4 ms·

So, by copyright law, isn't this a "derived work" of all of those fonts. (ducking)

by michaelfeathers 15y ago

rogerbinns 15y ago
I made exactly the same comment hours ago. Instead of answering it got downvoted way into negative territory.
- michaelfeathers 15y ago
  That's a shame. Often it's hard for people to hear any idea without thinking that the person who is presenting it is advocating it. Frankly, I don't know if you were or not, but I think it is an interesting idea and, to me, an indication of how bizarre copyright has become.
sirn 15y ago
IANAL but according to Wikipedia[1], typeface (and rasterization of the typeface) is not copyrightable although the font file do: > Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States. However, this finding was limited in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc., wherein it was held that scalable computer fonts, i.e., the instructions necessary to render a typeface, constitute a "computer program" for the purposes of copyright law and hence are subject to protection. Hence the computer file(s) associated with a scalable font will generally be protected even though the specific design of the characters is not. Furthermore, a rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters in a scalable font is not protected by copyright in the United States. According to this, the author will have to create his font by directly modifying the original font file to make it a derived work. Since his font is created from rasterized representation, the resulting font file is not considered a derived work. But again, IANAL. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protectio...
- mistercow 15y ago
  Interesting, but by that reasoning, couldn't I legally copy any font (and have it legally be my own work) simply be rasterizing it at a sufficiently large size and then vectorizing the result?
  - sirn 15y ago
    I wonder about that too, I tried to find such information regarding this but couldn't found any.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    That's more or less how contemporary font clones are made. Rasterize, use auto-tracing software to produce new font curves, done. You can't directly copy any embedded programs from the original, such as hinting or kerning code, though. Kerning often ends up being tweaked manually (though with enough samples you could infer it from the original output), and then for quick-n-dirty clones hinting is just left to your font engine's autohinting algorithms. There's a bit of angst about this in typography forums, and social pressure among typophiles and some subset of designers to avoid using "ripoff" fonts.
    - mistercow 15y ago
      It would be an interesting project, if nothing else simply as a statement about copyright, to write a program that automates this process and automatically rips a font file this way. By producing samples with characters placed at different fractional positions, you should even be able to infer the hinting information without directly reading it.

So, by copyright law, isn't this a "derived work" of all of those fonts. (ducking)

rogerbinns 15y ago

I made exactly the same comment hours ago. Instead of answering it got downvoted way into negative territory.

michaelfeathers 15y ago
That's a shame. Often it's hard for people to hear any idea without thinking that the person who is presenting it is advocating it. Frankly, I don't know if you were or not, but I think it is an interesting idea and, to me, an indication of how bizarre copyright has become.

sirn 15y ago

IANAL but according to Wikipedia[1], typeface (and rasterization of the typeface) is not copyrightable although the font file do: > Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States. However, this finding was limited in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc., wherein it was held that scalable computer fonts, i.e., the instructions necessary to render a typeface, constitute a "computer program" for the purposes of copyright law and hence are subject to protection. Hence the computer file(s) associated with a scalable font will generally be protected even though the specific design of the characters is not. Furthermore, a rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters in a scalable font is not protected by copyright in the United States. According to this, the author will have to create his font by directly modifying the original font file to make it a derived work. Since his font is created from rasterized representation, the resulting font file is not considered a derived work. But again, IANAL. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protectio...

mistercow 15y ago
Interesting, but by that reasoning, couldn't I legally copy any font (and have it legally be my own work) simply be rasterizing it at a sufficiently large size and then vectorizing the result?
- sirn 15y ago
  I wonder about that too, I tried to find such information regarding this but couldn't found any.
- _delirium 15y ago
  That's more or less how contemporary font clones are made. Rasterize, use auto-tracing software to produce new font curves, done. You can't directly copy any embedded programs from the original, such as hinting or kerning code, though. Kerning often ends up being tweaked manually (though with enough samples you could infer it from the original output), and then for quick-n-dirty clones hinting is just left to your font engine's autohinting algorithms. There's a bit of angst about this in typography forums, and social pressure among typophiles and some subset of designers to avoid using "ripoff" fonts.
  - mistercow 15y ago
    It would be an interesting project, if nothing else simply as a statement about copyright, to write a program that automates this process and automatically rips a font file this way. By producing samples with characters placed at different fractional positions, you should even be able to infer the hinting information without directly reading it.