3 ms·

Why would I care about legality while pirating? It's my understanding you're using it for profit you're gonna have to pay for the font, and conversely if I'm d

by clubm8 3y ago

Why would I care about legality while pirating? It's my understanding you're using it for profit you're gonna have to pay for the font, and conversely if I'm doing propaganda I don't care if you shoot me, so why do I care if you sue me?

jackson1442 3y ago
> It's my understanding you're using it for profit you're gonna have to pay for the font I've only read the article and am not familiar enough with copyright to outright tell a company to "go for it," but the author seems to be under the impression that font files generated using this technique are a-ok to use for profit.
ipaddr 3y ago
Why would you have to pay when copyright cannot be applied unless it's the entire file?
- clubm8 3y ago
  >copyright cannot be applied unless it's the entire file I think you're mixing up the short clips thing that Girl Talk used for audio/video with fonts? I'm not sure the same case law applies. I'm also not a lawyer (thank christ)
awesomeMilou 3y ago
I was under the same impression, but it seems that in the majority of jurisdictions, the use of a Font does not meet the threshhold for a meaningful work under copyright law. To clarify, the use of the Font itself can be restricted under certain copyright aspects, i.e. offering tools or distributing the font file. But texts set in a specific font are no subject to copyright. > so why do I care if you sue me? Risk exposure I suppose? It seems copyright on fonts is mostly defined by case law. In the US, font files are apparently copyrightable because they're classified as a computer program, the actual artistic value of the displayed font is not taken into account at all. For more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti...
- clubm8 3y ago
  >I was under the same impression, but it seems that in the majority of jurisdictions, the use of a Font does not meet the threshhold for a meaningful work under copyright law. Thanks for this! I'll look for a citation in the bottom of the wikipedia, but I believe you. (Sorry to continue being "that guy" but while you raise good points about law and risk, I am once again forced to remind the hackers that Wikipeia is not a primary source) >It seems copyright on fonts is mostly defined by case law. In the US, font files are apparently copyrightable because they're classified as a computer program, the actual artistic value of the displayed font is not taken into account at all. I was born in Appalachia -- that's fucked up, especially since the "founding fathers" we Americans love to stan set much shorter copyright limits and many fonts, even computer ones, are quite old. >And that the author and authors of any map, chart, book or books already made and composed, and not printed or published, or that shall hereafter be made and composed, being a citizen or citizens of these United States, or resident therein, and his or their executors, administrators or assigns, shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending such map, chart, book or books, for the like term of fourteen years from the time of recording the title thereof in the clerk’s office as aforesaid. And if, at the expiration of the said term, the author or authors, or any of them, be living, and a citizen or citizens of these United States, or resident therein, the same exclusive right shall be continued to him or them, his or their executors, administrators or assigns, for the further term of fourteen years; Provided, He or they shall cause the title thereof to be a second time recorded and published in the same manner as is herein after directed, and that within six months before the expiration of the first term of fourteen years aforesaid. https://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf (apologies for formatting issues -- copy and paste from the pdf did not retain linebreaks etc) These fonts were made in the 80s, like me. They should be a free for all.
  - awesomeMilou 3y ago
    Primary source to US specific laws: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-202/section-202.1 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/chapter-II/subchapter-... To quote from the article: >Typefaces cannot be protected by copyright in the United States The idea that typefaces cannot be copyrighted in the United States has been black letter law since the introduction of Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e) in 1992.[10] The legal precedent that typefaces are not eligible for protection under U.S. copyright law was established before that in 1978 in Eltra Corp. v. Ringer. However, fonts can be protected by design patent, and computer programs that implement typefaces may be protected by copyright. Which seems to be roughly the same as how it is handled in my home countries jurisdiction. I could have linked you an actual decision from my home countries national court, but I assumed posting links to german court decisions would only add to the confusion. I can try to find if the interpretation on the german wiki entry had a reference in english, that would show what I said was at least true for Germany, Switzerland and Austria. > These fonts were made in the 80s, like me. They should be a free for all. It makes some weird sense, from a legal standpoint. If you argue that a font file, i.e. the digital representation of a font constitutes as source code, you suddenly have a digital good that is widely accepted as being copyrightable. An exception would not make sense in that instance. Even then though, only the file representation, i.e. the code would be copyrightable. If you vectorize bitmaps of existing fonts, like in the article, you'd be fine. And honestly, it stands to reason that vector images files do not constitute a computer program, but you'd have to convince a judge that they cannot encode turing complete information. And first you'd have to teach a judge what a turing machine is.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gwern 3y ago
If you wanted to create a font-generating NN and are worried about future IP laws deciding NNs are not transformative but mere derivative works of the training data, this would be potentially interesting. And if you wanted to ever sell such a business, say, to a certain private equity-owned company with $200m+ in annual revenue, it would be very useful to be able to show during due diligence that you had belt-and-suspenders your NN's data and it didn't all have to be thrown out & restarted from scratch.

by clubm8 3y ago

jackson1442 3y ago

> It's my understanding you're using it for profit you're gonna have to pay for the font I've only read the article and am not familiar enough with copyright to outright tell a company to "go for it," but the author seems to be under the impression that font files generated using this technique are a-ok to use for profit.

ipaddr 3y ago

Why would you have to pay when copyright cannot be applied unless it's the entire file?

clubm8 3y ago
>copyright cannot be applied unless it's the entire file I think you're mixing up the short clips thing that Girl Talk used for audio/video with fonts? I'm not sure the same case law applies. I'm also not a lawyer (thank christ)

awesomeMilou 3y ago

I was under the same impression, but it seems that in the majority of jurisdictions, the use of a Font does not meet the threshhold for a meaningful work under copyright law. To clarify, the use of the Font itself can be restricted under certain copyright aspects, i.e. offering tools or distributing the font file. But texts set in a specific font are no subject to copyright. > so why do I care if you sue me? Risk exposure I suppose? It seems copyright on fonts is mostly defined by case law. In the US, font files are apparently copyrightable because they're classified as a computer program, the actual artistic value of the displayed font is not taken into account at all. For more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti...

clubm8 3y ago
>I was under the same impression, but it seems that in the majority of jurisdictions, the use of a Font does not meet the threshhold for a meaningful work under copyright law. Thanks for this! I'll look for a citation in the bottom of the wikipedia, but I believe you. (Sorry to continue being "that guy" but while you raise good points about law and risk, I am once again forced to remind the hackers that Wikipeia is not a primary source) >It seems copyright on fonts is mostly defined by case law. In the US, font files are apparently copyrightable because they're classified as a computer program, the actual artistic value of the displayed font is not taken into account at all. I was born in Appalachia -- that's fucked up, especially since the "founding fathers" we Americans love to stan set much shorter copyright limits and many fonts, even computer ones, are quite old. >And that the author and authors of any map, chart, book or books already made and composed, and not printed or published, or that shall hereafter be made and composed, being a citizen or citizens of these United States, or resident therein, and his or their executors, administrators or assigns, shall have the sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending such map, chart, book or books, for the like term of fourteen years from the time of recording the title thereof in the clerk’s office as aforesaid. And if, at the expiration of the said term, the author or authors, or any of them, be living, and a citizen or citizens of these United States, or resident therein, the same exclusive right shall be continued to him or them, his or their executors, administrators or assigns, for the further term of fourteen years; Provided, He or they shall cause the title thereof to be a second time recorded and published in the same manner as is herein after directed, and that within six months before the expiration of the first term of fourteen years aforesaid. https://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf (apologies for formatting issues -- copy and paste from the pdf did not retain linebreaks etc) These fonts were made in the 80s, like me. They should be a free for all.
- awesomeMilou 3y ago
  Primary source to US specific laws: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-202/section-202.1 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/chapter-II/subchapter-... To quote from the article: >Typefaces cannot be protected by copyright in the United States The idea that typefaces cannot be copyrighted in the United States has been black letter law since the introduction of Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e) in 1992.[10] The legal precedent that typefaces are not eligible for protection under U.S. copyright law was established before that in 1978 in Eltra Corp. v. Ringer. However, fonts can be protected by design patent, and computer programs that implement typefaces may be protected by copyright. Which seems to be roughly the same as how it is handled in my home countries jurisdiction. I could have linked you an actual decision from my home countries national court, but I assumed posting links to german court decisions would only add to the confusion. I can try to find if the interpretation on the german wiki entry had a reference in english, that would show what I said was at least true for Germany, Switzerland and Austria. > These fonts were made in the 80s, like me. They should be a free for all. It makes some weird sense, from a legal standpoint. If you argue that a font file, i.e. the digital representation of a font constitutes as source code, you suddenly have a digital good that is widely accepted as being copyrightable. An exception would not make sense in that instance. Even then though, only the file representation, i.e. the code would be copyrightable. If you vectorize bitmaps of existing fonts, like in the article, you'd be fine. And honestly, it stands to reason that vector images files do not constitute a computer program, but you'd have to convince a judge that they cannot encode turing complete information. And first you'd have to teach a judge what a turing machine is.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gwern 3y ago

If you wanted to create a font-generating NN and are worried about future IP laws deciding NNs are not transformative but mere derivative works of the training data, this would be potentially interesting. And if you wanted to ever sell such a business, say, to a certain private equity-owned company with $200m+ in annual revenue, it would be very useful to be able to show during due diligence that you had belt-and-suspenders your NN's data and it didn't all have to be thrown out & restarted from scratch.