaint because paro
by jjoonathan 7y ago
Ew.
I don't blame tholman for complying with the takedown, but my layman's understanding is that Monotype had no legal grounds for their complaint because parody is protected -- they were just using legal language to intimidate him into complying. Does that jibe with others' understanding of the law?
- deftturtle 7y agoYou are correct, and I reached out to the author about fighting their bogus claims. He wasn’t interested, but this was a while ago. Perhaps if this new parody font fights them, he’d be willing to do the same for smelvetica
- seandougall 7y agoIP law with fonts is kind of unintuitive. From what I’ve read, the design of a font can’t be copyrighted, but the implementation can. So you can make a font that looks identical to Helvetica and be okay, but if you copy and paste anything from the original, you’re on shaky ground. Kind of like how recipes can’t be copyrighted, but the wording and formatting of a recipe can. IANAL of course, but that’s what I’ve read in the past.
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y agoParody doesn't apply to software. You might have noticed Monotype is always using the phrase "font software" to underline the fact that fonts are considered software, not a design, and thereby enjoy stronger protection than non-software copyrighted works.