3 ms·

Is this fair? It actually takes a lot of work (I assume) to design letter's shapes. Of course, not counting those who just trace 16-th century font without payi

Is this fair? It actually takes a lot of work (I assume) to design letter's shapes. Of course, not counting those who just trace 16-th century font without paying a compensation.

amgutier 1y ago
> Of course, not counting those who just trace 16-th century font without paying a compensation I can't tell which way you mean this, but that sounds similar to the situation with most public domain musical compositions - the manuscripts may be completely open but a specific typesetting can still under copyright. And like that case, "just" tracing a font / typesetting a composition is still a fair amount of work.
ars 1y ago
> takes a lot of work The "sweat of the brow" argument is not valid in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
- snypher 1y ago
  >Under the Feist ruling in the US, mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and thus not protected by copyright, no matter how much work went into collating them. This person isn't just collecting existing letter shapes; inventing a new letter shapes would be protected by copyright?
  - ars 1y ago
    You aren't inventing a new letter shapes - letters already exist. You are modifying how they look, and that's not considered creative enough. There are lots of things that can't be copyrighted. For example you can't copyright an anatomy drawing: https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/licensing https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/licensing (i.e. the layout of the bones, etc) but you can copyright your specific drawing - but someone else could draw in the same style and not violate your copyright. Same here: You can't copyright the shape of the letters, but you can copyright you specific ttf program (expression), but someone else can make the same letter shapes if they want.
    - codedokode 1y ago
      You can say the same about drawing of a cat: you are not inventing new animal here. But for some weird reason cats are copyrighted and letters are not. There are many ways to draw the same letter, as there are many ways to draw a cat. Also if one draws letters that look like cats, will they fall under copyright protection?
      - ars 1y ago
        If someone draws a cat, and the next person draws basically the same cat, there is no copyright infringement. You need something "extra", some kind of style that is distinct. I'm not saying your drawing has no copyright - it does, if someone reproduces it exactly that's illegal. I'm saying if someone makes the same type of drawing, in the same style, that's not infringement - even if they looked at yours, as long as they drew it themselves.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    > inventing a new letter shapes would be protected by copyright? It is settled law that letter shapes aren't copyrightable. Period.
pc86 1y ago
Who are you paying for a 400-year old font? Who deserves to get paid for a 400-year old font?

Is this fair? It actually takes a lot of work (I assume) to design letter's shapes. Of course, not counting those who just trace 16-th century font without paying a compensation.

amgutier 1y ago

> Of course, not counting those who just trace 16-th century font without paying a compensation I can't tell which way you mean this, but that sounds similar to the situation with most public domain musical compositions - the manuscripts may be completely open but a specific typesetting can still under copyright. And like that case, "just" tracing a font / typesetting a composition is still a fair amount of work.

ars 1y ago

> takes a lot of work The "sweat of the brow" argument is not valid in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

snypher 1y ago
>Under the Feist ruling in the US, mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and thus not protected by copyright, no matter how much work went into collating them. This person isn't just collecting existing letter shapes; inventing a new letter shapes would be protected by copyright?
- ars 1y ago
  You aren't inventing a new letter shapes - letters already exist. You are modifying how they look, and that's not considered creative enough. There are lots of things that can't be copyrighted. For example you can't copyright an anatomy drawing: https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/licensing https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/licensing (i.e. the layout of the bones, etc) but you can copyright your specific drawing - but someone else could draw in the same style and not violate your copyright. Same here: You can't copyright the shape of the letters, but you can copyright you specific ttf program (expression), but someone else can make the same letter shapes if they want.
  - codedokode 1y ago
    You can say the same about drawing of a cat: you are not inventing new animal here. But for some weird reason cats are copyrighted and letters are not. There are many ways to draw the same letter, as there are many ways to draw a cat. Also if one draws letters that look like cats, will they fall under copyright protection?
    - ars 1y ago
      If someone draws a cat, and the next person draws basically the same cat, there is no copyright infringement. You need something "extra", some kind of style that is distinct. I'm not saying your drawing has no copyright - it does, if someone reproduces it exactly that's illegal. I'm saying if someone makes the same type of drawing, in the same style, that's not infringement - even if they looked at yours, as long as they drew it themselves.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  > inventing a new letter shapes would be protected by copyright? It is settled law that letter shapes aren't copyrightable. Period.

pc86 1y ago

Who are you paying for a 400-year old font? Who deserves to get paid for a 400-year old font?