3 ms·
> But converting a copyrighted font from TTF to screen pixels to WOFF removes the copyright. I hope nobody takes this as legal advice; I'm not a lawyer but I'm
by paulgb 7y ago
> But converting a copyrighted font from TTF to screen pixels to WOFF removes the copyright.
I hope nobody takes this as legal advice; I'm not a lawyer but I'm fairly certain it's wrong. The font would still be the same work.
- paulddraper 7y agoAlright, you made me add references :) It comes down to this: Typefaces/glyphs are not copyrightable. The font code that produces those glyphs is. > Typefaces cannot be protected by copyright in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e); Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer)...However, there is a distinction between a font and a typeface. The machine code used to display a stylized typeface (called a font) is protectable as copyright. [1] In software, a similar "black-box" derivation process has happened many times, e.g. UNIX/GNU. Copyrights applies to software source code, but not software functionality. Determining what is the "essential, creative work" in each case in a nuanced way is a matter for courts and armies of lawyers: Apple round corners, Oracle Java APIs, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti...
- jameshart 7y agoPresumably copyright law makes this allowance for type because the point of typefaces is to be reproduced.
- paulddraper 7y agoThat is in fact, the point of all digitized information, including recorded audio. (But yes, I do agree that typefaces are exceptionally commonly distributed.)
- paulgb 7y agoThanks for supporting your point :) I have to admit that the difference in copyrightability of fonts vs. typefaces is new to me.
- paulddraper 7y agoNow at least the inane font-vs-typeface distinction made by modern designers has some practical distinction to it, albeit a legal one.