5 ms·
Going after photographers who have the subway signs in the background is one thing, but going after businesses for copying their font seems entirely different t
by wefarrell 5y ago
Going after photographers who have the subway signs in the background is one thing, but going after businesses for copying their font seems entirely different to me.
They're a corporation who paid a lot of money for the rights to it, how is is different than Walmart or Netflix going after companies for using their fonts?
- nybble41 5y agoThe GP's linked article[0] doesn't say anything about fonts. It says that the MTA sued someone for using the letter 'N' in a circle on a T-shirt. Not even the same color scheme. Judging from the examples on one of the MTA's branding pages[1], there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unique about the font they're using. They don't even mention it by name. Other sources claim the official signage is a mix of Helvetica and Akzidenz Grotesk. In any case, fontface designs are not copyrightable in the US. Fonts can be (as programs/data) but that isn't really relevant here. [0] http://www.fordhamiplj.org/2010/01/07/mta-symbols-intellectual-property-or-new-york-citys-public-domain/ http://www.fordhamiplj.org/2010/01/07/mta-symbols-intellectu... [1] http://web.mta.info/developers/resources/line_colors.htm http://web.mta.info/developers/resources/line_colors.htm
- harikb 5y agoFor the last few United or Delta flights I took, I had seen their ads that said they do this and that “contact less” - pretty standard in the covid world. Right under the ad was a gigantic message that said “contact-less trademark owned by and used with permission of EMVCo, LLC” I can imagine the airline’s surprise if they have originally printed ads without this.
- michaelmrose 5y agoSomeone paying a lot of money for something doesn't appear to be a good argument for establishing a property interest for the people who paid such funds. I'm unclear what interest society has in protecting fonts. It seems like people will pay for the creation of more fonts than society can ever consume without the benefit of any such protection meaning society has no interest in extending any property interest despite any artistic merit or worth of such efforts. At least movies cost millions of dollars and presumably we as a society will get more books if authors don't also have to make french fries. What protection do fonts need?
- thinkloop 5y agoBooks? What do we need books for? We've written more books than any person could consume.
- WalterBright 5y agoThe vast bulk of authors don't make much of anything off of their books. Obviously, copyright protection only marginally increases the number of books written. The same goes for music.
- WalterBright 5y agoI've never understood all the hoopla about fonts, or why anyone would pay money for one. Heck, I made my own font when I blew a ROM for the character generator for a terminal I made. It never occurred to me it was copyrightable. I've read several articles bloviating about this or that font, describing it like a wine taster would write about a wine, and would just come away rolling my eyes.
- vurpo 5y agoYou'll appreciate a good font after having to read text printed in a bad one.
- WalterBright 5y agoGood fonts should be a dime a dozen.
- Wowfunhappy 5y agoThey’re actually incredibly labor-intensive to create!
- WalterBright 5y agoHow so? And people have been creating fonts for 500 years. What's the need to create more? It's just a font.
- wefarrell 5y agoBranding. When a company puts their name on an advertisement/product/building they want it to be instantly recognizable and they want to convey a specific image that's more than just the written word.
- WalterBright 5y agoThat's a trademark, not a font or a copyright. Trademark IP law is distinct.